Moderator: Cartographers
koontz1973 wrote:Bonus names changed to suggested names.
koontz1973 wrote:Darkened the board.
Made the pussat borders the same as normal territ lines.
Are there any game play concerns now?
natty_dread wrote:Why is Pusat 8? I think it should be max. 6.
koontz1973 wrote:natty_dread wrote:Why is Pusat 8? I think it should be max. 6.
I defered that judgement to the boys in blue who suggested it. It does seem high so a 6 or 7 might be better. A 6 territ region with 5 borders is going to be hard to get but harder to hold. I cannot imagine this being grabbed early and held.
koontz1973 wrote:and the boys in blue want a 7.
isaiah40 wrote:Sorry, but Pusat should be higher because as I have stated before Pusat has every territory but one having to defend. There are 8 adjacent territories that can attack Pusat, while Barat only has 5 adjacent territories to defend against. While 8 may be on the high side 7 I believe is the optimum number for Pusat.
Victor Sullivan wrote: This will also add a bit of diversity to your bonus values.
Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, well now you've decreased Pusat's borders to 4, so 6 is rather steep now. It should be lowered to a +5. This will also add a bit of diversity to your bonus values.
-Sully
natty_dread wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote: This will also add a bit of diversity to your bonus values.
Which is relevant because...?
koontz1973 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, well now you've decreased Pusat's borders to 4, so 6 is rather steep now. It should be lowered to a +5. This will also add a bit of diversity to your bonus values.
-Sully
I have never heard of diversity used as an excuse to lower or make higher a bonus number.
A 6 region bonus area with 4 borders that can be attacked from 7 territs in a central location allows this to be a six. The same can be said of Utara. This has the same bonus of 3 as Barat Daya, Timur and Tenggara with the same borders but has one extra territ. 3 is good but a 4 would would slightly over value it. I am now more than happy for the values to stay as they are unless anyone can give a reason to lower or raise them.
Victor Sullivan wrote:A map is less appealing if it has only a few different bonus area sizes and values. As it stands, we have four +3's, two +6's, and a +2 - not great.
Victor Sullivan wrote:In this case, the number of territories adjacent to the bonus area isn't enough to justify a +1 on its own. However, if you factor that along with the bonus area's centrality (which is synonymous, really), that would justify an increase of +1 from the standard +4 it would otherwise be valued at. And, if you compare Pusat to Barat, Barat is much harder to hold - 8 territories, 6 borders (could be reduced to 9 territories, 5 borders with Gambir) as opposed to Pusat's 6 territories and 4 borders.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users