Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Natmus on Mar 18, 2004 14:22:16 GMT
You are quite right about this victory condition being unsuited for two player games, or even three player games. I think there is 19 citadels in Midnight these days, and even in three player games two of the players have a good chance of achieving this in their initial recruitment drive.
And in four player games the player in the NW corner has a quick shot at at least six citadels there, the new Targ one, Gloom, Vorgath, Ushgarak, Grarg and Kor, plut the chance at either Dreams, Korkith or Moon.
Added: The conditions should be 15 in 2 player games, 12 in three player games, and 10 in four player games, IMHO. Could that be done?
|
|
Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Natmus on Mar 18, 2004 14:30:00 GMT
Nice placement of the Resign button. In case anybody is looking in vain for it, it is halfway hidden behind the active lord's shield
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 18, 2004 14:33:50 GMT
I had this problem at first. It seems to be a Firefox caching problem - click on the refresh button and it should be OK.
Worked for me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 18, 2004 14:39:22 GMT
Added: The conditions should be 15 in 2 player games, 12 in three player games, and 10 in four player games, IMHO. Could that be done? Mads, you think uncannily like me sometimes. Yes it can be done, though it does require a little extra effort (needs a new field in the games table, and some methods to access it from the game object basically). I think that it's probably the best way to go. Regarding 7 citadels, yes far too easyt in 2 player, maybe even 3 player. I have just added a 12 citadel condition to cater for those in the short term. I'm sort of torn - I don;t want to make too many citadels the targets or no one will aim for them. Nor do I want to make too few, as they become easy to get and also to defend as you can spare more defenders on the frontline. Another condition that I've been thinking about that would FORCE players to play more aggresively, is to have a time limit, say 20 days. The player who holds most citadels by the end wins. Citadels might be wieghted for score, so that kor, vorgrath , ushgarak and grarg would be worth 1 point, ithrorn and shimeril 2, etc. ie those which are more isolated from other citadels get more points. Xajorkith would be worth most, to balance out the northern inequality.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Mar 18, 2004 17:03:34 GMT
YES!
|
|
Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Natmus on Mar 18, 2004 20:12:03 GMT
Works for me too. Much, much better.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 19, 2004 9:10:43 GMT
Just thinking about this a little more. A slight (well, large) problem is that now that I delete the record of any citadel that is ungarrisoned, when it is recreated I wouldn't know what score to give it. I would need to create a cross reference back to the original garrison table, which is a bit of a pain (doable, but a pain).
As another option - how about counting citadels as 5 points each, and Keeps as 1 point each. There are enough keeps lying around to help balance out the Ushgarak area advantage. Also, looking at the map, it's pretty much a 50/50 split N and S on citadel distribution if you count S as anything south of the line made by the mountains of ithril/gorgrath/ashimar.
What would be a good day limit - should it be user-definable? Initially I would set it as a constant (so I need your input - my guess is around 20 or 25), but moving on it could be made user definable quite easily.
So - how many keeps and citadels can you take in 1 day? Without multi-browsing!
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Mar 19, 2004 13:49:04 GMT
Three levels maybe? Assuming 1 point for a keep and 5 for a 'del, hmm,
- 15 days, 60 points (or 12 'dels and 0 keeps) - 30 days, 85 points - 40 days, 100 points
?
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 19, 2004 13:53:07 GMT
I was thinking more along the lines of setting a fixed time (say 20 days), after which the scores are tallied up and the highest score wins
|
|
Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Natmus on Mar 19, 2004 15:59:00 GMT
Yes! Finally! I strongly approve! Vast improvement!
All hail this change!
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Mar 19, 2004 22:13:01 GMT
What? I have to check it, wait...
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Mar 20, 2004 15:12:28 GMT
I'm only sorry the recruiting time has been reduced from 3 to 2 hours. I believe the longer the time for recruiting, the more interesting the game. And it nicely outbalances Fey and Targ king advantage in speed, they haveing a lesser number of lords they can swiftly recruit.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 22, 2004 8:29:43 GMT
Hi Matija - well it's not set in stone. I f people find 2 hours has too little effect, I'll bump it back up to 3, or maybe 2.5 first to see if that's a better level.
It's open to debate.
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Mar 22, 2004 15:42:35 GMT
Great graphics for Doomdark, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 22, 2004 15:45:43 GMT
Well done - you appear to be the first to spot the changed gfx. I never envisaged DD as wearing a doomguard helmet. More the Emperor in Star Wars than Sauron in Peter Jackson's LOTR.
|
|