Age of Realms: Age of Might [Quenched]

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:48 am

Just had a check to see in what most games Age of Might is finishing in. Got to say its Round 3 and thats a poor showing for such a nice map. It has hug potential.

Well here are the statistics i ran for finished games , 2 player, any settings for Age Of Might and Classic (to compare).

Classic Age of Might
Round 2 - 5 0
Round 3 - 36 0
Round 4 - 22 0
Round 5 - 17 8
Round 6 - 8 9
Round 7 - 5 12
Round 8 - 2 9
Round 9 - 0 13
Round 10 - 0 9
Round 11 - 0 4
Round 12

Form this you can see thats tragey does not really take part in this game and im really afraid this map will turn into a flop!!

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:07 am

You wish, I've won every 2 player game I've played so far and strategy had a lot to do with it. I'd lose if my opponents would wise up and fortify a bit more like I do instead of leaving 1s everywhere but I guess this map is too new for a lot of people to grasp the necessity of that.

Regardless, even if you are right I'm not sure 2 player games are what DiM was designing his map around and I doubt they determine that a map is a failure if they end quickly.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:16 am

it goes to show there is no stragey involved or the bonuses are too high if the majority of games are finshed in 3 rounds

if u want to set up a 2 player game i'll show u how

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:26 am

Well I just lost one but that's because the guy was a freaking genius. I learned a new trick out of it anyways.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:01 am

I am coming around to the auto deploy idea because the kill is a bit to doable at the moment

(also expect to see hulmey in here shortly with stats about 6 player games, once he checks how he is doing in this one: 1267101 - thanks for the pts. buddy

)

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:18 am

Gilligan wrote:If you get all of the castles, you don't win.

Look at 1270363.

He captured all of the castles, then he was able to continue to attack me and eliminate me.

this game is an objectives game so the above sounds like a bug to me even in terminator surely holding all castles it should be game over

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

rebelman wrote:
Gilligan wrote:If you get all of the castles, you don't win.

Look at 1270363.

He captured all of the castles, then he was able to continue to attack me and eliminate me.
this game is an objectives game so the above sounds like a bug to me even in terminator surely holding all castles it should be game over

I've not looked - but the objective is evaluated at the beginning of a turn - so he would have to have held it by the beginning of his next turn.

C.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:45 am

the objective works it has been already tested. but you have to hold the castles for 1 turn. that's how lack coded it.

Code: Select all

2007-11-25 03:54:56 - benjikat held the Unite the realms objective
2007-11-25 03:54:56 - benjikat won the game
2007-11-25 03:54:56 - DiM loses 18 points
2007-11-25 03:54:56 - benjikat gains 18 points

back on the gameplay issue.

should it be tweaked or not?
i keep getting pms like:

Hey I just wanted to say the map you made is THE BEST (look at how many people are just playing it now).
This style of play is totaly awesome.
Can't wait for the part II

but at the same time i'm not completely satisfied with it myself.

on the other hand i do think that strategy is very important at the moment.
after playing even more 1v1 games (that's where the problem lies) i have come to see that even if you start second and the first guy takes 1 of your castles in round 1 you can still win if it is fog of war.

i have done it a few times. it's hard but not impossible.

so what is the main problem right now?

the xi and fygie castles are easy to get from 1 to another in 2p and 3p games because there are few neutrals. - this will be solved when lack updates the xml i sent him yesterday and such runs will no longer be possible.

when lack puts the update there will be no more suicide runs between those castles.

in 4,5 and 6p games it's already impossible to do it cause you have just 1 castle.

i want you guys to state your opinions (pro and against) making the castles autodeployable and/or reducing the castle bonus to 3. for the moment i will leave it as it is and i'll try to gather more thoughts before i make a decision.

as i said i need to think very well about this because at the moment a 4,5 or 6 player game plays very well. and people are playing it as the map was intended (especially when lack put the xml i sent him).

in 2p games the action is fast and furious. people go for the other guy in all out attacks. which is exactly the opposite of what i had in mind.
to be honest i'm a bit upset by this because i didn't want it to happen but at the same time it is not such a bad thing. the map has exactly the 2 things people want most. a quick paced action 1v1 game. and a very strategical 6p game that can take many many rounds to finish.

so i'm happy with the 4,5,6p gameplay but i'm not about the 2p one. and yet people love 1v1. if i do the xml changes suggested above. the 4,5 and 6p gameplay will roughly remain the same but the 2p gameplay will be spoiled.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:51 am

DiM wrote:in 4,5 and 6p games it's already impossible to do it cause you have just 1 castle.

I killed Wac in a 5 player game on my first turn before he'd played...

C.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:34 am

yeti_c wrote:
DiM wrote:in 4,5 and 6p games it's already impossible to do it cause you have just 1 castle.
I killed Wac in a 5 player game on my first turn before he'd played...

C.

he had xi and you had fygie? or vice versa?

if that is the case then as i said it is impossible because once lack gets online he'll load the xml i sent yesterday and those 2 castles will have 5 more neutrals between them to make sure suicide runs are impossible.

actually not impossible but very unlikely. you'd need perfect dice.

i also saw a guy kill 23 troops spread over 11 terits. with just 15 troops. it is possible but the chances are very very slim. i think bellow 1%

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:53 am

DiM wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
DiM wrote:in 4,5 and 6p games it's already impossible to do it cause you have just 1 castle.
I killed Wac in a 5 player game on my first turn before he'd played...

C.
he had xi and you had fygie? or vice versa?

if that is the case then as i said it is impossible because once lack gets online he'll load the xml i sent yesterday and those 2 castles will have 5 more neutrals between them to make sure suicide runs are impossible.

actually not impossible but very unlikely. you'd need perfect dice.

i also saw a guy kill 23 troops spread over 11 terits. with just 15 troops. it is possible but the chances are very very slim. i think bellow 1%

Ah I thought the modified XML was already up!!

Soz...

C.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:01 am

Coleman wrote:You wish, I've won every 2 player game I've played so far and strategy had a lot to do with it. I'd lose if my opponents would wise up and fortify a bit more like I do instead of leaving 1s everywhere but I guess this map is too new for a lot of people to grasp the necessity of that.

Regardless, even if you are right I'm not sure 2 player games are what DiM was designing his map around and I doubt they determine that a map is a failure if they end quickly.

the map was actually intended to be very strategical and to simulate a real battle field where 6 castles fight for supremacy.
in a 6p game it does just that. people go for resources and villages. expand carefully and plan ahead. i'm satisfied with this.

in a 2p game people rage forward attacking everything. this is also a strategy. it can fail or it can win. clearly wasting troops in 2p games to get resources is bad. you must go for other castles. but when you do this you must also strategize.
in a game the other player started with figye and took my xi castle. i had only aoria. i deployed there and waited. he then took guh and qasr and attacked rhit and failed. i took rhit that had just 1 troop then stormed through his trail of 1s and took back xi and fygie. i killed him next turn cause all he had was mua castle. this is a clear case of poor strategy for him.
i admit my intention wasn't to create such a furious fast paced 2p gameplay but now that i did i'm not totally unhappy with it. people seem to love it. yes some people hate it. it can't please everybody. but those that don't like 1v1 on this map can simply play 6p games and enjoy full strategy. i think it's a happy accident that the map turned out like this. and once the xi<>fygie issue is solved (when lack updates the xml) i think it will bring a lot more balance. it will make 1v1 games less fast and furious but still very very alert.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:28 am

yeti_c wrote:
Ah I thought the modified XML was already up!!

Soz...

C.

it literally just went up, I was starting on a suicide run in this game when it happens - notice who my potential victim was - coincidence, I think not

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:31 am

DiM wrote: in a game the other player started with figye and took my xi castle. i had only aoria. i deployed there and waited. he then took guh and qasr and attacked rhit and failed. i took rhit that had just 1 troop then stormed through his trail of 1s and took back xi and fygie. i killed him next turn cause all he had was mua castle. this is a clear case of poor strategy for him.

yes although that "hypothetical player" has learned form that mistake and is doing much better in other games

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:34 am

hmmmm, if though i might be complaining about the 2 player games it actually goes against what i have achieved. 6 straight wins on this map, 3 against captains. This is surely a game of luck with the first player having a huge advantage and 9 times out of 10 emerging the victor!!

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:34 am

rebelman wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Ah I thought the modified XML was already up!!

Soz...

C.
it literally just went up, I was starting on a suicide run in this game when it happens - notice who my potential victim was - coincidence, I think not

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell

It wouldn't update an existing game - the neutrals are only generated at game init.

C.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:04 pm

yeti_c wrote:
rebelman wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Ah I thought the modified XML was already up!!

Soz...

C.
it literally just went up, I was starting on a suicide run in this game when it happens - notice who my potential victim was - coincidence, I think not

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell
It wouldn't update an existing game - the neutrals are only generated at game init.

C.

i was trying to be funny - should have added this at the end

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:08 pm

rebelman wrote:
DiM wrote: in a game the other player started with figye and took my xi castle. i had only aoria. i deployed there and waited. he then took guh and qasr and attacked rhit and failed. i took rhit that had just 1 troop then stormed through his trail of 1s and took back xi and fygie. i killed him next turn cause all he had was mua castle. this is a clear case of poor strategy for him.
yes although that "hypothetical player" has learned form that mistake and is doing much better in other games

i wasn't talking about you.

you did that too?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:09 pm

rebelman wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
rebelman wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Ah I thought the modified XML was already up!!

Soz...

C.
it literally just went up, I was starting on a suicide run in this game when it happens - notice who my potential victim was - coincidence, I think not

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell
It wouldn't update an existing game - the neutrals are only generated at game init.

C.
i was trying to be funny - should have added this at the end

i slipped a few bucks in lacks pocket and problem was quickly solved

btw the real explanation is in game chat:

2007-11-26 19:06:14 - DiM: lack jsut updated them and all that was needed was a refresh. when you attacked the page refreshed. )
2007-11-26 19:06:32 - DiM: so you were coming for me, eh?

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:12 pm

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 2#map-cell

in the above game i had taken all my opponents castles - yet the game is still rolling on:

here is an extract from the game log:

2007-11-26 16:52:55 - aaa88 receives 5 armies for holding Borun Castle
2007-11-26 16:52:55 - aaa88 receives 3 armies for 3 territories
2007-11-26 16:53:00 - aaa88 cashed in a set of Croch, Iron Mine, and Gunn worth 4 armies
2007-11-26 16:53:07 - aaa88 deployed 12 armies on Coin Mint
2007-11-26 16:53:11 - aaa88 attacked Haet from Coin Mint and conquered it from neutral player
2007-11-26 16:53:20 - aaa88 attacked Lig from Haet and conquered it from neutral player
2007-11-26 16:53:48 - aaa88 gets a card
2007-11-26 16:59:23 - rebelman receives 5 armies for holding Xi Castle
2007-11-26 16:59:23 - rebelman receives 5 armies for holding Figye Castle
2007-11-26 16:59:23 - rebelman receives 5 armies for holding Ghyr Castle
2007-11-26 16:59:23 - rebelman receives 1 armies for holding Xi Castle and Voigth Village
2007-11-26 16:59:23 - rebelman receives 1 armies for holding Figye Castle and Voigth Village
2007-11-26 16:59:23 - rebelman receives 1 armies for holding Ghyr Castle and Voigth Village
2007-11-26 16:59:23 - rebelman receives 3 armies for 9 territories
2007-11-26 16:59:50 - rebelman deployed 21 armies on Voigth
2007-11-26 17:00:03 - rebelman attacked Duht from Voigth and conquered it from neutral player
2007-11-26 17:00:19 - rebelman attacked Yrake from Duht and conquered it from neutral player
2007-11-26 17:00:30 - rebelman attacked Borun from Yrake and conquered it from aaa88
2007-11-26 17:01:07 - rebelman attacked Mor from Borun and conquered it from aaa88
2007-11-26 17:01:20 - rebelman attacked Coin Mint from Mor and conquered it from aaa88
2007-11-26 17:01:40 - rebelman attacked Haet from Coin Mint and conquered it from aaa88
2007-11-26 17:02:13 - rebelman fortified Haet with 1 armies from Xi
2007-11-26 17:02:17 - rebelman gets a card
2007-11-26 17:02:17 - Incrementing game to round 5

as you can see above the only castle my opponent had left was Borun which I captured see bold above he still had men on 4 other territories - as the game was strangley still going i captured 3 of these 4 leaving one and it just incremented to the next round - this seems like a bug to me as obviously the moment I took the castle the game should have ended.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:13 pm

hulmey wrote:hmmmm, if though i might be complaining about the 2 player games it actually goes against what i have achieved. 6 straight wins on this map, 3 against captains. This is surely a game of luck with the first player having a huge advantage and 9 times out of 10 emerging the victor!!

i wouldn't say 9 out of 10. i just won 2 more games where i was left with just 1 castle. and in a couple more games i came back from owning 1 castle to owning 3 so i'll win those too.

the real imbalance was that the guy that received the xi or fygie castle had an unfair advantage cause he could quickly take the other one from the other player. right now it is much harder (lack updated the xml) so this will no longer be a problem. i suspect games will no longer end in 2-3 rounds if people know how to play.

i have actually seen some very very interesting strategies.
all out attack may work if you have great dice but brains is better than brawns.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:57 pm

the same thing i described in my post above happened in this game as well

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 4#map-cell

to win the game i had to do a clean up of a few territories although i ha already taken all castles

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:08 pm

rebelman wrote:the same thing i described in my post above happened in this game as well

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 4#map-cell

to win the game i had to do a clean up of a few territories although i ha already taken all castles

You're not listening...

You have to hold the objective at the beginning of a turn... i.e. it gives someone the chance to save the game...

C.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:13 pm

yeti_c wrote:
You're not listening...

You have to hold the objective at the beginning of a turn... i.e. it gives someone the chance to save the game...

C.

aha now the penny has dropped -

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:29 pm

this game is a blast 1 on 1... its not risk, but it is fun

Age of Realms: Age of Might [Quenched]

what bonus scheme do you want?