Flanders 1302V15[Beta] major changes! P19

[MrBenn]

Updated files have been sent to lackattack

[MrBenn]

Updated files have been sent to lackattack

And they're live.

Let's see how things go now...

[DubWarrior]

Thanks, I'm a right: I still see a 5 neutral on Arras and a 4 neutral on Brugge,
instead of the changed 3 neutrals for both...

[MrBenn]

Thanks, I'm a right: I still see a 5 neutral on Arras and a 4 neutral on Brugge,
instead of the changed 3 neutrals for both...

The neutral values won;t change on existing games; only on new ones.

[ben79]

you should put more than 3 neutral on bruge and arras ... 3 is too easy for a +2 auto-deploy

[jefjef]

you should put more than 3 neutral on bruge and arras ... 3 is too easy for a +2 auto-deploy

I've never understood why Brugge is +2. As unaccessible as it is +1 is more than enough.

And why is Arras going to a 3 neutral?

[DubWarrior]

See pag. 19, replies by myself, MrBenn and Pamoa why Brugge and Arras have now a 3 neutral.
Brugge has a +2 because this is a historical map about a real conflict, in which Brugge played an important role.
Gameplay-wise this has been translated to the +2 auto-deploy for Arras and Brugge.

[ben79]

still too easy with a 3 neutral, 4 or 5 neutral would be much better for real

[pamoa]

it need to be easy and tempting
so the main fight will be for those

[Leehar]

I understand why it was moved down to 3 but I still don't think it's a smart idea. a person is able to take it easily, and once he controls it, control of the game becomes too easy, I understand why you want to make it come more into play, but just a 3 for a +2 seems way too small. If you look around at other maps, you'll find very few that are like it.
I just don't get why a normal neutral 3 can be worth +2, if I'm getting my point across. I think a 4 would be infinitely more preferable....

[ben79]

I understand why it was moved down to 3 but I still don't think it's a smart idea. a person is able to take it easily, and once he controls it, control of the game becomes too easy, I understand why you want to make it come more into play, but just a 3 for a +2 seems way too small. If you look around at other maps, you'll find very few that are like it.
I just don't get why a normal neutral 3 can be worth +2, if I'm getting my point across. I think a 4 would be infinitely more preferable....

5 would be better, but 4 if that'a all the mapmakers can allow

[ben79]

on a 1 vs 1 game the first player got 12 regions, so it gives him 4 troops to deploy, if arras and bruge are only 3 neutrals it's too easy for them to take it.
a 5 neutral would be the best for both 1 vs 1 and 8 polayers ... etc

[Leehar]

5 would be better, but 4 if that'a all the mapmakers can allow

Yeah, but it was 5 initially. Changing it back will just be a case of 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

[pamoa]

on a 1 vs 1 game the first player got 12 regions, so it gives him 4 troops to deploy, if arras and bruge are only 3 neutrals it's too easy for them to take it.
a 5 neutral would be the best for both 1 vs 1 and 8 polayers ... etc

so nobody will ever attack them
just the beginning of this conversation

[ben79]

on a 1 vs 1 game the first player got 12 regions, so it gives him 4 troops to deploy, if arras and bruge are only 3 neutrals it's too easy for them to take it.
a 5 neutral would be the best for both 1 vs 1 and 8 polayers ... etc

so nobody will ever attack them
just the beginning of this conversation

they will in multi-players game, but on a 1vs1 it's too easy, so how about a 4 neutral ?