Salem's Switch V34 [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

I can see from looking in on games, some players are going straight to fog, and not reading the legend before discovering the buggy stops are killer neutrals...i guess i could say...so what's new

[DiM]

in Game 10891903 i took a terit from one opponent and now his bonus is +3 instead of +5 so before he even starts the game he's at a big disadvantage.

[cairnswk]

Gameplay thought:

Keep the +1 for accused/accuser, but need to have at least TWO pairs to avoid a 5-deploy first turn and blitzing on other people's starting positions.

Almost dead before to play, luckily I played 3rd.... Game 10891429 (and in any case i have to hope that the others will have bad rolls or i'm f***** anyway in the 2nd round)

Agree with gilligan, 5 is too much

in Game 10891903 i took a terit from one opponent and now his bonus is +3 instead of +5 so before he even starts the game he's at a big disadvantage.

Yes, that needs to change immediately.

[cairnswk]

Comments and Files deleted

[cairnswk]

Gillipig posted on my wall

I like the idea of doubling amounts of accusers and accused held to prevent bonus snapping in the first round. Increasing the neutral value of buggy stops will most likely just make it harder to move around the map and less fun.

[DiM]

i don't think this is what gillipig suggested.

Keep the +1 for accused/accuser, but need to have at least TWO pairs to avoid a 5-deploy first turn and blitzing on other people's starting positions.

as i understand the bonus should remain +1 per pair of accused/accuser but it only comes into place for a minimum of 2 pairs.

1 accused/accuser = 0
2 accused/accuser = +2
3 accused/accuser = +3
4 accused/accuser = +4
...

this is a good solution because it avoids the first turn problem but keeps the smooth increase of the bonus in increments of 1.

what you have on the new version is:
1 accused/accuser = 0
2 accused/accuser = +2
3 accused/accuser = +2
4 accused/accuser = +4
5 accused/accuser = +4

this is not so good because for an increase of the bonus you need to take 2 pairs which is kinda hard to do and it might not be feasible.

[ender516]

We could return to +1 per accused/accuser pair, but reduce the minimum troops from 3 to 1, so everyone starts with +3 instead of +5.

[DiM]

We could return to +1 per accused/accuser pair, but reduce the minimum troops from 3 to 1, so everyone starts with +3 instead of +5.

not really helpful since it would still be possible to break one's bonus before he even starts.
with just a +3 to start you still make a 6 stack and have to attack a 1 and then a 3 to break an opponent's bonus.
the chances for that happening are 54.5%. so it's very likely it will happen plenty of time.

[ender516]

I thought you would need to go through two buggy stops to get one starting position to another, but I have not checked all the possibilities.

[nolefan5311]

In the top paragraph, "against" is spelled "agin". Is that intentional?

[cairnswk]

In the top paragraph, "against" is spelled "agin". Is that intentional?

Yes

[cairnswk]

i don't think this is what gillipig suggested.

Dim, that was Gilligan that suggested that not Gillipig

Keep the +1 for accused/accuser, but need to have at least TWO pairs to avoid a 5-deploy first turn and blitzing on other people's starting positions.

as i understand the bonus should remain +1 per pair of accused/accuser but it only comes into place for a minimum of 2 pairs.

1 accused/accuser = 0
2 accused/accuser = +2
3 accused/accuser = +3
4 accused/accuser = +4
...

this is a good solution because it avoids the first turn problem but keeps the smooth increase of the bonus in increments of 1.

what you have on the new version is:
1 accused/accuser = 0
2 accused/accuser = +2
3 accused/accuser = +2
4 accused/accuser = +4
5 accused/accuser = +4

this is not so good because for an increase of the bonus you need to take 2 pairs which is kinda hard to do and it might not be feasible.

Mmmm OK. i hear this.

We could return to +1 per accused/accuser pair, but reduce the minimum troops from 3 to 1, so everyone starts with +3 instead of +5.

that seems a definite possibility, but does it overcome the serious flaws that start positions are too close?

We could return to +1 per accused/accuser pair, but reduce the minimum troops from 3 to 1, so everyone starts with +3 instead of +5.

not really helpful since it would still be possible to break one's bonus before he even starts.
with just a +3 to start you still make a 6 stack and have to attack a 1 and then a 3 to break an opponent's bonus.
the chances for that happening are 54.5%. so it's very likely it will happen plenty of time.

agreed about breaking the bonus

I thought you would need to go through two buggy stops to get one starting position to another, but I have not checked all the possibilities.

There are 6 places where you can assault an opponent across one buggy stop:
1. Sarah Osbourne to Johnathon Putnam
2. Alice Shflin to Jospeh Buxton
3. Martha Corey to Sarah Good
4. Tituba to Abigail williams
5. Ann Putnam to Macey Lewis
6. Thomas Preston to Rebecca Nurse
but i think these all depend on a board being full i.e. 8 players

It has been my experience (in my 13 games) that i have had starts around the board
Game 10891167 - Start Position 4
Game 10891429 - SP 2
Game 10891444 - SP 7
Game 10891460 - SP 5
Game 10891903 - SP 2
Game 10891946 - SP 8
Game 10892057 - SP 6
Game 10892954 - SP 6
Game 10893426 - SP 7
Game 10897313 - SP 1
Speed Game 10897362 - Sp 6
Game 10897376 - SP 8
Game 10899260 - SP 3
So the random aspect of start is working well per player, but that does not alleviate the possibility of your opponent getting a start on one of those territories opposite you and being one buggy stop away.

At present in the xml there are only 8 start positions.
There are 10 accuser positions (light purple)
There are 15 accused positions outside of town (Deep Violet) which is plenty enough to cover the accuser positions.

i have tried to be somewhat true to the historical aspect of this map, however, from these start positions i see that is not possible.

New Proposals

1. A new lot of start positions
Objective - will put some distance between start positions and provide an overall better redistribution across the map at the expense of the historical factors.

2. This also involves a shift in the border of Giles Corey so he does not border a buggy stop.

2. The buggy stops be lifted from 1 to 2 neutrals
Objective - will stop everyone jumping out of the starting blocks and think more about building some bonuses with landowner positions and not just the accuser/accused pairs

3. To facilitate targeting the landowner positions, i propose they be dropped from [7] for +3 to [4] for +2
Objective - players already start with 1 landowner; this will allow the landowners to be better targeted as a bonus rather than something that is not at present going to be used because it is probably too high.

4. I still feel the accused/accuser pairs should be 2 of each for + 2
Reason - at one pair for +2, it is too easy to gain bonuses, and then incrementally build on them for another +2.
If, as Dim, has shown above, the 2 pair for +2 configuration makes it harder to achieve these bonuses; they rise in pairs of 2, meaning that gaining another pair from 2->3, 4->5 etc, doesn't allow more troop at the next conquer of a pair, but means you have to gain 2 pair for the extra 2 bonus troops. This will also move the play from targeting the accused/accuser pairs to more other bonuses, and make it harder for 1v1 games to wipe each other out quickly.




Current Start Positions

New Propsed Start Positions


New Proposed Start Positions * indicate accused/accuser pairs
1.

* Sarah Cloyce
* Elizabeth Hubbard
Joseph Buxton

2.

* Sarah Bishop
* Thomas preston
Lot Connant

3.

* Dorcas Hoare
* Abigail Williams
James Putnam

4.

* Ann Putnam Jnr
* George Jacobs Snr
C. Blake

5.

* William Good
* William Hobbs
George Corwin

6.

* Giles Corey
* Elizabeth Parris
Natty Dread

7.

* Samuel Brabrook
* Sarah Good
Creasey

8.

* Jonathon Putnam
* Elizabeth Proctor
Buffington Family

For Gilligan, if this is accepted:

Code: Select all

<position>
<territory>Sarah Cloyce</territory>
<territory>Elizabeth Hubbard</territory>
<territory>Joseph Buxton</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Sarah Bishop</territory>
<territory>Lot Conant</territory>
<territory>Thomas Preston</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Dorcas Hoar</territory>
<territory>James Putnam</territory>
<territory>Abigail Williams</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Ann Putnam Jr.</territory>
<territory>George Jacobs Sr.</territory>
<territory>C. Blake</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>George Corwin</territory>
<territory>William Good</territory>
<territory>William Hobbs</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Elizabeth Parris</territory>
<territory>Natty Dread</territory>
<territory>Giles Corey</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Creasey</territory>
<territory>Sarah Good</territory>
<territory>Samuel Brabrook</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Buffington Family</territory>
<territory>Johnathan Putnam</territory>
<territory>Elizabeth Proctor</territory>
</position>

[grifftron]

I personally do not like the idea of raising the buggies to 2 neutrals, BECAUSE

1) I like the simpleness of moving around the board, it gives players better chances to come back when down terts.

2) If you move them up to 2 neutral, its going to be more luck based as you will be rolling 3 on 2, more chances not to get thru those buggies then if it were 3 on 1 dices.


I do like the idea of starting with +3 instead of +5 tho like posted above, might make people wait a round or 2 before even thinking of busting thru

I also like the idea of starting with more starting points like posted above.

I also suggest thinking of bringing down neutrals across the entire board, instead of 2 neutrals everywhere, possibly 1, making it easier to get bonuses, i have already played 7+ games on the map, never even cared about getting a bonus yet as its not needed... bottom right corner of the map has been useless all 7 games, won all 7.

-griff

[Gillipig]

I don't like the idea of increasing the buggy stop neutrals! Better to change the number of starting territ so you can't snap a bonus in the first turn. I don't think you'll get players to attack landowners in 1 vs 1 anyway. This map will run best in larger games. I think we should try to of course make it fair in 1 vs 1 but not overly complicated.

[ender516]

I suppose we could set the starting positions to start with just two troops instead of the usual three.