Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm having trouble matching up your map to the gameplay scheme... And some of the bonuses don't quite sit well with me.
carlpgoodrich wrote:One thought is to have sort of player specific bonuses. What I mean is "Hold the monestary and the church" for +3", for example, and "hold sawmill and carpentry for +3", "butcher and grocer", etc. This would motivate expansion in different ways for each player and would open up the map.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Maybe, but note that this map isn't conquest, so players start spread out all over the map, capitals notwithstanding. So they wouldn't quite be player specific.
Victor Sullivan wrote:Methinks Towers G-J need to be +3: 3 borders, 4 territories. Seems justified.
thenobodies80 wrote:About connections, i can clarify grocer and tavern, schack c and tower f. About the others you listed i'm not sure...to me it's clear that they border(since there's a road that makes a connection)....but what i can do is to draw something like what i did to link alchemist, church and tayt square....that triangular shape....it could help?
carlpgoodrich wrote:Regarding the gameplay, I am worried that games will stalemate really fast. Everyone will get their city bonus, but then there is relatively little motivation to expand and lots of motivation to protect (the losing condition). Do other people see this as a problem?
thenobodies80 wrote:All names or do you mean only the gray labels for the cities?
Users browsing this forum: Captain Cool