First Nations of North America [Quenched]

[ender516]

so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?

Looks like you're having a little trouble with your vowels.
Seriously, though, I think that change would make this map pretty much perfect.

[iancanton]

I kinda like the idea of making Nimiipuu a 1, it kills a couple birds with one stone, plus it provides minimal protection for bordering bonuses (a 1 is a lot different than a 2 in terms of defense).

so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?

this is an excellent suggestion. the single neutral prevents someone from starting with the bonus, but a player can bring it into play immediately without committing a heap of troops.

u can reduce the number of resultant random neutrals by making tunimiut and taino start neutral too, so that no-one starts with greenland or circum-caribbean. the total number of random-starting regions will then be 69, meaning that 1v1 games start with 23 regions each, 2v2 with 17 each and 3v3 with 11 each.

a three territory bonuses really needs to start neutral in a 72 territory map? come on guys...

the 3-region bonuses do not need to start neutral on this large map. however, if nimiipuu starts neutral, then there will be at least 2 additional random neutrals floating around except in the rare 5-player and 7-player settings, so u might as well put them where they'll be doing something useful. if u make it so that tunimiut and taino are each neutral 1 instead of neutral 3, then u'll actually reduce the number of neutral troops on the board. although taino is more important than tunimiut, since circum-caribbean is a +2 bonus, the influence of both of these is secondary to that of nimiipuu, which is the one that needs to be fixed. i'd prefer all three to start as neutral but, if u choose to code only one fixed neutral region, then let it be nimiipuu.

ian.

[2dimes]

So, ah... no one from saskatchewan has been by to comment then?

[wolfpack0530]

I dont think that dropping the plateau is that big of a deal. ive dropped it 50% of the games I have played, and felt no real advantage to having it. However, keeping enough forces around it to keep it is a headache sometimes. I think making nimipuu a neutral 1, or 2, makes it an easier card spot for those going first, but making it a 3 gives border protection for other bonuses. I say leave it alone.

On a map that big, 1 army doesnt make a huge difference. Just roll one less '1' during the entire course of the game and call it even .

[natty dread]

I feel like the Great Basin and Plateau bonuses could almost be combined. They are almost always held together anyway...

[Tisha]

I'm not combining them

[MrBenn]

I know that there has been some discussion about adding a neutral, but I'm not convinced that anything needs to be changed...

[Tisha]

I know that there has been some discussion about adding a neutral, but I'm not convinced that anything needs to be changed...

I've played it plenty, and have seen no real advantage gained..

What people are telling me is they would like the starting numbers different in team games.

like doubles.. first team to go gets 18 territories
triples.. first team gets 12 territories

One less territory would get rid of that.

[Incandenza]

Yeah, that's really the main thing... and as always, it's not a deal-breaker, the map could certainly move out of beta as is. But removing the first-mover from both dubs and trips would be preferable, and if that can be achieved by tossing a neutral 1 (or several) onto easily-dropped bonuses, so much the better.

[MrBenn]

Right - I'd assumed that people were getting concerned about the small bonuses, without considering the "golden" numbers

so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?

So you're going to add a neutral that will start with a single army.... right?

[Echospree]

I think making only the one territory start neutral, and letting the rest fall as they may is the ideal solution.

[Esn]

Just wanted to give a thumbs-up to this map. I'm playing it right now. It has some very interesting strategic qualities, and is easy to understand.

In contrast to what someone said earlier, the arctic bonus is quite useful. I started by taking the Northeast and Greenland. With only 2 territories needed to defend a 3-army bonus, it's not a bad place to expand from. From that, you need to add only 3 more points of defence to get the 6-army arctic bonus, and most of those are connected.

It feels like a very finished map already. As for making one territory start with 1 neutral army, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me, one way or the other. But I'm not a statistician. If those who are say that it would make it more balanced, then go for it.

[Tisha]

Right - I'd assumed that people were getting concerned about the small bonuses, without considering the "golden" numbers

so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?

So you're going to add a neutral that will start with a single army.... right?

I would prefer a neutral 2... so it's not too easy.


is that all I need to do?

[MrBenn]

I would prefer a neutral 2... so it's not too easy.

is that all I need to do?

As far as I can tell, then yes. (and I'd also prefer a neutral 2).

I took the liberty of adjusting the XML: http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283/First_Nations_North_America.xml

I'll send this change to lack...

[Esn]

A potential objection to the idea of having Nimiipuu start neutral is that it leaves only 71 territories, which means that there will be either 2 or 3 neutral territories no matter how many players there are. And that also affects how many armies everyone starts out receiving - in most cases, it will be 1 less than if there were no neutrals.