Minister X wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:If someone held Confederate Left and Union Center, let's say. You'd have the continents, "Confederate Left" for +4 and "Union Center" for +5, and an additional continent, "Union Center and Confederate Left" (or whatever you wish to call it. Perhaps "Opposing flanks" or something) for +0, that overrides "Confederate Left" and "Union Center".
Okay. I understand, and that's pretty cool. Do any other games have a feature like this?
Well, the basic function of overrides has been used before, but the concept of holding opposing bonus areas to negate all bonuses...nothing comes to mind.
Minister X wrote:Say I own two Confederate continents and then take over one Union one. Do I lose both my Confeds or just one of them. Which one?
It would be easier just to say you lose it all, though it's up to you how you want to do it.
Minister X wrote:How would you word the warning on the map? "Holding any colored Union bonus negates holding any/all Confederate ones and vice-versa" ??
"Hold opposing flanks and lose your bonus!" is how I might put it.
Minister X wrote:Comment: even in a 1 vs 1 game this might be less effective than you hope. Most of the continents are roads, and all the big ones are. Plus, if I've "chosen" Confed, I still would want Union terts if I'm going after the road they're part of. So the separation/isolation won't necessarily be obvious and distinct as you may be picturing. It's an interesting idea and would make the game unique (so far as I know), but let's make sure all the details fall into place. Will it be too easy for forget the rule and then accidentally lose all your hard-won bonuses and the game? Does the Confederate "side" have a huge advantage because the Union is blocked from getting to most of the road bonuses? Or is that made up for by the fact that the Union has interior lines - especially useful if reinforcements are adjacent only. Is it screwy that this rule, which is a BIG rule, applies to a small minority of the continents on the map? Wouldn't it make more sense to use it on a map where just about all the terts "belong" to one side or the other? (I'm working on just such a map for a different Civil War battle!!)
First, remember, a player has to hold an entire
Confederate flank and an entire
Union flank for the bonus to be negated. One could still take individual opposing territories and be fine. And if you feel one side has an advantage over the other, then adjust the bonuses/connections as you feel is necessary. Also, if a player forgets about the rule, and it is clearly in the legend, they only have themselves to blame!
Finally: do we really want to make a map that caters to 1 vs 1 games? Aren't they used mostly for point-farming, which is a lowly practice? Let's say that it turns out that going for the Confeds is much better than going for the Union -- not at all unlikely but perhaps not immediately obvious to the novice -- wouldn't that make this an IDEAL map for point-farmers? They'd know to go for the Confeds at all costs.
Again, you can make adjustments as you feel is necessary. Second, mostly large team games (like Quads) are used to farm. At any rate, I don't think that should be a concern.