Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

[Mabuse]

The no taking villages on the first turn seems to increase p1 advantage.

btw, i just forgot to say that i strongly disagree with that statement.

of course taking no villages in turn 1 will decrease the advantage of EARLIER players (including player 1)

the reason is simple, if you can catch villages in first turn the earlier players will take the free ones, and the later players will have simply fewer to catch (and cant even fight for them - e.g. in first turn somone takes full switzerland or full benelux, then he will get the bonus the following round without any possibility that other can do anythign against it).

if you deploy units first, later players can see where earlier players have their strongpoints and can react by placing also units there

then earleir players can still catch villages, but later players can of course try to conquer them (and you cannot recruit units from newly conquered cities, except the unit that conquered it dies in the same turn)). so it extremely decreases the advanatge of the earlier players.

there is no reason why it should "seem" that advantage of p1 increases.
you can of course BACK UP your statement

and finally, if you dont like you can stil cut it out, i played it (when i did this mod a few weeks ago) a few times online, and it felt like an improvement

[Gambit]

It seems to me that you're not increasing or decreasing the advantage, if it exists, at all. You're merely putting it off another turn.
Player 1 is still the first person to be able to take villages. No matter what.

However the main reason putting of village capturing one turn would be preferable, as Mabuse sort of pointed out, is to allow all players one turn to consolidate and fortify. You start this game with a lot of territory and little resources.

[Mabuse]

Player 1 is still the first person to be able to take villages. No matter what..

but later players can conquer them in the same turn again. no matter what.
that is the difference

this is not possible in turn 1, because of an artificial "no attack mode", but also because players wont have the capacities to do that (maybe you have a near city, but then its anyway just 1 unit there)

so its definately an improvement, i suggest you think a bit more about it( or simply check it out )

[whiz]

juts copy the content of the *.zip into the conquest folder

Mabuse. this one only has the config. not the modified map. I think i saw the map in earlier post. I will get it from there.

[whiz]

juts copy the content of the *.zip into the conquest folder

Mabuse. this one only has the config. not the modified map. I think i saw the map in earlier post. I will get it from there.

nevermind. I think map is part of the config file.

[IB]

I said it increased it because I had 1 german village next to 2 empty switzerland villages, previously someone else would have taken one of them, instead I could grab both of them on the second turn. Maybe it doesn't increase it overall, but it's still not fixed as well as I'd like.

[Mabuse]

I said it increased it because I had 1 german village next to 2 empty switzerland villages, previously someone else would have taken one of them, instead I could grab both of them on the second turn.

but any player who see you put units near swiss and you would be able to take them, could also place some units there, and try to take them away from you in round 2 after your turn and deny your bonus.


but on the other hand in the old system where you can take cities in round 1 and you would have already a swiss city, you could take the 2nd and nobody would be able to deny your swiss bonus for round 2.

even if another player would be also near swiss you would get it since you are player 1

[IB]

Not with only 1 unit there, and if someone focused on switzerland instead of securing a corner they would wind up pretty dead.

[Mabuse]

i dont see your point anyways.

if later players dont take away regionboni from player1 its their decision, but its not fault of the game/mod.

players have all the possibilities with "no-conquer in first turn", players 1 has no advantages

but in opposite if you can conquer cities in first turn later players have disadvantages (or plaayer 1 (earlier players) have advantages), since you CANNOT do anything about it

[IB]

Not all games of conquest end in bickering, name calling and blood vendettas.

[SlowThinker]

A stuff related also to Conquest:
"1-winner only" games (Conquest etc.)

[tadpol]

Several hosts (mostly from seat 1 at least one from last seat) routinely set a bonus of +1 per player before you. Several other hosts (I've only seen in seat 1) call all such talk heresy. I'd be interested to hear anyones thoughts on income bonus to later players.

[SlowThinker]

The question is whether +1 per player is enough.
The +1 bonus is better than one +1g village, because you don't have to defend it. But with no upkeep this point is not so serious as would be in an upkeep game.
And the correct amount differs in both (Mabuse's and Blubaze's) versions, and of course it depends on size of the map.

[IB]

Normally I played 1.1 with income balance 0 +1 +2 +3 +6 +9, black and brown really do need extra income to survive.

[Mabuse]

as i saw this the first time (0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5) i found it OP since +5 is a HUGE bonus, but in the end it can make the game molre interesting and so its ok.

what IB wrote (0 +1 +2 +3 +6 +9) seems indeed OP for me.
i would insist to be the last player in these games

i never saw black or brown struggling with a +4/+5 bonus, and having +5 or +4 is imo a reason to be happy with the last place

after all, i think its ok, but you should not exxagarate it