MrBenn wrote:Have you included so-called 'golden' numbers, where you need to take 2 territories from your opponent before their starting bonus is reduced (ie 14, 17, 20...)
You're starting to open up a can of worms with concerns like that Benn. While I agree a 42 territory map is vastly superior gameplay wise to a 36 territory map, when we start considering elements like this, then we must also consider such concepts as:
- Connectivity - Mediterranean in Alexander's Empire has high connectivity
- Reach - Cannons in Waterloo have high reach
- Span/Breakability - Uxbridge 2 in Waterloo has high span/breakability, as it can attack cannons on two sides and therefore reach very far, as well as break 6 potential bonuses directly
- Defensibility - Adelaide-MtGambier-Eureka in Australia is a zone with high defensibility (requires few troops to hold off a great many)
I think analysing a map and its territories this closely before playtesting using a set procedure/set tools would be prone to so much error that codifying it would potentially be quite counter-productive.
Of course, I do believe that noticing the intricacies of a map, and discussing at length the different aspects of gameplay of a map before quench is well worth it. I just don't think creating a spreadsheet to attempt to equate and balance a map would necessarily be worthwhile. I'll give an analogous example:
At work, we have a procedure for printing out labels so we can send out information packs. The whole procedure takes about 5 minutes. This is worthwhile if you're doing several labels, but if you're just doing one, you may as well write it out by hand.
ie - sometimes the human eye and mind can do a job a lot quicker and better than a coded procedure