Easy n Dirty wrote:Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but...
Although I recognize that the term is meant derisively, I am beginning to think that it's not only OK but actually beneficial to be a bonus monkey in smaller escalating games, meaning games with 4 or less players. I think in these games, because it takes more rounds for enough cashes to take place where sets of cards are worthwhile, the extra armies you might get from acquiring a bonus can become meaningful and can justify the troops sacrificed in order to obtain it. Alot depends of course on the map you are playing and on what kind of drop you get, but I find that in three player games, you should almost certainly be looking to get a small bonus early on if you can (assuming a fairly standard map, i.e. nothing like Doodle Earth, for example), and at four players, you need to at least consider it if one is available at not too high a cost. At five players, I would probably only go after a bonus if it fell in my lap, and at six or more I generally find that the benefit doesn't justify the cost, cards become valuable too quickly for the bonus to be meaningful or to even allow recoupment of troops squandered in getting the bonus to begin with (of course, if I get three out of four territories in Australia on the drop, I will be a bonus gorilla in that situation ).
I agree. The fewer the players the more likely the benefits of fighting for a bonus early on in the game. The right map of course allowing for it and the situation as well. That is to say if you can combine enough of our stacks for the attack. Unlimited Reinforcements would be ideal for such a game.
Also I think that larger maps like World 2.1 with many Bonus Zones would be better still than smaller maps. I rarely play those types of settings but I can imagine that the game rounds are few and the game quick. I could be wrong though?