Eastern Hemisphere [Quenched]

[AndyDufresne]

Beta-Update sent to Lack. He's been slacking on his Map duties lately, so I'll chide him tomorrow for this, Oceania, Land and Sea, and the maps still awaiting Beta-Release.


--Andy

[Hopscotcher]

This may or may not have been touched upon. Got to say I LOVE this map!

I played a game and could not fort from Naval Superiority. I honestly kind of like that idea, but if it could be stated somewhere on the map, it might help others who play it.

ttfn,
hops

[Thezzaruz]

I played a game and could not fort from Naval Superiority. I honestly kind of like that idea, but if it could be stated somewhere on the map, it might help others who play it.

NS cannot attack any country only bombard and you can only reinforce via attack routes, direct effect of the rules (look at the instructions page).

[iancanton]

• Shanghai is now a part of the UK Empire, representing Hong Kong, and is can be bombarded by the ship. This won't make the UK Empire any easier to hold (sorry brits), but the Chinese Empire can now be broken remotely. I think this is a key change.

You mean Canton?

.44

oak

i think this disruption to the gameplay is not only entirely unnecessary (except in rhodesia, where the change is good and logical), but threatens to tip the scales in a way that will turn out not to be beneficial.

i've analysed the last 10 2-player casual public sequential games that have actually finished as at time of writing (Game 4816807 to Game 4832818). there were 671 such completed 1v1 games, compared with 112 4-player singles and 73 4-player doubles, so i’ve focussed only on what is by far the most popular format for this map.

of these 10, 5 were won by player 1 and 5 by player 2. zones for which bonuses were received by the eventual winner in rounds 1 to 4 were: portuguese 4 times, horn 3 times, french 3 times, italian 3 times, north africa twice, dutch twice, german once, southern asia once, oceania once and japanese once. equivalent bonuses received by the loser were oceania twice, italian once, dutch once and japanese once. chinese, russian, europe, southern africa, middle east and british were not received. the dutch bonus was dropped once, to player 2, who won. where no bonuses were received by the winner in rounds 1 to 4, i counted the first bonus that he did receive.

the outstanding fact of these finished games is the sheer variety of winning methods, none of which involves securing the chinese bonus. also contrary to expectation, the oceania and japanese bonuses are at least as much in evidence on the loser’s side as the winner’s.

i therefore ask u not to load the latest revision to the xml, since i do not regard it as an improvement.

incidentally, the start positions do not work as i expected, so that each player receives 24 regions to start, instead of the intended 23. do u know why? is there an easy fix?

ian.

[oaktown]

i think this disruption to the gameplay is not only entirely unnecessary (except in rhodesia, where the change is good and logical), but threatens to tip the scales in a way that will turn out not to be beneficial.

i've analysed the last 10 2-player casual public sequential games that have actually finished as at time of writing... the outstanding fact of these finished games is the sheer variety of winning methods, none of which involves securing the chinese bonus. also contrary to expectation, the oceania and japanese bonuses are at least as much in evidence on the loser’s side as the winner’s.

I would contend that a two player game has far less to do with scoring the ideal part of the map than do games with more players. Two player games are going to be all about where the 21 neutrals are on the map and who can lay into their opponent most effectively. In the 1v1 game that I played asia happened to start largely neutral, so the only action that took place there was last round mop-up.

Larger games that I have been in have seen it extremely hard to break Asia, since the routes into/out of Asia are all bottlenecks (as they geographically should be). A single bombardment reflects the historical British influence in the region, which is really what this map is about - European influence abroad and what it takes to break it.

That said, I'm open to further discussion on this matter.

incidentally, the start positions do not work as i expected, so that each player receives 24 regions to start, instead of the intended 23. do u know why? is there an easy fix?

The eight coded neutrals change the formula. None of those eight are assigned neutral, thus the # of starts in a 1v1 will be ((69-8)÷3) + (8÷2) = 24. Coding 16 more territories as start positions really screws this up even more - I hadn't thought about that. I may drop that to 8 additional asian starts, which should be just enough to mix up Japan, Oceania, and China, and still provide the possibility of some neutral drops. The new numbers will be ((69-16)÷3) + (16÷2) = 25... a slightly better start number, but anybody who plays 1v1 on a big map is asking for hurt anyway. Expect an update/edit soon.

Edit: And here it is; 16 starting positions, paired as follows:
<positions>
<position>
<territory>Great Britain</territory>
<territory>Australia</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Germany</territory>
<territory>New Guinea</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Netherlands</territory>
<territory>Shanghai</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Austria-Hungary</territory>
<territory>Korea</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Italy</territory>
<territory>Karafuto</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>France</territory>
<territory>Borneo</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Portugal</territory>
<territory>Manchuria</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Spain</territory>
<territory>Philippine Islands</territory>
</position>
</positions>

The new file has been uploaded to the same file location, so if lack hasn't downloaded the file yet we're golden... but I'll let andy know about the change.

[apb23]

I personally think that this map needs no more adjustments...I played it fairly recently in a 1v1 and found it to be great.

[iancanton]

part of the reason why hardly anyone deploys in europe in a multiplayer game is because of the start positions there: it's likely that no-one has more than 3 or 4 out of the 12 regions, in which case just about any other bonus is easier. more on this once i'm back from holiday. happy conquering in the meantime!

ian.

[oaktown]

part of the reason why hardly anyone deploys in europe in a multiplayer game is because of the start positions there: it's likely that no-one has more than 3 or 4 out of the 12 regions, in which case just about any other bonus is easier. more on this once i'm back from holiday. happy conquering in the meantime!

I'm willing to discuss eliminating some or all of the starts altogether, but months ago when it was decided to code europe as starts we had good reasons for doing so. While it does make conquering Europe a bitch, it guarantees that a variety of players will have access to the Colonial Powers bonuses.

Here's a thought... what if we coded starts, but coded fewer than eight? Because in a seven or eight player game on this map it is already highly unlikely that a singl player is going to score a dominating start in either europe or the far east. Eight player games start with only 8 terits each, seven player games start with 9, and six players start with 11. A good start in Europe would be, what, 6 of the 12 European territories? There's less than a .02% chance (yes that's right, less than 1%) of this happening. And there's less than a 2% chance that any one player would score three or more of the six european imperial powers.

But as soon as you get to six players, there's a 5% chance of somebody getting three or more European powers, and about 10% chance of scoring half of Japan... so maybe we just code six starts, with two territories per start? The six powers, and six eastern countries.

that would mean... umm... 25 starting territories/player in a 1v1, instead of 23 if we had no starts at all. (Whatever - 1v1s are a joke on big maps anyway, as I've said many times.) Adding starts has no effect on games of other sizes.

Anyway, the earlier changes have been forwarded to Andy. Changing the starts is easy as it has zero effect on games already underway. We can has this out when iancanton is back from what I'm sure is an alcoholiday.

[Shertenn]

Just finishing my first game.. and had some observations..

1. Naval Superiority is pretty useless as far as I can see. One player in ur game
took it and bombarded 3 colonies.. costing my partner and I builds for India and
SE Asia.. okay.. but it cost him whatever he needed to do that,, and he was left with
6 on the ship.. which disappeared. Sooo.. I figure we came out ahead.

2. I am rather surprised that there is no sea movement between the Home country and a colony or between colonies. This is very a-historical, as everybody.. the Brits especially..
transferred troops (from India to the Sudan.. England to S. Africa vs the Boers..
and everybody to Peking for the Boxer rebellion.. )

I'd like to see something like "In Transit" boxes.. you could reinforce from any port to
a 'in transit' box.. and from the box to any port you own. (No amphibious assaults)

Some of the territorial groups could be better colored..
the pale pastels need to be not quite so pale..

Other than that.. it's been a fun game so far..

Just my 2 cents..

Jim

[AlbroShlo]

I'm playing in game 4794953,http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... full_log=Y and the Naval Superiority Spot took out a player because the only men he had left were on that territ so now the game is stuck in limbo where it is nobodys turn.

please help
Albro

[Caesius]

1. Naval Superiority is pretty useless as far as I can see. One player in ur game
took it and bombarded 3 colonies.. costing my partner and I builds for India and
SE Asia.. okay.. but it cost him whatever he needed to do that,, and he was left with
6 on the ship.. which disappeared. Sooo.. I figure we came out ahead.

You only see Naval Superiority as useless because you haven't figured out how to use it yet.

If you take Naval Superiority, you're supposed to bombard until you have no armies left. If you have armies left over and there's no enemy territories to bombard, then just bombard neutral territories next to your own troops so you can take them later.

2. I am rather surprised that there is no sea movement between the Home country and a colony or between colonies. This is very a-historical, as everybody.. the Brits especially..
transferred troops (from India to the Sudan.. England to S. Africa vs the Boers..
and everybody to Peking for the Boxer rebellion.. )

Naval Superiority does this, but if you didn't have a presence in the area in the first place i.e. an adjacent colony to conquer the 1 neutral then you shouldn't be able to occupy the area. Realistically speaking.

[oaktown]

We went over all of this months ago... we discussed sea units that could occupy colonies, trading companies that could be taken back by the colonial states, etc. The basic system we have in place came after weeks and weeks of discussion, and no major change will be made now. If you don't show up, you don't get to make the rules.

As for the bug, it was noted in Sugs and Bugs a few weeks ago and has been brought to the attention of the site admins.

[iancanton]

But as soon as you get to six players, there's a 5% chance of somebody getting three or more European powers, and about 10% chance of scoring half of Japan... so maybe we just code six starts, with two territories per start? The six powers, and six eastern countries.

that would mean... umm... 25 starting territories/player in a 1v1, instead of 23 if we had no starts at all. (Whatever - 1v1s are a joke on big maps anyway, as I've said many times.) Adding starts has no effect on games of other sizes.

6 sets of 2 start positions is a rather weak tool in 1v1 for the purpose of preventing player 1 from starting with a 3-region empire bonus because 8 of the 12 possible start positions are allocated normally, just as if they're ordinary regions.

i suggest exactly 3 sets of 2 start positions, being an italian with a portuguese colony, a dutch with an italian colony and a portuguese with a dutch colony, with every other region being normal. this results, unless i'm mistaken (i'd better ask yeti_c for the definitive answer!), in 23 total starting regions (including 2 start positions) for each player. dropping the 3-region empire bonuses will thereby be made impossible in 1v1.

by the way, it wasn't an alcoholiday - my other half made sure of that!

ian.

[vonunruh]

Oaktown, I thought you were going to change the map and make Canton British? Doesn't look like that has happened yet.

As I have continued to play this board (as is) my opinion has become more firmly entrenched...this board does not work for 7 or 8 players. 2 or max. 3 players have a shot for the eastern continents, while everyone else is left scrambling fruitlessly for the african colonies. British and French are impossible to get. There is a whole lot of wilderness to get (pointlessly) lost in in Europe and Russia. Maybe playing spoils would make it more feasible, I dunno. Something needs to be done to make the colonial bonuses easier to achieve in large games.

Just to clarify my earlier point about the continents...one player is likely to get the Middle East, one will get Japan, and one will be working on Oceania and/or S Asia. so that leaves huge swaths of the board with no strategic purpose (dead zones). the players trying to get German, Portuguese, and Italian are killing each other for tiny little bonuses. And because those same players are the ones entrenched in the west, they are the ones likely to be in a position to get naval superiority, which is really hard when you are only getting 3 a turn. Which makes it that much harder to stop the snowball effect in the east. See where I am going with this?

[yeti_c]

But as soon as you get to six players, there's a 5% chance of somebody getting three or more European powers, and about 10% chance of scoring half of Japan... so maybe we just code six starts, with two territories per start? The six powers, and six eastern countries.

that would mean... umm... 25 starting territories/player in a 1v1, instead of 23 if we had no starts at all. (Whatever - 1v1s are a joke on big maps anyway, as I've said many times.) Adding starts has no effect on games of other sizes.

6 sets of 2 start positions is a rather weak tool in 1v1 for the purpose of preventing player 1 from starting with a 3-region empire bonus because 8 of the 12 possible start positions are allocated normally, just as if they're ordinary regions.

i suggest exactly 3 sets of 2 start positions, being an italian with a portuguese colony, a dutch with an italian colony and a portuguese with a dutch colony, with every other region being normal. this results, unless i'm mistaken (i'd better ask yeti_c for the definitive answer!), in 23 total starting regions (including 2 start positions) for each player. dropping the 3-region empire bonuses will thereby be made impossible in 1v1.

by the way, it wasn't an alcoholiday - my other half made sure of that!

ian.

I think you're forgetting that <starting positions> aren't divided by 3 for 1v1 games.

C.

[iancanton]

2 sets of 2 are start positions, plus 65 unallocated regions and 1 fixed starting neutral. do the 65 unallocated regions go 21 to player 1, 21 to player 2 and 23 to neutral, making a total of 23 regions to player 1, 23 to player 2 and 24 to neutral (the alternative is 22 to player 1, 22 to player 2 and 21 to neutral)?

ian.

[Brown304]

if you are able to attack naval superiority and take it over from one of the european powers, you should also be able to fortify back from naval superiority. i played this map for the first time and that lack of being able to reinforce back just gave the game to another team.

[oaktown]

if you are able to attack naval superiority and take it over from one of the european powers, you should also be able to fortify back from naval superiority. i played this map for the first time and that lack of being able to reinforce back just gave the game to another team.

A note has been added to the map, and the new images and XML were sent to Andy and Lack weeks ago. Still waiting on an update.

As for additional changes to the starting positions, I'd like to see how the update works and then discuss. In the end we're talking about starting positions, not something that will change games mid-stream, so they're easy to tweak.

[AndyDufresne]

I don't know why Lack is waiting so long. I'll keep pestering him.


--Andy

[oaktown]

I don't know why Lack is waiting so long. I'll keep pestering him.

A monkey pestering a turtle... there has to be a youtube video for that.

[karelpietertje]

I'll keep pestering lack.

A monkey pestering a turtle... there has to be a youtube video for that.

Yep!
"he was about to rip his leg off!"

on-topic:
I saw somebody say that because of the starting positions in Europe, nobody will deploy there because it's unlikely to get Europe.
however people will be fussing over the European powers, so starting positions are still great

I love the starting positions, and they reduce the unfairness that can happen in 1v1s (and not only 1v1s probably) I wish this would happen in more maps!
so let me check if I get it right.
there are certain territory pairs that one can get? are there bonuses that you can't get at the start of the game or do the starting positions just reduce the chance of this?

[AndyDufresne]

On a note about Europe---in a 4 player game, everyone was neglecting Europe and Naval Superiority, so while owning a small bonus in Africa, I managed to hold Europe for a few rounds as well, and enjoyed it.


--Andy

[oaktown]

I love the starting positions, and they reduce the unfairness that can happen in 1v1s (and not only 1v1s probably) I wish this would happen in more maps!
so let me check if I get it right. there are certain territory pairs that one can get? are there bonuses that you can't get at the start of the game or do the starting positions just reduce the chance of this?

I think that as we collectively get a better grasp of how 1v1 games are skewed and how to best work starting positions you'll see more of them. They are especially useful for balancing 1v1 games, since you can code two or three starts and the starts will be ignored in larger games.

On this map (by the latest XML which is NOT yet in live play) there are eight starting positions, and each position has two territories: one territory in Europe, one in Japan/China/Oceania. In an eight player game each player will get one pair, guaranteeing each player at least one territory on each end of the map, and making it impossible for a player to start with all of Japan or all of Europe. In a six player game, for example, two of the starting positions will be ignored and those territories assigned randomly (since eight can't be evenly divided by six). But in a four player game each player will receive two of the positions, guaranteeing each player at least two territories in Europe and two in the east. Likewise 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.

[MyTurnToWin]

My suggestion is to rename the map: End of Empires

Eastern Hemisphere could be any time in that location plus it doesn't have any excitement to it. Read "End of Empires" and immediately the pulse quickens and anticipation builds. Can I, possibly, be the one to end them?

[karelpietertje]

I think that as we collectively get a better grasp of how 1v1 games are skewed and how to best work starting positions you'll see more of them. They are especially useful for balancing 1v1 games, since you can code two or three starts and the starts will be ignored in larger games.

On this map (by the latest XML which is NOT yet in live play) there are eight starting positions, and each position has two territories: one territory in Europe, one in Japan/China/Oceania. In an eight player game each player will get one pair, guaranteeing each player at least one territory on each end of the map, and making it impossible for a player to start with all of Japan or all of Europe. In a six player game, for example, two of the starting positions will be ignored and those territories assigned randomly (since eight can't be evenly divided by six). But in a four player game each player will receive two of the positions, guaranteeing each player at least two territories in Europe and two in the east. Likewise 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.

thanks. look forward to the update (also because the army of Naval Superiorrity seems curretntly a bit wrong, and the army of Rhodesia is not in place either )
lack, Im begging

EDIT: NEVER MIND i was actually playing while lack updated it, and he did the army positions first and then the map. thanks lack