Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
Sketchy
Posts: 5
Joined: December 21st, 2009, 5:43 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Sketchy »

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but after playing several games of Europe Conquest 1.0, 1.1, and 1.14, I've noticed that, for the most part, first-mover (or first-person) advantage isn't balanced at all.

Now, maybe it's just the way a particular person runs this game, but let me explain in an anecdote (I don't have the replay on me right now).

There's a person named ViK on the 1.6.5 server that runs Europe Conquest games all the time. He's almost always Player 1. The parameters are: Fog is on, about 5 players usually, and there are of course, empty villages. After playing and observing several of his games, ViK wins a good number of times. And the other times, where he doesn't win, it requires ALL the other 3 or 4 players to take him out.

Now, consider for a moment just how unbalanced this setup is, and how huge the advantage for player 1 is. Remember, there are a lot of empty villages at the beginning. Player 1, therefore, on his first move turn, can take up to 6 villages, with only 6 troops. Player 2, if he's anywhere near player 1, can only take maybe 2 or 3 villages (usually less) with 2 or 3 troops and must commit 2-3 troops per occupied village. And it gets worse and worse for successive players. Furthermore, because ViK is always player one, he always chooses to focus on Spain or the UK, Russia, or Turkey. Usually, he chooses Spain or the UK. In most games, he is able to secure UK and/or Spain by turn 2 (turn 3 at the latest). Consistently. It's not that we're all bad players. But as player 1, he can take any village he likes with 6 troops, or he can simply grab all the empty village before we do. Sometimes he'll balance with the +1 gold income, +2 gold income, etc. But if you think about it, that doesn't really balance things.

I've called ViK out repeatedly on this horrific imbalance, telling him that he should let other players have the Player 1 spot, or he should change base gold amounts. He ignores me each time. I'll also add that he always adds fog, since that makes it harder for players to collude, which really plays to his advantage, because it's that much harder for us to counter his player 1 advantage. Ships, by the way, makes this situation even worse.

Simply put, most games hosted by ViK have two outcomes: He wins. Or everyone teams up against him. It's become quite predictable. And it's usually a huge waste of everyone's time. Fog means, by the way, ViK wins more often than not. Of course, things came to a head last night for me personally. Seeing him play so often, I knew he had secured Spain mostly by turn 2. He had most of the UK by turn 3. And by turn 4, France and a good chunk of Russia were his. I wasn't able secure Ukraine and Turkey until turn 5. And we had one player secure Germany by turn 4. As soon as I saw ViK in Russia, I moved in, killing everyone along the way (purple) to try and evict ViK. All the time, I was drumming up support for everyone to go against ViK or we would all be taken out piecemeal. For the most part, I succeeded. ViK, of course, being the poor sport he is, was complaining about how this All vs. ViK was ridiculous, to which I reminded him that the advantage he gives first player, himself, was ridiculous.

To cut the story short, by turn 11, just as I was close to evicting him from Russia, he just banned me from that game. I replayed the game up to turn 11, and my predictions and assumptions proved to be quite right. He had secured Spain by turn 2. He had secure UK by turn 4. France by 5. He was in Russia making moves since turn 2.

Now there are two things I'd like you folks to consider: First, there are two ways, as I see it, to mitigate Player 1's advantage in Europe Conquest:
1.) Make sure that all the villages are taken. This is what RISK does, as the board game. Of course, in RISK, (some versions) you can only make one attack as well, so that also helps matters. With this method, you can utilize the scaling gold incomes.
2.) Instead of changing gold income, change gold base. First player gets 9 gold. 2nd player should get 12 (or 13 gold), 3rd player gets 16 gold, etc. This particular method only will work if you leave the option to claim empty villages (and allow multiple attacks).

Second, of course, I'd like your consideration on this player ViK. Do you all think he's a poor sport? I personally think that his RISK games should be boycotted. They're nothing more than a ploy to get people to waste time so that he can build his ego. The game isn't really fair, since, as I've illustrated, it's quite tilted in his favor.

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Mabuse »

just to clarify this:
ViK plays conquest 1.0 and not 1.14

on 1.14 p1 wouldnt be able to take villages on turn 1 and also other players could take them more easily back

1.14 is more balanced than 1.0 on this matter, and of course as the previous poster stated right, FOG ON will imbalance the game more, as it makes it a lot more difficult to team up effectivley


so my best advice is not to join 1.0 games with FOG ON, its really that simple
i also guess that mostly beginners woudl join a 1.0 game (the add ons are definately an improvement (if you ask me ;)), its clear that his chances are even better then


ah and btw, that europe map seriously needs an improvement
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Caulder
Posts: 25
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 9:23 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Caulder »

I used to love fog off, but now that I've played quite a few fog on games, and I'm noticing more and more games are played with the fog on I'll have to disagree with you there. The thing is you say that every game Vik is in, is that it is either he wins, or everyone teams up against him. But the ironic thing is that happens IN EVERY SINGLE GAME! The minute someone becomes too strong everyone teams up against him, wether it be player 1, or 6. The only time this doesnt happen is when you play with a trustworthy team-mate, but even still it ends up 2 v the rest of the players, or in semi-rare occaisons, they'll only be loosely knit together, and end up falling apart.

I'm certain there will arise a debate on whether fog makes a game more imbalanced or not, but I mean, even if there is fog on, people tend to talk to each other if they're near a growing player. I mean we both have to agree that it's hard to play a game when you start in an empty territory and because you can take it by turn 2, everyone goes "Oh he's the strongest lets destroy him." Fog sorta gets rid of that, you know? Think of this example, I started with two villages in Balkans and two in Ukraine (Lucky I know, even more lucky Ukraine was empty!) I was player 3, and I didn't get a chance to look at the flags on my villages, because the game just started and player 1 pretty much just said within the first 10 seconds of the game "Green has Balkans", which made player 2 who also was near me, just spam units there until I beat him out. Now if Fog was off, the rest of the players would have seen my situation and probably came down from Russia, to pick me off as well before i became too strong.

And about the first player imbalance, I've hosted a number of conquest games and I've had people complain, and I've always agreed, it's why I usually go with +1,+2,+3.. etc. Or +1,+1,+2,+2.. when I play with boats. Mabuse brings up a good counter that because Vik may be playing on Conquest 1.0 red does have a huge advantage over everyone else, but no one should even be playing Conquest 1.0 anymore. Lol I mean I'll go into a room to tell them I have 1.14 or even 1.1 atleast. But if you gave each player +3 per descending player seems highly unbalanced. I mean I'd play as player 6/brown/whatever all the time if I got like 15+ gold at the beggining! But it does rely on a ton of luck as well you know, I was playing as player 4/purple just.. yesterday and I took most of Western Europe fairly quickly because luckily enough Red, Blue, and Green were fighting over Eastern Europe.

I also agree with your distrubuting the cities equally among the players, like Risk. I like the idea a lot. It was very wrong of him to ban you, and I wouldn't go as so far to boycott his games, lol I haven't personally played a lot of his games, but the name does sound familiar. Anyways, like I said I wouldn't go that far, but if the people know he's a sore loser they'll treat him what he deserves, and not join, or just always team up on him. Lol

Sketchy
Posts: 5
Joined: December 21st, 2009, 5:43 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Sketchy »

Caulder wrote:I used to love fog off, but now that I've played quite a few fog on games, and I'm noticing more and more games are played with the fog on I'll have to disagree with you there. The thing is you say that every game Vik is in, is that it is either he wins, or everyone teams up against him. But the ironic thing is that happens IN EVERY SINGLE GAME! The minute someone becomes too strong everyone teams up against him, wether it be player 1, or 6. The only time this doesnt happen is when you play with a trustworthy team-mate, but even still it ends up 2 v the rest of the players, or in semi-rare occaisons, they'll only be loosely knit together, and end up falling apart.
Except that's the problem with Fog. Fog PREVENTS players from colluding effectively because not everyone knows what the battlefield looks like. I mean, if first-player advantage were balanced, then, yes, fog is great. The problem with ViK is that he utilizes fog while at the same time, maintaining an enormous first-player advantage. Consistently. Game after game. And that's why I have a problem with fog.

And when I say every game, let's just say by turn 4 or 5, it becomes obvious he's the strongest player. That's why we all gang up, because anything else is suicide. Usually, though, by turn 4 or 5, it's far too late. We don't gang up on him because it'll be an interesting game or that it serves as a balance mechanism. We gang up on him because he's essentially cheating, or rather, presenting a completely unfair game as unfair. He's being inherently dishonest, which is why I think his games should be boycotted.
I'm certain there will arise a debate on whether fog makes a game more imbalanced or not, but I mean, even if there is fog on, people tend to talk to each other if they're near a growing player. I mean we both have to agree that it's hard to play a game when you start in an empty territory and because you can take it by turn 2, everyone goes "Oh he's the strongest lets destroy him." Fog sorta gets rid of that, you know? Think of this example, I started with two villages in Balkans and two in Ukraine (Lucky I know, even more lucky Ukraine was empty!) I was player 3, and I didn't get a chance to look at the flags on my villages, because the game just started and player 1 pretty much just said within the first 10 seconds of the game "Green has Balkans", which made player 2 who also was near me, just spam units there until I beat him out. Now if Fog was off, the rest of the players would have seen my situation and probably came down from Russia, to pick me off as well before i became too strong.
Except, the problem isn't even being put near lots of empty villages. The problem is that player 1 can grab an entire country before any of the other players can really do anything about it. THAT's what's so imbalanced about it. Imagine, in Risk, if you were able to take Africa or South America by the turn after troop placement, while everyone else was fighting it out. Do YOU think that would be a fair game? And add to this, if player 1 is able to CONSISTENTLY pull this off, game after game after game.

And of course, let's not forget: ViK banned me from his game because of this inconvenient little truth.
And about the first player imbalance, I've hosted a number of conquest games and I've had people complain, and I've always agreed, it's why I usually go with +1,+2,+3.. etc. Or +1,+1,+2,+2.. when I play with boats. Mabuse brings up a good counter that because Vik may be playing on Conquest 1.0 red does have a huge advantage over everyone else, but no one should even be playing Conquest 1.0 anymore. Lol I mean I'll go into a room to tell them I have 1.14 or even 1.1 atleast. But if you gave each player +3 per descending player seems highly unbalanced. I mean I'd play as player 6/brown/whatever all the time if I got like 15+ gold at the beggining! But it does rely on a ton of luck as well you know, I was playing as player 4/purple just.. yesterday and I took most of Western Europe fairly quickly because luckily enough Red, Blue, and Green were fighting over Eastern Europe.
ViK is playing 1.1. The problem is this: Empty villages. If you put a troop in every village, player 1 wouldn't nearly have such a huge advantage. However, because you have empty villages, player one can grab a lot more villages with fewer troops. That's what's so imbalanced about it. If you want to keep the empty villages, give other players more base money. Not more income. More base money, because this will allow them to summon more troops and take more villages. Basically, it works like this: Player 1 takes 4-6 villages, consistently, the turn after troop recruitment. And gets a bonus of 7 gold, usually by turn 2. Player 2 will manage anywhere between 2-4 net villages usually. Player 2 will not get a bonus until turn 3, unless he's lucky....and it goes on. The difference between player 2 and player 3, isn't as great as player 1 and player 2.

This really should be a very simple and easy to understand concept.
I also agree with your distrubuting the cities equally among the players, like Risk. I like the idea a lot. It was very wrong of him to ban you, and I wouldn't go as so far to boycott his games, lol I haven't personally played a lot of his games, but the name does sound familiar. Anyways, like I said I wouldn't go that far, but if the people know he's a sore loser they'll treat him what he deserves, and not join, or just always team up on him. Lol
I just thought I needed to bring his behavior to the attention of the Wesnoth community. It's not even the banning that really irks me, although that's just an additional smack to the face. Rather, it's his dishonesty and his poor sportsmanship that bother me.

CIB
Code Contributor
Posts: 625
Joined: November 24th, 2006, 11:26 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by CIB »

I have done some polishing. First, ships now take movement to board/unboard(they should have, but I modified unit.movement instead of unit.moves, heh). Second, ships have been nerfed a bit and suck as village defenders now. Lastly, I have adjusted the starting gold so that player 1 gets really low gold on turn 1 - This way, it shouldn't be necessary to adjust income anymore.
Attachments
conquest.zip
(23.87 KiB) Downloaded 217 times

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Mabuse »

ok, i see the points.

heres a new version 1.15:

includes wesnoth map and europe map

- ships added
- ships have same stats as their land counterparts (exceopt that 15 gold galleon has speed 10)
(- replaced pierce damage of ships with blade for simplicity, no real change gameplaywise, just easier to implement without chnaging all otehr units to have pierce resiststance of 0 as well)
- unloaded units have 0 movement
- included balance
included balance means that later players have an income bonus in the FIRST turn (troop deployment)
player1:+0
player2:+2
player3:+4
player4:+6
player5:+8
player6:+10

on the first turn ONLY


i think this balance will make the game more fair and will make external handicaps no longer nessessary

edit: file added ;)
Attachments
conquest_pack115.rar
(14.26 KiB) Downloaded 242 times
Last edited by Mabuse on December 22nd, 2009, 3:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Mabuse »

hee, seems that CIB and me had similar ideas ;)

ok, the differences are

- that in 1.15 the income in first turn is different,
- and difference in ships is that they are basically the same stats as land units which makes it easier to compare and fight
- last but not least is that UNLOADED units have 0 movement and thus cannot be loaded again, ships can be moved again after unloaded (unless they have fought previously of course)
- if unloaded units cannot move, you also cannot recruit in a captured village, folowing the usual gameplay when a land city is conquered

this makes naval invasion more difficult, more costly and equally comparable to land warfare
(you want to destroy a cities defense with strong ships, and transport a STRONG land unit in a weak transport ship to take (and hopefully) hold it - as you cannot risk to lose a costly land unit in a ship that fights to take a city)



edit 2:
wesnoth map dont support ships. since it woudl destryo the purpose of rivers as natural borders, and ships arent nessessary in wesnoth map anyway (well sure, it would be nice to have them just for completion, but the destruction of rivers as natural borders outweigh this "nice-to-have"-option for that map by far), on europe map, ships do have their useage


edit3:
im aware of the fact that player 6 may now deploy of lieutenant in turn 1, of course this can be countered by the other players by. if p6 decides to concentrate all his money on a certain area you can expand elsewhere (grab cities) and defend with cannon fodder (for at least one turn). if p6 manges to destroy a valuable unit with his lieutenant he made a good deal for that though - in any case that lieutenant will give him some durability in a certain area if he really wants it ;)


in any case thats the way it is for now i may make a new version with ALL incomes reduced by 2 again (so that p6 has only 14 gold on turn 1 (and p1 has 4 then))
but then it wil be anyway that sooner or later (on lower players numbers the ceiling of "15" gold will be broken)
Last edited by Mabuse on December 22nd, 2009, 3:43 am, edited 6 times in total.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Caulder
Posts: 25
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 9:23 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Caulder »

Sketchy wrote: Except that's the problem with Fog. Fog PREVENTS players from colluding effectively because not everyone knows what the battlefield looks like. I mean, if first-player advantage were balanced, then, yes, fog is great. The problem with ViK is that he utilizes fog while at the same time, maintaining an enormous first-player advantage. Consistently. Game after game. And that's why I have a problem with fog.
But what I'm trying to get at is that in every game once one person becomes too strong people tend to team up to face that player. Fog or not. I know what you're saying that there may be an extra couple or so turns before they may team up against the strongest player with the fog on which could lead to the player winning. But I'm just tired of playing games with the fog off and the minute any player gets too strong they're immediately condemned to death by multiple players. Lol I'm not going to lie I've done it to people, and have had it done to me, I don't like it, so I know how people feel when they get mad. What I'm trying to get at is that not every Conquest game played involves ViK-type person, but what I'll address later is that unless it's conquest 1.0 first player shouldn't have an ENORMOUS advantage, they have a sorta-advantage but I mean it's not huge and I never really complain about it when I'm not player 1.
And when I say every game, let's just say by turn 4 or 5, it becomes obvious he's the strongest player. That's why we all gang up, because anything else is suicide. Usually, though, by turn 4 or 5, it's far too late. We don't gang up on him because it'll be an interesting game or that it serves as a balance mechanism. We gang up on him because he's essentially cheating, or rather, presenting a completely unfair game as unfair. He's being inherently dishonest, which is why I think his games should be boycotted.
I'm not trying to defend him or anything and I know before hand you said that him winning wasn't due to player inexperience, but I mean he can't take villages on turn 1. If he's lucky enough to be in an empty territory, or someone doesn't bother to recruit to prevent him from taking said territory you can't really complain because of that. It is ofcourse how you play the game. If player 2-6 did the same thing, but won a few games in a row I don't think you would accuse him of cheating would you? I know you mean good by saying because he consistently plays first player, and uses fog which may or may not give him an extra advantage, but I played enough games to know sure player 1 wins a good chunk of the time but not all the time, and if any other players know any form of strategy they too can win.
Except, the problem isn't even being put near lots of empty villages. The problem is that player 1 can grab an entire country before any of the other players can really do anything about it. THAT's what's so imbalanced about it. Imagine, in Risk, if you were able to take Africa or South America by the turn after troop placement, while everyone else was fighting it out. Do YOU think that would be a fair game? And add to this, if player 1 is able to CONSISTENTLY pull this off, game after game after game.
Well if player 1 can grab an entire country that consists of more than 2 villages, it has to mean he was put near atleast a couple of empty villages. Spain for example, If he has two villages in Spain he's lucky and he'll probably go for it right? If it happens the rest of Spain is empty he's even more lucky, I've seen it happen. However there's usually atleast one other person in there so if player 1 has all of Spain by the end of turn two, it means the other player didn't put up a fight (by not recruiting or just got unlucky). The fact is that the other player COULD do something about it, and like I said it could have been empty but you said that isn't the problem, so I don't get what you're trying to get at.

Now the Risk analogy, even with territories assigned to a player, I've had it happened where I've gotten 2-3 territories in S. America or Australia, so I put enough men there to intimidate anyone who wants to try and keep it from me, usually it works, sometimes they see through my bluff and I end up with like 20 reinforcements on Peru or Eastern Australia. Lol But the fact is that if I go before the other two players in S.America and they didn't properly defend it I may take all of S.America and maybe move into Africa or N.America for good measure. The thing is I find it to be entirely fair, it was luck that I chanced out and got a couple territories in a continent, and it was strategic placement that I put a good chunk of my reinforcements in S.America to take the rest of it. If maybe a player can cheat by somehow deciding the placement of territory cards assigned to players (I usually just shuffle them up and deal them out) But if I somehow card counted and dealt myself cards that made up continents yeah that's unfair and cheating.
If you played Monopoly, the minute someone got Board Walk and Park Place, would you accuse that player that he just made the game unfair? No ofcourse not, it was pure luck he managed to land on both of them, if the dice were loaded or something yeah then ofcourse it's unfair but I don't see that happening.
ViK is playing 1.1. The problem is this: Empty villages. If you put a troop in every village, player 1 wouldn't nearly have such a huge advantage. However, because you have empty villages, player one can grab a lot more villages with fewer troops. That's what's so imbalanced about it. If you want to keep the empty villages, give other players more base money. Not more income. More base money, because this will allow them to summon more troops and take more villages. Basically, it works like this: Player 1 takes 4-6 villages, consistently, the turn after troop recruitment. And gets a bonus of 7 gold, usually by turn 2. Player 2 will manage anywhere between 2-4 net villages usually. Player 2 will not get a bonus until turn 3, unless he's lucky....and it goes on. The difference between player 2 and player 3, isn't as great as player 1 and player 2.

This really should be a very simple and easy to understand concept.
Oh.. Uhm I thought you said the problem wasn't empty villages? Anyways if he's player 1.1 you can't actually recieve a territory bonus by turn 2, seeing as on the first turn no units can move more than one space because they're all recently recruited, he can TAKE territory by turn 2 but wont recieve the bonus until turn 3. But anyways, I understand what you mean player 1 DOES have the advantage because of this for obvious reasons. You did however forget that sure Player 2 can maybe only grab 2-4 villages, but he can also attack the villages that red has taken as well, and so can every player after blue. So sure Red can grab some easy villages, but it will be hard to guard them unless he uses some of those men who would normally be used to grab villages to help guard his claim. Think of it this way: Player 1 takes 4-6 villages, he now has to defend 4-6 villages with 1-2 infantry at each one, his original six he can buy units for, blue takes 2-4 free villages but can defend his villages with 1-3 infantry at each one. When it comes down to player 4 or 5, sure they may or may not be able to grab 1-2 free villages, but they have a greater chance of taking another player's village such as Red, who has spred his units too thinly across europe to hoard up as many villages as possible. It is a very easy concept to understand but the way you portray it seems to be very onesided as if they have some magical ability that makes them always win no matter what.
I just thought I needed to bring his behavior to the attention of the Wesnoth community. It's not even the banning that really irks me, although that's just an additional smack to the face. Rather, it's his dishonesty and his poor sportsmanship that bother me.
You said it's either he wins or everyone teams up against him? What I'm saying even if it was ViK or not, that's what usually happens in every game. If it was player.. 3, sure, who managed to grab two countries early, everyone would team up against that player right, or else he would win? Sure I know you're mad that it's the outcome every single time, and it's always him because he's first player, but I'm sure there's a lot more factors in this as well. Maybe he is a decent player as well which just compliments the first player advantage, but if he is a poorsport, then any one who reads this/knows how he is will act accordingly. However I don't think he can be taken down because of his actions game-wise, the reason for this is that if any other player 1 was in the same situation it would be unsportsmanlike to say he in a sense cheated as well, he was simply playing the game and I can think of a couple more people who deserve a lot more backlash because of what they did in-game than just exploiting a small advantage that may or may not be enhanced with fog.


On a side-note I just figured a way that having every single city be distributed at the start of the game may have it's own disadvantage to other players as well. Remember that this isn't Risk, you don't have to buy units only at the beggining of your turn. This means that because Red now has the advantage of being the first to attack he actually might be always gaurenteed a country by turn 2-3. As chances are he'll atleast always have two cities in a country he's trying to take, even if there's one unit on every village in a country unless those other players recruit there player 1 now has more than 6 gold to take a country, seeing as he has maybe almost 10 villages throughout Europe maybe more? I haven't counted. Anyways he lets say someone noticed he was taking a country, recruited some units to try and stop him but he took the city anyways, now he can come from behind take the village and if he's lucky he'll lose the battle with a unit outside the village: he can now recruit a ton of units closer to the frontlines. Sure this could happen with a normal game but red now always has atleast +10 gold by the start of turn 2. And it leaves any players at a disadvantage for defending.

P.S. Sorry for the huge post. :x

Caulder
Posts: 25
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 9:23 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Caulder »

Looks great Mabuse, you're doing a really great job man! But I have a question, I'm sure it's based solely on opinion but will later players still need a +x ammount of gold per turn?
Even with +10 more gold at the start which I haven't tested but may make or break the game, it really seems to me like that gold will be gone quickly. But I suppose 16 gold on turn 1 is enough. Lol

I may play a couple of games with no +x gold per turn for later players, and see how it is, but I'm never using the +0,+1,+2,+3,+4..etc method again I'll just keep it at +0,+0,+1,+1,+2..etc Lol

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Mabuse »

as said, p6 may even get a lieutenant at turn 1 now, this should bring him into a position to defnd any area for a certain time, he may even destroy costly units like cavalry of opposing players, destroying big amounts of gold

on the other hand this may be nonsense to get a lieutenant at that early, needs some testing.
(since it may be blocked by some cheap cannon fodder)

i think that the more gold at start could really put the later players into an almost equal position
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Caulder
Posts: 25
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 9:23 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Caulder »

We're testing it right now, it seems to do fairly well, we haven't gotten to ships yet but we're working on it. We had to remake the first game as some players quit.

My only concern is player 5 and 6 being able to pretty much spam elites on any village. The first game we tried I was player 1 but as I said we had to remake so we didn't get a very good testing. The game we're playing so far, is actually faring pretty well, no one person really has the upperhand at the moment, and it's about be turn 4, so it's pretty good.

I stated to the other players at the game that 2-3 free village grabs doesn't exactly justify having 3-4 elite infantry on the first turn. I don't know about you. Lol

Sketchy
Posts: 5
Joined: December 21st, 2009, 5:43 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Sketchy »

Hmm...I'm liking the new balance fixes. It should help.

The problem with spamming elites is that simply put, an Elite is worth far more than 3 infantry units, even though it's the same 3 gold. And a Cavalryman is worth more than 2 elites, even though it only costs 5 gold. That being said, the options are to either tweak unit balances, or tweak the amount of gold that player 5 or 6 get.

Remember, relative advantage between player 2 or player 3, is much less than player 1 and player 2. I'd even say, relative advantage between player 6 and player 3 is minimal.

My point is not to use a linear scale. Maybe a logarithmic scale when deciding on first-turn gold base bonus.

Caulder
Posts: 25
Joined: November 10th, 2009, 9:23 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Caulder »

Alright after three tests, which technically isn't a lot but hey it's 2 in the morning right now and I'm about to go to sleep so whatever, anyways this is what info I got:

Game 1: The game got remade because 2 people quit near start, and one around turn 2, but at the time Player 1 was the strongest, some players didn't even have 1 country bonus yet. I think it was about turn 4-5 or so, P1 had Spain and France, and was pretty much a turn away from Benelux and Switzerland, and part of Germany but ofcourse it was still anyones game that early.

Game 2: This game got remade but not because people quit, but because the host dc'ed but the server didn't recognize it, so we couldn't really do anything. Don't know how to explain it but it was my best attempt. However it got to about turn 6 I think, not exactly too sure. However it was Player 1 and Player 3 who were the only real powers, the rest of us were small fries. xP The game too was anyone's but we're starting to see something going on here..

Game 3: The game we just finished, we didn't technically finish but we accepted Player 4 as the winner, most of us were tired, and he did have the highest production. Then in order it was Player 1 as second, and Player 3 and 6 were tied for third. Maybe 6 had a bit more production due to more cities, I don't know, I can't see through fog. xD

So far, we've figured out that the gold bonus in the beggining DOES infact help to decrease the advantage Red has a tiny bit. Player 1 still seems to be in the atleast top 2 players of all 3 games, but like I said we need more testing, it doesn't need to be like this though, just more people playing with the extra gold a turn. We have to figure out if that extra gold in the beggining helps or not. We still haven't tried a game where players also get a +1, +1,+2,+2..etc bonus per turn. But in the end it's really Diplomacy that wins the day, that or being super lucky, lol. I would also like to add the boats are working nicely so far, and you're doing a great job on everything, thanks a ton Mabuse, and thankyou CIB for incorporating boats into an already great map! :)

User avatar
alda
Posts: 49
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 4:06 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by alda »

Just adding my voice here to say that I really like the new changes. Always thought that changing gold at the beginning was better than changing incomes during all game :) .

So thanks Mabusse and CIB for improving this great mod for FFA games, which is Conquest !

Gotta have to test this soon.

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

Post by Mabuse »

Sketchy wrote: The problem with spamming elites is that simply put, an Elite is worth far more than 3 infantry units, even though it's the same 3 gold. And a Cavalryman is worth more than 2 elites, even though it only costs 5 gold. That being said, the options are to either tweak unit balances, or tweak the amount of gold that player 5 or 6 get.
i must strongly disagree here though.

2 eilte are "by far" stronger than a cav, in open field, 2 elite inf should win closely, even if the cav would attack first (in fact the cav could only destroy one inf though and then on the other players turn the 2nd elite would attack first), and that is not if the elite is utilizing a terrain bonus.

for sure the cav has their useage of course (by beating almost ceratinly 1 elite inf)

of course elite is stronger when it comes down to defnd a village versus 3 normal infantry attacking from open field. havent tested the elite versus 3 inf issue, but will do some calculations soon.

i think the unit balances are ok.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Post Reply