Classic Cities :Pot Mosbi [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

I apologize for my lack of activity around these parts

Anywho, I'm afraid I disagree with your proposal here:

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.
does anyone agree with that?

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3. Granted, Player 1 opens up his tribe, but it has a solid 7 on it, and if he's smart he'd wipe out as many regions of yours around his tribe as possible, then fort troops back to guard. With a smaller amount for the territory connecting to the tribe, it creates a delay in accessing the extra troops - sufficient time for Player 2 to collect his bonus and decide what he wants to do before Player 1 strikes.

-Sully

Don't apologise for debating this Sully, i'm pleased your throwing in different aspects.
I see what you're saying.
Is there any way then that the maximum bonus/deployment received can be limited by using the xml?

[Victor Sullivan]

I apologize for my lack of activity around these parts

Anywho, I'm afraid I disagree with your proposal here:

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.
does anyone agree with that?

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3. Granted, Player 1 opens up his tribe, but it has a solid 7 on it, and if he's smart he'd wipe out as many regions of yours around his tribe as possible, then fort troops back to guard. With a smaller amount for the territory connecting to the tribe, it creates a delay in accessing the extra troops - sufficient time for Player 2 to collect his bonus and decide what he wants to do before Player 1 strikes.

-Sully

Don't apologise for debating this Sully, i'm pleased your throwing in different aspects.
I see what you're saying.
Is there any way then that the maximum bonus/deployment received can be limited by using the xml?

Yes. I can also edit the number of regions per troop:

Ah! I'm sorry, cairns. The breakdown looks like this:

8 starting positions of 2 territories each (16 total territories) + 3 killer neutrals + 1 neutral + 84 deployable/droppable territories = 104 total territories, as per the first post.

2 players --> 36 [+12] (no position max); 32 [+10] (max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+10] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+8] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+7] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+6]
6 players --> 16 [+5]
7 players --> 14 [+4]
8 players --> 12 [+4]

Hm, doesn't look good... And the starting values would have to be increased fairly substantially. I suggest we change the standard +1 per 3 territory bonus to +1 per 5, so the values will look much more manageable:

2 players --> 36 [+7] (no position max); 32 [+6] (max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+5] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 16 [+3]
7 players --> 14 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Hm, still not fantastic, but this could be remedied with a neutral:

2 players --> 35 [+7] (no position max); 31 [+6] (max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
3 players --> 31 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
4 players --> 24 [+4] (no position max & max="2"); 22 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 15 [+3]
7 players --> 13 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

-Sully

-Sully

[cairnswk]

I apologize for my lack of activity around these parts

Anywho, I'm afraid I disagree with your proposal here:

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.
does anyone agree with that?

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3. Granted, Player 1 opens up his tribe, but it has a solid 7 on it, and if he's smart he'd wipe out as many regions of yours around his tribe as possible, then fort troops back to guard. With a smaller amount for the territory connecting to the tribe, it creates a delay in accessing the extra troops - sufficient time for Player 2 to collect his bonus and decide what he wants to do before Player 1 strikes.

-Sully

Don't apologise for debating this Sully, i'm pleased your throwing in different aspects.
I see what you're saying.
Is there any way then that the maximum bonus/deployment received can be limited by using the xml?

Yes. I can also edit the number of regions per troop:

Ah! I'm sorry, cairns. The breakdown looks like this:

8 starting positions of 2 territories each (16 total territories) + 3 killer neutrals + 1 neutral + 84 deployable/droppable territories = 104 total territories, as per the first post.

2 players --> 36 [+12] (no position max); 32 [+10] (max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+10] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+8] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+7] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+6]
6 players --> 16 [+5]
7 players --> 14 [+4]
8 players --> 12 [+4]

Hm, doesn't look good... And the starting values would have to be increased fairly substantially. I suggest we change the standard +1 per 3 territory bonus to +1 per 5, so the values will look much more manageable:

2 players --> 36 [+7] (no position max); 32 [+6] (max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+5] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 16 [+3]
7 players --> 14 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Hm, still not fantastic, but this could be remedied with a neutral:

2 players --> 35 [+7] (no position max); 31 [+6] (max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
3 players --> 31 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
4 players --> 24 [+4] (no position max & max="2"); 22 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 15 [+3]
7 players --> 13 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

-Sully

-Sully

OK. what is your proposal all up, if I give 10 on tribe and 9 up front.
Max 1 looks good in 2 player.

[iancanton]

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

my usual bête noire. saraga needs a neutral start, so does saut nambis and probably waigani too. will each start position comprise a 12-stack and a 7-stack, with no other start positions? i just want to make sure.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3.

why not reverse the current 7 and 12 (or victor's suggested 4 and 15), so that the first player starts with 7 (or 4) plus his deployment for attack? this will reduce the first mover advantage somewhat, especially for freestyle (where a big initial stack can be devastating against someone who spends just a few seconds analysing the initial position), but also for sequential games. if someone wants to use his 12 (or 15), then he must fort forward and let someone have a chance at hitting the stack.

ian.

[cairnswk]

Just bumping the map so to see what is going on.

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

I believe ian meant the reverse, cairns

@ian:

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

my usual bête noire. saraga needs a neutral start, so does saut nambis and probably waigani too. will each start position comprise a 12-stack and a 7-stack, with no other start positions? i just want to make sure.

As is currently, yes, though I wonder if perhaps they could be used as an alternative from using neutrals? For example, Waigani could be split between Jiwiki, Motu and Iwan.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

I agree, 12 on the tribe and 7 in front.

[cairnswk]

I agree, 12 on the tribe and 7 in front.

Mmm. what changed your mind?

[isaiah40]

Mmm. what changed your mind?

This:

why not reverse the current 7 and 12 (or victor's suggested 4 and 15), so that the first player starts with 7 (or 4) plus his deployment for attack? this will reduce the first mover advantage somewhat, especially for freestyle (where a big initial stack can be devastating against someone who spends just a few seconds analysing the initial position), but also for sequential games. if someone wants to use his 12 (or 15), then he must fort forward and let someone have a chance at hitting the stack.

ian.

This does make more sense.

[cairnswk]

Mmm. what changed your mind?

This:

why not reverse the current 7 and 12 (or victor's suggested 4 and 15), so that the first player starts with 7 (or 4) plus his deployment for attack? this will reduce the first mover advantage somewhat, especially for freestyle (where a big initial stack can be devastating against someone who spends just a few seconds analysing the initial position), but also for sequential games. if someone wants to use his 12 (or 15), then he must fort forward and let someone have a chance at hitting the stack.

ian.

This does make more sense.

O well! i know when i'm beaten...
3 agin 1 for 7 upfront and 12 on tribe.
the above map has been adjusted.

[Victor Sullivan]

Looks okay to me! Graphically speaking, I'm not digging the texture

-Sully

[cairnswk]

Looks okay to me! Graphically speaking, I'm not digging the texture

-Sully

You changed your mind too??

[Victor Sullivan]

Looks okay to me! Graphically speaking, I'm not digging the texture

-Sully

You changed your mind too??

I never changed it

-Sully

[cairnswk]

Looks okay to me! Graphically speaking, I'm not digging the texture

-Sully

You changed your mind too??

I never changed it

-Sully

I thought some time back you were pretty happy with everything or at least that's the impression i got.

[Victor Sullivan]

Looks okay to me! Graphically speaking, I'm not digging the texture

-Sully

You changed your mind too??

I never changed it

-Sully

I thought some time back you were pretty happy with everything or at least that's the impression i got.

Oh, yes. I merely decided it wasn't worth quibbling over at the time when we had gameplay stuff to discuss.

-Sully