sully800 wrote:Yeah, the native territories are better than the European homelands (unless using unlimited fortifications in which case I think the European homelands are a bit better. I never play that setting though). In either case, it is very close to balanced and the game is fun from either starting position. Of course it works best in 1v1 when each player has an equal amount of European and native lands.
Quite the opposite. I firmly believe that European Homelands are better in adjacent and chained settings and Indian homelands are better in unlimited reinforcement games. I believe, Sully, that you have decided it's better to allow oneself to fort Europe to landing port each turn, and thus European advantage would been realized in unlimited forts. However, you cannot and SHOULD not go very far in adjacent type reinforcement games. European homelands are ideal
in this setting. You get a larger bonus without blocking yourself in.
This map is inherently unbalanced, but I will add that that is part of the gameplay. I can win on any drop, though, if I play to the maps flavor. In sequential games, the first player should win a greater percentage of games. I play this map freestyle. This is an AWESOME freestyle map.
Finally, the ideal drop debate is not necessarily between Europe v. Indian, no, the measurement of a good drop is to see how many homelands can be adjoined; how many are next to each other. A great drop, for example, is Dutch+Mapuche....combine those two and conquer Portugal before North America can make its way down to South America...
If this is turning into an Indian v European homeland debate...what's the phrase? "Everything in moderation". Ideally, you want a split. 2 Indian and 2 European or, in adjacent settings, 3 European and 1 Indian... in unlimited settings 1 Europe and 3 Indians will do, too.
Wolffystyle~ +1100 New World
moe wrote:Matted with hair, armed to the teeth, swift as the noble beast his screen name so "lovingly" embodies.. . ..
Wielding a hot dog in one hand and a fedora in the other. . . . .