Eastern Hemisphere [Quenched]

[Meatcat]

Bad name for the map - too generic. Should be more explicit, something like Europe's Colonial Powers before WW1.

[oaktown]

Bad name for the map - too generic. Should be more explicit, something like Europe's Colonial Powers before WW1.

here's my logic behind the current name...

On the map itself the title is "End of Empires" - a title which is given some explanation in the next line. The explanation includes the fact that the region being represented is the Eastern Hemisphere.

However, for the game finder page the map is labeled "Eastern Hemisphere" because that's how I imagine most folks will remember this map... 'I'd like to play that map of teh eastern hemisphere... what's it called?'

There are some maps at CC that I have trouble finding because they are, in my opinion, poorly named. If you want to play Iraq, it's not under "Iraq" but "Battle." At what point has anybody called the real Iraq war the Battle for Iraq?

[Meatcat]

It's still a boring name which doesn't describe the map. Terrible. Also, the colors are so dull it's hard to distinguish the continents.

[perchorin]

It's still a boring name which doesn't describe the map. Terrible. Also, the colors are so dull it's hard to distinguish the continents.

I couldn't disagree more. Love the colors, love the name, love the map!

[Thezzaruz]

It's still a boring name which doesn't describe the map. Terrible. Also, the colors are so dull it's hard to distinguish the continents.

I couldn't disagree more. Love the colors, love the name, love the map!

Well the name isn't bad but I'm not convinced by its greatness either.

And I do love the colours and graphics of the map (with the exception of the smaller mountains). The look is classy and well kept together IMO. Plays well too.

[Meatcat]

I really like the map, but as I said before the name is so dull people will pass it by without giving it a try. How about Colonial Empires 1910?

[iancanton]

in a 1v1 each player will receive four territories... which actually means that while Europe will be split in half, a player can score all of Japan on the drop, but the odds are pretty low.

sadly, it turns out that the odds of starting with one of the 3-region +2 bonuses (italian empire, portuguese empire or dutch empire) are looking pretty high. this is because some of the start positions combine in a way that is favourable to player 1. i haven't analysed this yet, except to look at seven active 1v1 games, of which player 1 twice started with a +2 bonus. if 28% (or even 14%) is the real average, then we need to reduce the number of sets of start positions (i'm thinking to 2 or 3 sets), to stop this from happening so often. this needs a bit more thought.

ian.

[riodeishere]

like the map, i don't mind the name to be honest.
good gameplay.
intrestting thing about 1v1, i don't know cause i played 4 player but i hope it gets sorted cause i like doing random map (1v1) and don't want an unfair game.

[Sharpsh00ter]

This map looks killer! I really want to try it. Colours look good distribution looks good. The background pattern in the ocean could use a little work... But on the whole I like it!

C

[Sharpsh00ter]

This map looks killer! I really want to try it. Colours look good distribution looks good. The background pattern in the ocean could use a little work... But on the whole I like it!

C

If anyone is interested I just started a game with this map. Anyone up for some Beta testing?


C

[oaktown]

Bad name for the map - too generic. Should be more explicit, something like Europe's Colonial Powers before WW1.

14 months into production and now somebody is unhappy with the name of the map? I'll probably be accused of being an "elitist" for saying this, but at this point I'd rather not change the name.

sadly, it turns out that the odds of starting with one of the 3-region +2 bonuses (italian empire, portuguese empire or dutch empire) are looking pretty high. this is because some of the start positions combine in a way that is favourable to player 1. i haven't analysed this yet, except to look at seven active 1v1 games, of which player 1 twice started with a +2 bonus. if 28% (or even 14%) is the real average, then we need to reduce the number of sets of start positions (i'm thinking to 2 or 3 sets), to stop this from happening so often. this needs a bit more thought.

Alright, this is a 70 territory map. Even if we removed ALL of the starting positions each player would start the game with 23 territories, which means player one gets to start the game by placing 7 armies. Anybody who chooses to set up a 1v1 game on a 70 territory map is counting on the fact that it is not going to be an even game from the start.

Currently with 16 coded starts each player in a 1v1 game starts with 25 territories, or a first placement of 8 armies. A one army difference on a big map, so I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it.

The concern seems to be that there is a slightly increased chance of getting a bonus. So...

There are four 3-territory bonus regions on this map. There is less than a 2.9% chance of a player dropping Horn of Africa, of which none of the territories are start-coded. There is about a 4.9% chance that somebody will drop a three-territory empire bonus such as the Italian Empire - it's a slightly higher % because the European territory (which is start-coded) has a 1 in 2 chance of going to player X, rather than a 1 in 3 chance.

If we removed ALL of the starting locations the odds of a player dropping the Italian Empire goes down to 3.3%. The odds of a player dropping Horn of Africa actually goes up from 2.9% to 3.3%. The odds of having an advantage in - or dropping all of - one of the other regions also goes up.

This is a big map. While it is certainly playable by two players, short of coding just two even starts and adding about 20 starting neutrals to the map, I don't think that a map this size will ever be an ideal 1v1 map. If the community overwhelmingly wants to sacrifice playability in 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 player games to make it the perfect 1v1 map we can certainly do that, but my guess is that this is not the direction folks want to go.

[AndyDufresne]

No. I wanted to just post that, but I thought I should explain. I think it works well the way it currently is.


--Andy

[jefjef]

Game plays very well!! Good map etc.... But WTF isn't it called End of Empires? Fix the name or the title on the map. I get lost looking for it.

[oaktown]

Game plays very well!! Good map etc.... But WTF isn't it called End of Empires? Fix the name or the title on the map. I get lost looking for it.

It's just a matter of Lack changing the name in the map finder page. If/when the map gets moved out of BETA we can ask lack to change the name.

[lt_oddball]

Game plays very well!! Good map etc.... But WTF isn't it called End of Empires? Fix the name or the title on the map. I get lost looking for it.

The catchy thing is "Empire" and the title should start with an "E" to find the map quickly (even to those who remembered the "eastern.." title:

So:
"End of Empires" is nice, (though that period was not exactly the END of empires (1945-1960), more like "the beginning of the end of empires"
another title:
"Empire demise" or
"Empire fall" (combining the fall of great empires and the season "fall" for the viability of empires).

[oaktown]

"End of Empires" is nice, (though that period was not exactly the END of empires (1945-1960), more like "the beginning of the end of empires"

I think that the Russian Tsars, the Qing Dynasty of China, and the Ottoman Turks might disagree with you. Anyway, as I've already said I'm fine with changing how the map is located, but after 14 months I don't want to bicker over a name change.

I have a few more minutes in me to talk starts. I personally believe that the current system makes sense for games of 3 to 8 players. That said, the starting positions probably aren't as necessary for games of seven and eight players as they are for games with just four or five players. In a four player game in which each player is going to start with territories, a lucky drop in Japan or Oceania could be devastating - in fact that was the criticism that led to the current starting positions.

SO... I'd be open to the idea of coding just 5 starts. That would mean the starts are ignored for games of six or more players, and we'd have the following starts:
1v1: 24 terits each, 22 neutral (no, 24 isn't perfect, but neither was 25... it's 1v1 on a large map so player 1 has the advantage no matter what)
3 player: 23 terits each, 1 neutral (sea power)
4 player: 17 terits each, 2 neutral
5 player: 13 terits each, 5 neutral
6 player: 11 terits each, 4 neutral
7 player: 9 terits each, 7 neutral
8 player: 8 terits each, 6 neutral

I have to go all the way down to five coded starts to affect the number of territories that players get in 1v1 games. With 22 neutrals there is less chance of a player getting all of a bonus. And we are now only coding five of the imperial powers as starts, so one has to go... Italy is probably the easiest to pick up and hold with a good drop, so I say it is out.

The territories coded as starts should probably be...
<position>
<territory>Great Britain</territory>
<territory>Karafuto</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Germany</territory>
<territory>New Guinea</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Netherlands</territory>
<territory>Shanghai</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>France</territory>
<territory>Korea</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Portugal</territory>
<territory>Australia</territory>
</position>

The European powers that have the most far-flung empires are now paired with territories in the smallest far east region, Japan, while those with the smallest empires to collect are paired with China and Oceania territories.

??

[mbingo]

Hey everyone,

As much as it pains me to sacrifice such good position and an extra turn (you'll see), there's a problem in a game I'm playing. I don't know if this is the place to report an issue, but here we go:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5042746

Basically, I went to wipe out green, and couldn't gain naval superiority to wipe out his final troop. His turn came next, "neutral" took back naval superiority, thereby eliminating green.

Then it was "neutral player"'s turn for 24 hours. (Probably not intended behavior.)
When that ran out, it reverted back to my turn! (Also probably not intended behavior.)

So yeah, if I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.

(Issue aside, this is a great map -- I'll definitely be playing it again!)

[Echospree]

Hey everyone,

As much as it pains me to sacrifice such good position and an extra turn (you'll see), there's a problem in a game I'm playing. I don't know if this is the place to report an issue, but here we go:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5042746

Basically, I went to wipe out green, and couldn't gain naval superiority to wipe out his final troop. His turn came next, "neutral" took back naval superiority, thereby eliminating green.

Then it was "neutral player"'s turn for 24 hours. (Probably not intended behavior.)
When that ran out, it reverted back to my turn! (Also probably not intended behavior.)

So yeah, if I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.

(Issue aside, this is a great map -- I'll definitely be playing it again!)

This issue occurs on any map with killer neutrals. It's an issue with the code itself.

[mbingo]

So nothing can be done? I should just take my turn?

[Echospree]

So nothing can be done? I should just take my turn?

They aren't going to be able to do anything now for your game.

From what I understand of the mechanics, blue (and maybe yellow) are going to receive deferred armies for their imaginary missed turn, even though they never had a chance to take their turn.

You could take your turn, the game let's you. Or you could have the timer run down so you don't take a second turn, depending on what you think is more fair. Remember that your opponents will be getting extra armies on their turn, so there's no way make it as though this never happened. SOMEBODY is getting an advantage in that game regardless of what you do.

[mbingo]

Alright, thanks for your reply. I think I'll take my troops but won't attack anyone. That's the most fair thing I can come up with.

Thanks again!

[oaktown]

Hi mbingo, Echospree is right - this is a well-documented problem that comes up with all maps that use killer neutrals. As a mapmaker there's little I can do other than harass the powers above to address it.

[Rustovitch]

Not sure if this has been addressed before, but why isn't Australia and New Zealand marked down as British colonies?

[lgoasklucyl]

Ut Oh- bug?!

Game 5318592

Seems yellows last territory was on Naval Superiority which reset to a neutral at the end of the turn- killing him off (badass way to die, btw).

After yellow was eliminated by the neutral player, it seems the game has lost track of whose turn it is:

[quote=log]2009-08-18 17:58:51 - nameless777 lost ? to neutral player
2009-08-18 17:58:51 - neutral player eliminated nameless777 from the game[/quote]

Obviously this is a programming error, but I figured I would plop a 'bug alert' in maps too as it pertains to this map (also to Citadel, I would imagine?).

I wonder what the neutral player will do with yellow's cards. He must be plotting everyone else's demise while we ponder what the hell happened

[the.killing.44]

Yeah, this is a well-known bug. Sucks … lack hasn't gotten to it.