Central America [Quenched]

[Elegarth]

No problem. I have lived here for 25 years so...

[Incandenza]

-This still definitely applies as an option if others show interest! Two region bonuses can be a pain in the ass, and three may be the solution we need. Gotta see if anyone else feels it's the way to go or not

I can definitely get on board with adding a non-border terit to el sal.

[oaktown]

my two cents...

I see some talk of adding a territory to guatemala to "restore" the map to 32 territories, but I think it should be pointed out that the map currently has 33 nterritories. We began with 32, but added the sea routes, then dropped a territory in Costa Rica. 33. And just in case I counted them.

I'm personally quite comfortable with El Salvador having just two territories. When we hashed this out month ago the logic was that once you secure the country it's not exactly as if you will take over the map. A +1 isn't devastating, there is no easy expansion from El Salvador, and you're sure to have somebody next to you ready to take you out right quick. Personally if I started there in a game I might grab the bonus, but then defend it minimally and use my armies elsewhere. Even Belize is a better start because you can expand into Guatemala and minimize your borders.

There are possible fixes other than adding a territory. We could expand to eight starting positions, but the trouble with this is that it actually increases the chances of dropping El Salvador in 1v1 games. A better solution would be to scrap the starting territories and just start one of the El Salvador territories neutral; with 33 terits there is going to be at least one neutral in 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 player games anyway. This would bring the map back to the original 32, which means that in 1v1 and 3 player games a player needs two takes, not just one, to get up to 12 territories and that one extra army - a bonus effect. As a neutral territory the player who starts there would have to ask himself if it's worth a +1 bonus to waste his first turn hitting neutral armies.

[AndyDufresne]

I'd be fine with El Salvador starting neutral---but I kind of like the chance of getting lucky drop/taking out a player's troops if I've got troops in the adjacent territory.


--Andy

[lgoasklucyl]

I'd be fine with El Salvador starting neutral---but I kind of like the chance of getting lucky drop/taking out a player's troops if I've got troops in the adjacent territory.


--Andy

Would starting all of El Salvador neutral solve anything? That would just result in Belize being a far more favorable bonus.

Strategy-wise, good team players are far more likely to go for the three terit bonus if it means taking another players troops out than a 2 territ, neutral bonus where they could lose troops taking no one elses.

I think if anything is to be done it should be the third, non-border territory personally.

[AndyDufresne]

What if the sea route was neutral? I'd like to see a neutral free mainland.


--Andy

[Incandenza]

If given the choice, I'd rather see A) a 3-terit el sal or B) a 2-terit el sal with 1 neutral, than a neutral in one of the sea lanes...

[lgoasklucyl]

If given the choice, I'd rather see A) a 3-terit el sal or B) a 2-terit el sal with 1 neutral, than a neutral in one of the sea lanes...

I personally favor option a very, VERY highly in this situation.

I'm telling everyone now- if one of the territs in a two territ bonus starts neutral it will rarely be used. If anything is neutral in a bonus, it should grant at least an extra +1 to merit being grabbed by an experienced team player.

The only thing I wouldn't mind seeing neutral would be the sea routes, as at least those may NEED to be held to move somewhere.

Maybe I'll poll it with the next version- people LOVE polls

[iancanton]

I'm telling everyone now- if one of the territs in a two territ bonus starts neutral it will rarely be used. If anything is neutral in a bonus, it should grant at least an extra +1 to merit being grabbed by an experienced team player.

i tend to agree. el salvador has to be at least a +2 bonus, whether it has 3 regions (with start positions) or 2 regions (with starting neutrals on 1 region). aesthetically, i prefer a 3-region el salvador.

ian.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm telling everyone now- if one of the territs in a two territ bonus starts neutral it will rarely be used. If anything is neutral in a bonus, it should grant at least an extra +1 to merit being grabbed by an experienced team player.

Agreed with lgoasklucyl wholeheartedly.


--Andy

[lgoasklucyl]

Thanks Ian and Andy for the support- I added the poll to see what everyone else thinks (we all know people love polls here in the foundry ).

Vote everyone!

I have to huge exams tomorrow, so I won't be pouring out a new version probably until early next week (a bunch of commencement coverage for the paper this weekend/moving out and whatnot), but would like to include this gameplay change (if supported) in version 9 =)

Thanks!

[oaktown]

I'm telling everyone now- if one of the territs in a two territ bonus starts neutral it will rarely be used. If anything is neutral in a bonus, it should grant at least an extra +1 to merit being grabbed by an experienced team player.

I've played the Berlin map quite a lot, and the neutral airfields are almost always taken... and those are a +1 deployed to the territories, which is not nearly as beneficial as a traditional +1 bonus. If I were to drop Usultan and three neutrals stood between me and a quick bonus on a small map, I'd hit it - especially if i had one of the three territories surrounding from which I could bring in reinforcements.

I should also note that in 1v1 games (which is really where the problems lie) there will be 11 neutrals on the board regardless of whether or not we predetermine where one of them will go.

I'd be fine with El Salvador starting neutral---but I kind of like the chance of getting lucky drop/taking out a player's troops if I've got troops in the adjacent territory.

Since we've gone starting-bonus-probability crazy in the past two weeks (maybe we should worry about this stuff just a bit less?) there's about a 10% chance of somebody starting with El Salvador in a 1v1 or 3 player game, and about a 3% chance of somebody starting with the canal/shipping lane bonus. I'd prefer not to see the ships go neutral because 33 (or even 32) makes for nice starts; 31 not so much.

10% is a bit high, and folks hate neutrals. Alternatively, we can code just two starting positions for 1v1 games to keep one player from dropping both. Coding just two start positions won't change the # of starting territories/player - it'll remain 11 territories each. There would be no effect on larger games, but in larger games it's less of an issue - its much harder to hold a bonus against two (or more) enemies than against one, and the odds of dropping it go down - about 5% with 4 players, less than 3% with five players, etc.

[MrBenn]

Fly to El Salvador,
I don't know why, and I don't know what for;
I've seen the picture for myself.

Where did that label go?
I tried it out but it didn't work, so
I'll choose the picture for myself.

[iancanton]

perhaps belmopan region ought to be renamed belize city. belmopan is the capital, but belize city is ten times the size.

http://www.belizediscover.com/Belmopan.htm
http://www.belizediscover.com/BelizeCity.htm

rename guatemala region as guatemala city to distinguish it from the bonus zone of that name.

ian.

[lostatlimbo]

having just returned from an extended trip through parts of Central America, i was glad to see that this map is progressing so well.

one thing stands out to me - Quiche (in Guatemala) isn't really indicative of that region. I think what you are looking for is "Las Verapaces" - the proper name for the region (which is home to Semuc Champey - a beautiful national landmark).

my guatamala geography isn't good enough! the country seems to be one big city with lots of little villages. maybe maritovw might have an idea for an extra region if u decide that u want to do this?

other than the name change above, the regions are fairly accurate. the only thing i see missing is the Pacific slope. on the map, it would cut Xela in half and take a chunk of Guatemala City too. geographically, this is a very different region from elsewhere in the country as the highlands quickly drop off to the Pacific Ocean.

HOWEVER...

perhaps belmopan region ought to be renamed belize city. belmopan is the capital, but belize city is ten times the size.

Belize is much more lacking. rather than renaming Belmopan to Belize City, there should be 4 regions - the Cayes to the east, Orange Walk in the north, Belize City in the middle and Cayo in the south.

most of southern belize is thick, uninhabited jungle. to call that whole region either Belmopan or Belize City is misrepresenting half the country. the road connecting those two cities essentially splits the country in half and neither of them are anywhere near the Izabal region of Guatemala.

if you make some space in the middle and make they Cayes connect only to Orange Walk and the new Belize City territory, you'll have it just right and get that extra territory you're looking for.


Mock up for visual reference

and a real Belize map that better illustrates my point
http://www.moon.com/files/map-images/bel_00_Belize.jpg

also, i'm from Guatemala and "Xela" is just a short name for a city named "Xelajú", so i think you should rename that territory (i mentioned this a long time ago, but it was never addressed)...

this perplexes me. the actual name of Xela is actually Quetzaltenango. Xelaju is the old Mayan name for the city, but Xela is the primary name used both locally and in reference. if you're going to shorten it from its proper name, why not use the more common, well-recognized nickname?