Treasures of Galápagos [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

Sorry I don't really have any advice for you. I really just don't know how you can make this map work.

We can change the starting value of assigned territories now. Enough neutrals between things and the right start value and nobody is going to die before they move.

Mmmm I wasn't planning on having too many large neutral terts, certainly nothing over 3.

I've added that extra tert to give Reef 2 starter an extra out in this version 3...please F5.

[edbeard]

well you still have reefs that are really close together

5 and 6

7 and 8

Those could probably kill each other on their first go. Do we want to have a ton of neutrals in between to stop this from happening? Well, that 'solves the problem' but is that any fun? Does it make for a good map?

All of the Luggers connect right? So, any of the reefs that are within 2 territories of the Luggers are in danger as well. Not just the reef2 to reef3 example I used before.


I just can't imagine how this map can work at the moment. Unless you wanted to put a ton of neutrals everywhere. But, I don't think this is fun and I don't think this is what you envisioned.

[Coleman]

3 neutrals and people starting with 10 armies on their territory combats this pretty well doesn't it? 15 has to eat through 13 to kill someone spread over two territories.

[cairnswk]

well you still have reefs that are really close together

5 and 6

7 and 8

Those could probably kill each other on their first go. Do we want to have a ton of neutrals in between to stop this from happening? Well, that 'solves the problem' but is that any fun? Does it make for a good map?

All of the Luggers connect right? So, any of the reefs that are within 2 territories of the Luggers are in danger as well. Not just the reef2 to reef3 example I used before.


I just can't imagine how this map can work at the moment. Unless you wanted to put a ton of neutrals everywhere. But, I don't think this is fun and I don't think this is what you envisioned.

\

No i wanted fast games for this map, that's why they are close together.

[edbeard]

I realize that but we can't have players being eliminated on the first or second round can we?

Right now I think this would happen quite a bit.

[cairnswk]

I realize that but we can't have players being eliminated on the first or second round can we?

Right now I think this would happen quite a bit.

Mmmm...i don't know edbeard. I have done this analysis of reef to reef by closest route....

Reef 1 - 2 to nearest lugger, 5 to reef 2.
Reef 2 - 3 to reef 4, 3 to Reef 3
Reef 3 - 3 to Reef 4, 4 to Reef 2
Reef 4 - 4 to Reef 3, 3 to Reef 2, 3 to Reef 7, 3 to Reef 6.
Reef 5 - 3 to Reef 6, 4 to Reef 4
Reef 6 - 3 to Reef 5, 5 to Reef 7
Reef 7 - 4 to reef 4, 3 to Reef 8
Reef 8, 3 to Reef 7

I think there is a good even spread there, with some routes taking via bonuses, armies are not going to disappear in the first or second round unless someone gets very bad dice and wastes all their armies in one go, and that can happen at any time as you know.

[edbeard]

yes but there's also the Luggers. Those within 2 territories of the luggers are also in danger.

Many of the reefs start within 2 of a lugger. Like I reasoned in my example above, people are going to be eliminated because of going after that lugger.


Furthermore, I start with 3 on my lugger. 3 + 3 (for standard territory bonus)+3 (for my reef). I think 9 armies can do away with 3 territories quite easily. Four territories isn't out of the question either.


It just seems like it'll be a map where luck is more involved than strategy. But, I think we both know my position by now so I'll let other people do some discussing.

[cairnswk]

yes but there's also the Luggers. Those within 2 territories of the luggers are also in danger.

Many of the reefs start within 2 of a lugger. Like I reasoned in my example above, people are going to be eliminated because of going after that lugger.


Furthermore, I start with 3 on my lugger. 3 + 3 (for standard territory bonus)+3 (for my reef). I think 9 armies can do away with 3 territories quite easily. Four territories isn't out of the question either.


It just seems like it'll be a map where luck is more involved than strategy. But, I think we both know my position by now so I'll let other people do some discussing.

ok.....i AM hearing you...but I agree let's see what some others have to say.

[cairnswk]

This maps needs some gameplay discussion on the ability to have a 2 player game end quickly.

[cairnswk]

Does anyone want to give me heads up on this question?

Statement: I want to work this so that each player loses an army per round until they have secured a water source.
When they have secured the water source (of which there will be the bonus of the dive start position and the water will be enough to compensate for that lose (should because of the xml, it has to continue occuring for the duration of the game)

Question. is this possible with the xml.

[DiM]

Does anyone want to give me heads up on this question?

Statement: I want to work this so that each player loses an army per round until they have secured a water source.
When they have secured the water source (of which there will be the bonus of the dive start position and the water will be enough to compensate for that lose (should because of the xml, it has to continue occuring for the duration of the game)

Question. is this possible with the xml.

i'm not sure i understand what you want but here's what i think it should be like.

each person starts with a snorkel and everything else is neutral.

since the snorkel is worth 3 you can't give the player a -1 until the water is taken. but you can do this: make the snorkel worth -1 and make snorkel+water=+4. this way when the guy starts he has a -1 when he takes the water he has 4-1=3.

but if each person starts with a snorkel then the gameplay is very screwed especially in an assassin game. for example reef 6 is 1 terit away from reef 4 and reef 7. so in theory with good dice he can kill either of them in round 1 and win the game.

[cairnswk]

i'm not sure i understand what you want but here's what i think it should be like.

each person starts with a snorkel and everything else is neutral.

correct, and yes bonuses can change.

since the snorkel is worth 3 you can't give the player a -1 until the water is taken. but you can do this: make the snorkel worth -1 and make snorkel+water=+4. this way when the guy starts he has a -1 when he takes the water he has 4-1=3.

OK in understand that, but where do the armies come from to take the water. one would have to start with 6 armies or more to get to a water sources, and if you fail then you're up shits creek.
Surely if someone can't get the water in the first round, then this idea is defunct. Some water sources are well away from the snorkel.
neutrals in line to water sources would have to be 1 or 2.

So is it possible to start with 6 armies or more for each player.

but if each person starts with a snorkel then the gameplay is very screwed especially in an assassin game. for example reef 6 is 1 terit away from reef 4 and reef 7. so in theory with good dice he can kill either of them in round 1 and win the game.

no reef 6 is 3 or 4 terts away from reef 4. and reef 6 is 5 terts away from reef 7. the reefs are impassables.

[Tieryn]

Just from a quick glance, in the first paragraph, shouldn't that be "treasures" not "natural trasures as you can for botanists"

[cairnswk]

Just from a quick glance, in the first paragraph, shouldn't that be "treasures" not "natural trasures as you can for botanists"

Fixed, thanks Tieryn.

VErsion 4 below....

Added another tert near Reef 6 around Isabela
Added more reef to ensure Reef 6 is hard to escape from
Changed the snorkel bonus to -1.

[Coleman]