On the ICBM issue, maybe put a lower unit maximum on the ICBM slots.  5  might be good.  Enough to give an advantage in a specific  battle, but not enough to eradicate all standing armies in the entire world.

I don't think I like the idea of having a maximum on just some of the techs.  I like to have some sort of logic or internal consistency to these things, because I think it makes it easier for people to remember the rules, which is especially important on a complicated board like this.

I could do something like give every tech a 10 unit maximum, which I think would work ok everywhere except for Espionage, where you really need to be able to put a lot of units there to take out a capital if needed.

(Cool profile image.  Reminds me of Banksy.)

Posted above is my cumulative luck for about 500 1v1, Wargear Warfare games.  Each data point is my luck for one game.

This post is in reply to a comment a made to a Cona Chris post in this thread.

My input would have to concern cona chris.  He should be banned from this board.  Thank you and happy new year!

: )

But really, if a strong player knocks someone out and gains a second capital I think both should be up for knocking out that player if just one of them is taken.  I dunno seems like it would deter a very strong player to get stronger too soon?

Rasputin wrote:

My input would have to concern cona chris.  He should be banned from this board.  Thank you and happy new year! 

: )

HEY! :)

Regarding your other post Rasputin - I'm not sure that the dynamics of a capital are set up such that if you have two and lose one, you are out of the game - not sure the game/site can do that at this point.

Right now you don't get too strong right away after you eliminate someone, which is a good thing, because if you got a lot right away (like an elimination bonus or cards) you could nail someone who left 1 in their capital and be in great shape to win the game instantly.

Finally - Squint Gnome - cool that you tracked your stats.  The luck score isn't too hot overall, but since you have played 500 games, the luck isn't all that bad cumulatively (less than 1/3 a unit a game or so if I am reading it right)

Cona Chris wrote:

Regarding your other post Rasputin - I'm not sure that the dynamics of a capital are set up such that if you have two and lose one, you are out of the game - not sure the game/site can do that at this point.

There is an option to have capitals be 'destroyed' upon taking them, which means they no longer count as a capital.  Not exactly what Rasputin was talking about, but in the same ballpark.

If you have two capitals and I take one of them, lets say the the one in your non original continent, do I gain access to that colors tech tree?

Cona,

Yes, you are right the units per game overall is low. I have another stat I track which is luck / expected kills.  For these 498 games this number is (-111 luck) / (31,535 expected kills) = -.35%.  So for 31,535 expected kill, I got 111 less than expected.  It is a low number, but since it should tend to zero I am not sure  if it is higher than it should be after over 31,000 expected kills.  The other thing is that there is a strong correlation between negative luck and a loss in a 1 v 1 game, even for good players.  So a negative trend in luck usually correllates to a losing streak.   Neat stuff ...

Rasputin wrote:

If you have two capitals and I take one of them, lets say the the one in your non original continent, do I gain access to that colors tech tree?

Yes you do.  Also, all the labs (territories with flasks) that you control produce units in both flasks now.

SquintGnome wrote:

Cona,

Yes, you are right the units per game overall is low. I have another stat I track which is luck / expected kills.  For these 498 games this number is (-111 luck) / (31,535 expected kills) = -.35%.  So for 31,535 expected kill, I got 111 less than expected.  It is a low number, but since it should tend to zero I am not sure  if it is higher than it should be after over 31,000 expected kills.  The other thing is that there is a strong correlation between negative luck and a loss in a 1 v 1 game, even for good players.  So a negative trend in luck usually correllates to a losing streak.   Neat stuff ...

Without doing the math, I'd say you are well within the range of "normal" for so many expected kills.  But you do have a good point about luck, a 2-player game will often depend on luck, even if one opponent is a lot more skilled at that board than another.

Kjeld wrote:

Actually, what would be interesting to try is allowing players the option to skip over some technologies in the tree. In other words, each tech would be attackable from the beaker instead of the tech immediately before it. Might open up some interesting options.

Gameplay wise that makes sense, but I think there should be more of a cost to go to the powerful things, and the tech tree aspect like a Civ game would be undermined if the Mongols could skip Horseback Riding and go straight to tanks!

Gimli - Right now I'm thinking of what Yertle said and allowing them at a disadvantage.  Probably -1 to attack or else +1 to defense.   Here's the math for a couple situations:

want to jump right to espionage

no skipping: 5+10+15+20=50 neutrals to kill.  .85*50=43 + 3 left behind = ~46 units to get there.

skip with -1 to attack: 20 neutrals 1.42*20 = ~29 units to get there.

skip with +1 to defense: 20 neutrals 1.24*20 = ~25 units to get there

want to jump right to nuclear ICBM

no skipping: 5+10+15=30 neutrals to kill.  .85*30=26 + 2 left behind = ~28 units to get there.

skip with -1 to attack: 15 neutrals 1.42*15 = ~21 units to get there.

skip with +1 to defense: 15 neutrals 1.24*15 = ~19 units to get there

want to jump right to computers

no skipping: 2+4+6=10 neutrals to kill.  .85*10=9 + 2 left behind = ~11 units to get there.

skip with -1 to attack: 6 neutrals 1.42*6 = ~9 units to get there.

skip with +1 to defense: 6 neutrals 1.24*6  = ~8 units to get there

It looks to me like the -1 to attack is pretty good.  You can get there a bit faster, but you miss the stuff along the way, and you don't get there that much faster.  The jump directly to Espionage does save you approx. 17 tech units, but not having any ICBM is a pretty big disadvantage that I think just about balances out.

Sweet. Looks good to me!

Just for completion, here are all the other changes I am thinking of making.  I still plan on doing an 'advanced' version of the board with 6 technologies in each branch, but that will take a lot longer.  These are just the quick fixes:

Already made:

• War techs now give +1/+2 attack bonus instead of +2/+3
• Capitals defend from ground attacks at +2 instead of +3.

This does make the USA starting bonus less worthwhile, so I am thinking of doing something to counter that. I'm thinking probably have the USA get -3 on their war tech starting neutrals (instead of the current -2).

In addition to the +1/+2 war tech attack bonus change, the boost to USA starting bonus, and the reduction in capital defense to "only" +2, I was planning on making a few more changes.

• Have capital cities be worth +1 units.
• Have cards on for every scenario.
• Add assimilation rate of 15% when you capture a capital.
• Allow attacks from flask to advanced techs at -1.

hmm i feel like if your going to skip it should be at -2, just my thoughts tho!

-E

At -2 to attack, you can expect to lose about 2.37 attackers for every defender.  So let's look at the #s:

want to jump right to espionage

skip with -2 to attack: 20 neutrals 2.37*20 = ~47 units to get there.

want to jump right to nuclear ICBM

skip with -2 to attack: 15 neutrals 2.37*15 = ~36 units to get there.

want to jump right to computers

skip with -2 to attack: 6 neutrals 2.37*6 = ~14units to get there.

So if I made it -2 to attack, it would actually take longer to skip over techs than to go through them, so no one would sensibly every do it. 

Ozyman wrote:

This does make the USA starting bonus less worthwhile, so I am thinking of doing something to counter that. I'm thinking probably have the USA get -3 on their war tech starting neutrals (instead of the current -2).

Not sure this is necessary... the war techs were too powerful before, and USA was probably too powerful as a result.  Seems like USA is more on par with the other seats now.

Too late, I already changed it. ;)   Based on how thoroughly you are kicking my butt in the test game, I'm thinking USA is at a disadvantage now... kind of joking.

But seriously, I think it was Cona Chris who gave some stats (that I can't find now), that showed that all 4 civs were pretty equal in wins previously.