RjBeals wrote:yeah something needs to be done about those port cities. Maybe a dotted line - or, I know you don't want to introduce more colors, but it may work.? Or how about a unique flag? each ship fly's a flag, match it to the anchor.
Seamus76 wrote:- Bethel Port - Right now the line kind of runs through the top of the tert,
Maybe. I certainly understand though, see you when I see you.koontz1973 wrote:Is that a hint. I need to look at R&C for isaiah first. So let me have the weekend. Sorry for being slow but I need to get my head around that one. But I will say, you are mostly there now.
I'm not sold on this just yet. I see that it will be difficult to hold the Far North bonus, but I'm not sure that should be the criteria for splitting regions up. Is it a damn hard bonus to hold? Yes it is, but that's also why it's a +8, making it worth fighting for if the situation is right. If not players should focus on other bonuses and use the Far North as a battle ground instead of a bonus. Another main reason, as of now the graphics (regions and colors) are very well balanced IMO, from an optical standpoint, and I see the split as potentially throwing that off. I'll give it a shot though, as you have never lead me astray, but then it will mean more crowding of the legend to add in another line of text, etc. As for actually breaking the region up, my idea would be to use the same purple, but go lighter or darker for one of the new regions.koontz1973 wrote:Far North, you will never hold this. I would suggesting a split up of this region. The reason for this is anyone who starts in the south has won the game.
North 4 borders
Point hope, Franklin point, point barrow, nigalek, coleville, kaktovik
North West 3 borders
Noatak, Koyukak, Nome, Nualto hills, St lawrence.
Yeah, thanks.koontz1973 wrote:The base camps and routes all look solid. You can put those to bed now.
Not a problem, makes sense.koontz1973 wrote:Ports.
Gulf of Alaska - 3
Bearing Sea - 2
Chukchi sea - 2
Move the one from Sitka to Valdes. This will do the same job but allow South central access to one.
I get lowering the auto-deploy to +2, and having any large ships that start neutral be 4n, but why have the 2n on the outbound small boat, instead of the other way, where the inbound small boat is 2n which makes it harder for someone to easily see what is sitting on the ship. Then the outbound small boat would be 1n, to make it easier to get out from the large ship. But to that point, personally I would rather them both be 2n, rather than 1n each, or each one different (1n and 2n). Also keep in mind each player will start with at least 1 large ship, depending on number of players. I would love your thoughts on that as well. In 1v1, each player should start with 2 I would say, and 8 players games each player would start with 1.koontz1973 wrote:Ships auto deploys, consider lowering this to a 2 with a 4 neutral. Small boats can have a 1 going in and a two heading out.
SS Polaris - 4 neutrals
Clark- 1 neutral
Pryor - 2 neutral
Makes sense.koontz1973 wrote:One way boat lines of attack.
Change this to
One way supply routes
Will start mocking that up. Thanks.koontz1973 wrote:Can you fill in the starts for me and add a neutrals map to the first post. I will grab the bonuses for you later toady for all regions including a far north whole and the split up far north.
Seamus76 wrote: Is it a damn hard bonus to hold? Yes it is, but that's also why it's a +8
Seamus76 wrote:I get lowering the auto-deploy to +2, and having any large ships that start neutral be 4n, but why have the 2n on the outbound small boat, instead of the other way, where the inbound small boat is 2n which makes it harder for someone to easily see what is sitting on the ship.
Ok, I'll see what I can do.koontz1973 wrote:Seamus76 wrote: Is it a damn hard bonus to hold? Yes it is, but that's also why it's a +8
Because it is so large and hard to get hold of, it will be ignored completely. Even at +8. You could make it +15 and still have it ignored. Why go for a bonus if by the time you get it, others have gained the smaller ones in the south and won the game. Central is fine as it as it becomes a wasteland fitting the exploration theme of the map.
I understood the idea to lower the auto-deploy to +2 (and was your thought to have all of the large ships start with 4 troops?), I'm ok with that, I just didn't understand about the neutrals on the small boats. I still don't actually, but not that I completely have to.koontz1973 wrote:Seamus76 wrote:I get lowering the auto-deploy to +2, and having any large ships that start neutral be 4n, but why have the 2n on the outbound small boat, instead of the other way, where the inbound small boat is 2n which makes it harder for someone to easily see what is sitting on the ship.
The reason for the lowering of the auto is this. Hold it for 3 rounds you have 6 troops instead of 9, 5 rounds you have 10 instead of 15. The payback is high for the amount of neutrals you have to fight through to get it (5). The reason the extra single (2) going out is this, it locks the autos up a bit. You have to wait for 3 or 4 rounds to get anything worth having. The single means you can come out every other turn. So you want the neutrals to be low enough for players to want to get the auto deploys whilst high enough to make them think about coming out. Hence the reason for the different neutrals.
I did want them handed out as starting positions. So 1-4 player games would each start with 2 large ships per player, and 5-8 player games would each get 1 per player. So my question, the non-distributed ships would start 4n, but the others being handed would they also start with 4 troops (or basically 2, and then on the first turn get +2 auto-deploy to equal 4)?koontz1973 wrote:Large ships should all start with a 4 neutral.
Did you want them to be handed out as positions as well? If so, then a max of two with an underlying neutral to make the others start neutral.
Aleutians needs a neutral so you can code that post as one.
I get it, I'm not sure players will really think about it that way, and by giving players large ships as starting positions I think having the inbound ships be 2n keeps them a little more protected from someone attacking from a port. Although it is just 1 more neutral, I like having both small ships consistent with each other at 2n. Of course it's still early, so we can see what discussion there might be on the matter. (Not that there has been much discussion except between the two of us ).koontz1973 wrote:The idea I was thinking behind the boats is this. When you go to a ship, you go empty handed. But leaving your boat heavily laden with supplies makes the voyage a bit more tricky. Seems to be in keeping with the theme.
Thanks. Ok, so your saying to do smaller combined maps and bonuses for the two South regions, and the Inside Passage plus Aleutian, as I did for the full Far North? That's not bad but I will have to decrease the fonts of the large bonuses names which could lead to issues with the small map. Also adding in "Islands" to Aleutian will definitely take up a lot more room. But if that's the direction you're talking about let me know and I'll give it a shot I guess.koontz1973 wrote:I like the north now. Much more interesting. How about:
North combined +10
South combined +14
Aleutian and Inside passage +9 (extra one as they are apart)
Drop the s from Aleutians and add islands in the legend. They are know as the Aleutian islands.
Apart from this, I think you are done.
Seamus76 wrote:But the other confirms what your idea was, yes?koontz1973 wrote:Bonuses I still need to run.
Users browsing this forum: w1nner