PDA

View Full Version : Anyone have a good idea for a multiplayer ladder campaign?



NakedFisherman
18-01-2006, 21:22
Due to time constraints (and for a change of pace), I'd like to do a multiplayer ladder campaign, but I'm unsure how to set it up.

Anyone have any ideas?

shadowprince
19-01-2006, 01:40
do you mean like several games of four players a table? that sholdn't be that hard, go with the two players who accumelate the most victory points or have the most left go on to the next round, Or the team that wins proceded if you go for team.

NakedFisherman
19-01-2006, 02:32
I mean a ladder campaign with more than two participants.

Keller
19-01-2006, 15:22
We've been running one for a few weeks now, playing anywhere from 4-9 players per game. Each player randomly generates 3 territories (no, its not a map campaign) to control, and then each game, more territories are generated so that half of the peopel playing can earn an additional land. The territories generate a certain amount of Gold, Wood, and Minerals, which the player spends to develop his territories. As you develop a land, it begins to deplete the resources, so build wisely!

We throw out the standard army composition rules, and instead determine it based on what you have constructed. For instance, I am running my Ogre Kingdoms in the campaign, and I currently have 2023 army points to spend, which I can have up to 6 core units, 2 special, 2 rare, 3 characters (of which 2 can be Lords), with some additional restrictions as to what the units in the army can be. So far we haven't come across any problems with army composition, due largely to the small number of points (2 Ogre Lords would take up a large part of my army), and the fact that they are team games so there are plenty of units on both sides.

As for playing the games, we randomly select teams. This means the point levels per sides are often quite different, since everyone has a different sized army depending on what they have done previously in the campaign. Currently, my 2000 points is probably the highest by about 4-600 points. During the game, every player tracks what they would earn victory points for, totaling them at the end of the game and dividing that score by their army size to obtain a 'victory ratio'. Larger armies are not always a good idea, because you have to kill more in order to maintain a high victory score. Smaller armies, while at a disadvantage on the table top, can more easily have the highest scores, simply because they only have to kill a quarter-half of the enenmy instead of whiping them out completely. Once the game is decided, all players compare their victory scores and the half with the highest scores can claim an additional territory. This means that even if you lose the game, you can still win if you do better than your opponents.

The only issue I don't like with how we calculate victory is that is does not take into account how much of your own army is left at the end of the game. For the next one, I am going to rework this as best as I can. Perhaps a penalty to your score based on what percent of your army is lost, or a bonus for someone who completely takes a player out of the game. I'll have to work on it.