shocked439 wrote: Less troops to start with means you'll have to be smarter with them. Strategies will switch to working from the outfield to build bonuses instead of going balls out for homers.
Excellent idea. Best by far so far!
Moderator: Cartographers
shocked439 wrote: Less troops to start with means you'll have to be smarter with them. Strategies will switch to working from the outfield to build bonuses instead of going balls out for homers.
carlpgoodrich wrote:I also agree the home runs need to be tweaked. I like the +2 with +2 extra per base idea, although I still think the neutral value could be raised to 8 or 9. I think the goal should be to make sure people don't go for the home runs on their first turn.
InnyaFacce wrote:I also think that the Bases should be set higher
to also avoid 1 turn games played in Freestyle mode
shocked439 wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:Oh, heck yes. What do you say, limit of one or of two?
I would think limiting it to one would make the map more difficult and more fun to play. Less troops to start with means you'll have to be smarter with them. Strategies will switch to working from the outfield to build bonuses instead of going balls out for homers. It's an improvement on this one for sure which ever way you go.
40kguy wrote:shocked439 wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:Oh, heck yes. What do you say, limit of one or of two?
I would think limiting it to one would make the map more difficult and more fun to play. Less troops to start with means you'll have to be smarter with them. Strategies will switch to working from the outfield to build bonuses instead of going balls out for homers. It's an improvement on this one for sure which ever way you go.
going for hommers are a terreble idea in general.
shocked439 wrote:40kguy wrote:shocked439 wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:Oh, heck yes. What do you say, limit of one or of two?
I would think limiting it to one would make the map more difficult and more fun to play. Less troops to start with means you'll have to be smarter with them. Strategies will switch to working from the outfield to build bonuses instead of going balls out for homers. It's an improvement on this one for sure which ever way you go.
going for hommers are a terreble idea in general.
if by in general you mean in unlimited reinforced team freestyle then yes you are right.
Epitaph1 wrote:I haven't read through this entire post, so this issue may have already been addressed. However, I am playing a game on the map and have only 1 tert left, a home run ball. All of the pitchers have been bombarded and there is no way of attacking Babe who can attack the home run ball. So, I'm kind of stranded. Thoughts?
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=8794375
Thanks for the map, it's pretty sweet.
carlpgoodrich wrote:I think its fine the way it is. Yes it is annoying to get stuck in the home run ball, but in team games its actually a good thing (better than being eliminated). If there must be a losing condition, then just make it the pitchers, no need for additional "closers."
Evil DIMwit wrote:- Yogi or Home Plate attacks batter, which means that not only are the home run balls accessible from the field, but you don't need to go through 15 neutrals to get to them
drunkmonkey wrote:You could make a losing condition, so if the only territory a player holds is the home run, they lose. This is from someone who's never created a map, so I don't know how ugly that would be.
Evil DIMwit wrote:The XML has been updated to reflect the new home run bonus structure and the start position maximum of one.
http://rassyndrome.webs.com/CC/Baseball.xml
Natty, can you make the corresponding alterations to the legend?
natty_dread wrote:Simply getting stuck to homeruns is not the problem... the problem is when there's 2 players left, one player only has home runs, and the other player has no pitchers. In that situation, the game can not end and will go on forever without a winner.
A losing condition, on the other hand, would be detrimental to team games. In team games, it would suck to have your teammate killed just because he lost other territories than the home runs, because he could still have contributed to the team even if he only had home runs. So the losing condition would lessen the value of home runs in team games and eliminate a strategic pathway.
Creating another assault route to the batter is a better choice in this situation, I think.
RedRover23B wrote:I dont think being stuck on a home run ball is a problem even with two players left unless the other player is a jerk and malicously continues on the game which i dont see players doing.
natty_dread wrote:RedRover23B wrote:I dont think being stuck on a home run ball is a problem even with two players left unless the other player is a jerk and malicously continues on the game which i dont see players doing.
No, you don't get it. If one player is stuck on home runs, and the other player doesn't have any pitchers, then the game can not end, regardless of the intentions of the players. In that situation, neither player can eliminate the other, so the game goes on forever.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users