Winning Conditions

Synchronized-turns strategy. Calling all teamers.
Post Reply
blanco
Luxer
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:50 am
Location: Rotterdam

Winning Conditions

Post by blanco » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:04 pm

I suggest they be changed to "whoever holds all lands wins the game". This way you can create maps with everyone starting without castles, it makes the beginning of the game totally different and interesting. That is, if unplayable has a lot of land, and the players all have a decent army.

As it is now, you can't make maps like this, because the first to build a castle will automatically win the game for "holding all the castles". Though I did luck out in one of my maps once, where three players built a castle in the same turn, where after the game went on and more players built castles. :)

Also I would like to suggest that building a castle take just one unit instead of five. In my test game a lot of AI players build no castle because their armies were divided between their provinces, and there were nowhere five units at one place, though they had a lot more than five units and I know they had enough money.

There, hopefully you guys find these ideas as interesting as I do.

User avatar
mentor09
Luxer
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:41 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Winning Conditions

Post by mentor09 » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:29 pm

blanco wrote:I suggest they be changed to "whoever holds all lands wins the game". This way you can create maps with everyone starting without castles, it makes the beginning of the game totally different and interesting. That is, if unplayable has a lot of land, and the players all have a decent army.

As it is now, you can't make maps like this, because the first to build a castle will automatically win the game for "holding all the castles". Though I did luck out in one of my maps once, where three players built a castle in the same turn, where after the game went on and more players built castles. :)

Also I would like to suggest that building a castle take just one unit instead of five. In my test game a lot of AI players build no castle because their armies were divided between their provinces, and there were nowhere five units at one place, though they had a lot more than five units and I know they had enough money.

There, hopefully you guys find these ideas as interesting as I do.
Have a look at ivo jima - this map would be unplayable with your rules. One-Way connections are important for some map ideas as well...

blanco
Luxer
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:50 am
Location: Rotterdam

Re: Winning Conditions

Post by blanco » Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:59 pm

dude, I didn't even say anything about one-way connections... did you bump your head before posting? :P

User avatar
mentor09
Luxer
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:41 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Winning Conditions

Post by mentor09 » Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:14 am

blanco wrote:dude, I didn't even say anything about one-way connections... did you bump your head before posting? :P
Before being agressive you might try to understand my posting - "HAVE A LOOK AT IVO JIMA".

/me shakes his head...

blanco
Luxer
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:50 am
Location: Rotterdam

Post by blanco » Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:17 am

I have already looked at Iwo Jima, and I stand by my non-aggressive comment. It would totally still be as playable as it is now and your comment was dumb and misguided. Now that's aggressive, but seriously, didn't mean to offend you there.

At first I didn't get what you were talking about, because it makes no sense, now I figure you mean that all the land belongs to General Kuribayashi in the beginning. But what you are missing is that the ships on that map are still considered to be LAND, the game treats them as it would any other country.

Maybe if you shake hard enough it will start working :P

User avatar
mud
n00b educator
Posts: 1981
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Up in a tree

Post by mud » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:08 pm

Maybe you should have another look at that map..... and maybe read the description or actually play it.

User avatar
mbauer
Not A Truck
Posts: 3959
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:59 pm
Location: Tallahassee
Contact:

Post by mbauer » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:05 am

blanco wrote:I have already looked at Iwo Jima, and I stand by my non-aggressive comment. It would totally still be as playable as it is now and your comment was dumb and misguided. Now that's aggressive, but seriously, didn't mean to offend you there.

At first I didn't get what you were talking about, because it makes no sense, now I figure you mean that all the land belongs to General Kuribayashi in the beginning. But what you are missing is that the ships on that map are still considered to be LAND, the game treats them as it would any other country.

Maybe if you shake hard enough it will start working :P
The reason why your idea wouldn't work with IWO JIMA is because the Kamikaze spaces are not accessible from anywhere on the map, so the Japanese player always has them and they can never be taken away. So under a condition where one player has to capture all territory, the IWO JIMA map would never end or the Japanese would always win, because the US players can never capture the Kamikaze territories.

In general I don't think a winning condition of capturing all territory is a good idea. In the vast majority of cases once a player loses all their castles they are pretty much done for. Playing out the rest of the game would be an exercise in monotony.

blanco
Luxer
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:50 am
Location: Rotterdam

Post by blanco » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:17 pm

Yeah yeah, sorry guys, just realized yesterday that I was wrong, you guys were right. Should have looked more carefully.

But mbauer, don't you find the "beginning with no castles"-idea interesting? Don't you think it would allow you to make some very interesting new kind of map?

User avatar
mbauer
Not A Truck
Posts: 3959
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:59 pm
Location: Tallahassee
Contact:

Post by mbauer » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:06 pm

Starting with no castles is different than "win by capturing all territory." And yes, I do think starting with no castles is an interesting idea.

How one could accomplish that with the current game mechanics is to have 1 or more neutral castles that the players could "race" to. A single neutral castle would mean that the first person to capture it would win, and would thereby be mostly luck. 2 or more neutral castles might be more interesting.

blanco
Luxer
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:50 am
Location: Rotterdam

Post by blanco » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:50 pm

mbauer wrote:Starting with no castles is different than "win by capturing all territory." And yes, I do think starting with no castles is an interesting idea.

How one could accomplish that with the current game mechanics is to have 1 or more neutral castles that the players could "race" to. A single neutral castle would mean that the first person to capture it would win, and would thereby be mostly luck. 2 or more neutral castles might be more interesting.
I've already tried the "one castle for neutral player"-idea a long time ago, and guess what, non-playable instantly wins! You get the message "non-playable wins! This should never happen!" :D

And I know it's not the same, just seems like a prerequisite for it to be possible. You could give one player a castle on a country with zero income and non-playable a castle, then the game would go on. You could even put 1000 castles in both of them (it's still possible in the files) to ensure they don't get taken till in the end of the game. But I think those things kind of cheapen it. :P

User avatar
blackj3sus
Lux Messiah
Posts: 3223
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:27 pm
Location: sillysoft.net/roman-battles
Contact:

Post by blackj3sus » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:04 pm

have two boring bot neutral players split ownership of the castles

we could call it mad-dash monday!

blanco
Luxer
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:50 am
Location: Rotterdam

Post by blanco » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:40 am

blackj3sus wrote:have two boring bot neutral players split ownership of the castles

we could call it mad-dash monday!
How do you do that? Is that even possible?

User avatar
blackj3sus
Lux Messiah
Posts: 3223
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:27 pm
Location: sillysoft.net/roman-battles
Contact:

Post by blackj3sus » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:45 am

email me the file and i'll repost it here

blackj3sus@comcast.net

blanco
Luxer
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:50 am
Location: Rotterdam

Post by blanco » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:55 pm

no, I wanna know how to pull it off myself, please explain. :)

Post Reply