Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

[SlowThinker]

I finished the new format of map files (.cfg) and attached it 4 posts above.
Now it allows several tables with bonuses and sorting of regions within a table.
Also it repairs a bug (the table wasn't shown correctly).

[Sir_HidesAlot]

Is it on Add-ons ? Because If It would, I would download and try it out tomorrow.

[SlowThinker]

Is it on Add-ons ? Because If It would, I would download and try it out tomorrow.

No. This is just a template for map creators.

[SlowThinker]

Also, if you could right click to sell recruits, like demolishing defenses. You could sell and get some low amount of gold per unit, eg 1 gold or a percentage of the original value of the unit.
...
This would also make the game interesting, PERHAPS if a player sells a lot of units at one side of his base, he gets a lot of gold then can recruit a lot at the other side of his base.

I think this is not a good idea. It is a player's responsibility to recruit units where they are really needed, and to find out the ideal amount of gold spent in a local position: if he spends too much in a corner of the map, then the units must move into active areas several turns; if he doesn't spend enough then he doesnt beat all AI and doesn't get the bonus.

having said that we maybe need a "disband"-option which allows the owner of a unit to kill/remove it from the game.

This is a problem. It is true that a narrow passage (1 hex + 2 hexes behind) can be 100% blocked by 2 militias.
But I tend to think this is rather responsibility of map authors not to create such positions (or create them with a purpose).
If you want to add the "disband" option, then some exceptions are needed: at least you must forbid it in villages. And maybe also around villages, because now from one recruit-point you can kill one unit only, and with the "disband" you could kill any amount.

the STANDARD GAME MODE got renamed to "ALL VILLAGE MODE".

is this the correct spelling? My english is really basic only, but this spelling seems a bit suspicious to me.

[Mabuse]

This is a problem. It is true that a narrow passage (1 hex + 2 hexes behind) can be 100% blocked by 2 militias.
But I tend to think this is rather responsibility of map authors not to create such positions (or create them with a purpose).
If you want to add the "disband" option, then some exceptions are needed: at least you must forbid it in villages. And maybe also around villages, because now from one recruit-point you can kill one unit only, and with the "disband" you could kill any amount.

the STANDARD GAME MODE got renamed to "ALL VILLAGE MODE".

is this the correct spelling? My english is really basic only, but this spelling seems a bit suspicious to me.

about "disband":
i think you misunderstand the purpose of disband. of course you cannot disband units of other players.
you can just disband your own units (wether this makes sense or not).

since you can now select "upkeep options" you may want to delete militias (or other units) that are not neeed anymore. for example a bunch of militis in an already conqured corner of the map.

in any case it would be very important nor much used.
but still a good thing to have.

you wil never be able to kill more than 1 unit with any other unit, disband only allows to kill/delete your own units

[SlowThinker]

Ok, just finished modifying the terrain of Gagarna, Surdmark and Torath so that it can be changed in the 1.9 add-on. I didn't change villages or anything like that, just making the map look more aesthetically pleasing since some terrain looks a lot different in 1.9 than 1.8.

Can they be used with 1.8?

I also came up with a lot of names for the villages and places, so I can provide a list if anybody wants it.

Hm... couldn't you rename the lotr map?

edit

about "disband":
i think you misunderstand the purpose of disband. of course you cannot disband units of other players.
you can just disband your own units (wether this makes sense or not).

You misunderstood what I was speaking about.
In the "passage" situation you need to disband your winning unit after you kill the 1st blocker, so that you can kill also the 2nd one.

[SlowThinker]

I moved from Extra Conquest Maps by Gwledig because the topic is related for all the Conquest world, especially for the realm mode.
(Gwledig changed capitol in Conquest+ to All-Militia AI)

they aint empty it has AI on it... its been this way in REALM for maybe 2 years? so whats the fuss?

....
Can you explain why player 1 in CAP has such an advantage? lower players already get incremet of +2 gold I think I set it so 1 and 2 get 10, 3 and 4 get 12, 5 and 6 get 14

First of all, it is not any fuss, but just my opinion.

IMHO realm is not a good mode right because of the only-Militia AI spawn.

Your starting gold settings 10,10,12,12,14,14 is fair ONLY if players start with 3 villages (+5g income) and cannot expand or can expand very hardly:
next turn the gold continues 15,15,17,17,16,16 and so the turn 1 + turn 2 string is quite fair:
10,10,12,12,14,14,15,15,17,17,16,16

why player 1 in All-Militia AI has such an advantage?

- imagine red, blue and an AI village between them.
- another point: imagine red starts with 0g, and his units are frozen on turn 1. Then next sides start with 10g, 10g, 12, 12, 14, and all can recruit. On turn 2 red starts with 14g, can recruit too (but his units have only 1 move). Do you think this is fair for red?

[Gwledig]

I think the slight incrament of start gold is the most balanced option, if you were to give +1 per side you would end up with a difference of 10 for player 1 and 16 for player 6 and if 1 and 6 are spawned alongside player 6 has a massive advantage which is unbalanced.

So I think player 1 is always going to have some advantage, whether you defer to blue or whatever but this is offset for lower listed players by the gradual increment every other player.

[Gwledig]

Actually I think it needs to be something like deciding the max difference between 1 and 6 or 1 and 8 then distributing in stages

for balance the difference should not be too great, so the gap isn't too big between 1 and 6 (or 1 and 8) if spawned alongside.

so say we sugest the difference between all players should be no more than 4, with increments of 1 but duplicate values weighted at the end, these are concentrated at the end because these last players get a penalty being the last to play, as opposed dsitributing duplicates midway or from the start of the list.

6 player: 10 11 12 13 13 14

8 player: 10 11 12 12 13 13 14 14

bearing in mind there is a random factor to spawn locations, so its a question of giving a bonus to lower list players but not too much to give a massive advantage to those at the end.

If red is thought to have such a big advantage another option might be a gap of 2 betwen red and blue

6 player: 10 12 12 13 13 14

8 player: 10 12 12 13 13 13 14 14

[SlowThinker]

So I think player 1 is always going to have some advantage...

But why? By a gold compensation you can set up a fair game.
Try to think / answer my last paragraph in my previous post. ("Do you think this is fair for red?")

Edit:
Does the objectives window always blur if a player has to scroll it?

[Gwledig]

- another point: imagine red starts with 0g, and his units are frozen on turn 1. Then next sides start with 10g, 10g, 12, 12, 14, and all can recruit. On turn 2 red starts with 14g, can recruit too (but his units have only 1 move). Do you think this is fair for red?

um you are just giving side 1 to blue, red ^ seems to actually loose their 1st turn.. and only 1 move on turn 2?

as you say any advantage red has can be offset by more gold for other players, that sounds a simpler option to me... like red =10, blue and subsequent players get +2 with more progressively down the list.

[SlowThinker]

um you are just giving side 1 to blue, red ^ seems to actually loose their 1st turn.. and only 1 move on turn 2?

I just shifted the positions, so
red -> purple
blue -> red
green -> blue

So you can see how big advantage red has over purple with your settings.

Edit: by "purple" I mean the last player, that's side 6.

[Gwledig]

in the idea above, purp player 4 gets +3 start gold over red tho...

[SlowThinker]

Sorry, by "purple" I meant player 6. Is it orange?

Red turn 2 and orange turn 1 are almost at same moment, so both sides should be almost equal:
Red: gained 15g so far, income +8 (I suppose 3 infantry killed 3 villages)
Orange: gained 14g so far, income +5

Red turn 3, orange 2:
Red: gained 23g so far, income +11 (I suppose again 3 infantry killed 3 villages, I suppose no bonus)
Orange: gained 19g so far, income +8

Red turn 4, orange 3:
Red: gained 34g so far
Orange: gained 27g so far

In fact red is much stronger, because I didn't count he would re-invest
also I didn't count with the fact red grabs all villages just in the middle between red and orange starting positions.

[Gwledig]

6 is default brown, 7 is orange in 6 player

any bonus start gold is gona have an exponential effect down the game

I'm not really in favour of disabling player 1 until turn 2, just sounds too freaky

probbaly just give more gold to lower players?