Yeah, that was my reasoning as well. Plus that having less neutrals on them gives a player who loses his base a chance to grab a new one to stay in the game.
You mean when a player loses one base but still has another, this would give him a chance to get a second one and therefore be safer? The ...

Sure, the only time it would come into play is late in the game when someone takes the SP. By that time they presumably are getting large bonuses and the +1 autodeploy would be pretty useless.

I am fine with the toll as it is. I have a personal affection to gameplay with negative bonuses because they are so interesting and are so rarely used. I also think the comedic aspect of losing troops just for being in NJ is funny :). But you might be right, the toll does work well in this map and ...

Looks fine to me. I prefer the killer neutral to the auto-decay, myself.
The suggestion wasn't for an autodecay, it was for a negative bonus. The idea being that if you use NJ to get the bridge bonus, then it won't be worth as much. Also, if you want to use NJ as an easy mode of transportation ...

I really like the +2 per 2. Its cool because it kinda lets you redistribute the troops you lose due to the decay. The whole sector/SP thing is rather complicated and I am very interested to see exactly how it plays. Although I do think it will have to be raised once in beta, I think 30 is playable.

So let's say You have Base K and you hold Victoria Land (VL). You would get +3 for holding all 6 territories PLUS since you hold 7 territories, you would get +2 for a total of +5 men to deploy. You lose 4 men while defending VL. So if increase to +2 for 3 then you would get a total of +7 to deploy ...

I still think the bonuses are too small pretty much across the board considering the decay. For example, if you want to get the maximum benefit out of expanding in VL from base K, you will need to protect 4 territories, so you will lose 4 troops per tern to the decays, and you will only get +3 from ...

Cool! But what happened to the the NJ territory with a -1 bonus as a replacement to the tolls? What this shot down and I missed it?

Slave labor is an interesting idea. Could be +2 per foreign territory, or something like that. That would definitely be much more interesting than Propaganda as it is now, and would really add an incentive to eliminate other players. I actually really like this, but I am alright waiting for beta ...

I guess if thats the case the way we would implement it is by making the lab part of the region you would need to hold? so that you cannot get the bonus for a foreign homeland. I am in favor of whichever is easiest for TaCktiX to explain.

Good idea about trying to get a special announcement. Also, maybe we could get the newsletter to do a piece on it, explaining the basic concept (I think the map is pretty simple once you get the concept, but if you don't get it then the map looks really complicated). Sully, aren't you involved with ...

I thought the current version has both Basic mining and Advanced mining as +2 (so +4 total) per mine.

Alrighty, my sum-up time:

- TSFs bombarding and a +6/45, sounds good and done.
- Continent bonuses by any name: none, period, done. I made the "continents" as an understanding / simplicity device so that people can quickly and easily tell area of the map without me needing to draw up some crazy ...

While I agree that conceptually Oliver's version sounds better, from a gameplay perspective I prefer the version that carl and I came up with. The main problem gameplay wise that I find with Oliver's version (the original one) is that it makes Propaganda not worth very much as a tech. It basically ...

I think I have found the solution. TF can bombard any tech, but can't attack it. In that way, the TF autodeploy armies can help with the research, and we avoid the problem of researching an advanced tech without the basic one.
Hummmm, I actually really like this. It does solve a lot of problems ...

Good to hear from you Oliver, I was worried that your input was being left out. Here are my comments on your post.

I think I don't forget any of the open subjects. Thanks again for all the good comments that help making the map better. ;) Here are my thougts and ideas about your comments ...

It seems like Tanarri can go as low as +5/25 and Sully can go as high as +4/20. The difference is relatively minor and I think is something that can wait until Beta. I vote for letting the mapmakers pick one for now and then see what happens in Beta.

Sounds fair.

Ok... if I understand correctly, we agree on these changes...
Here's another summary of all the gameplay changes to-do. Let me know if they're all ok, so I can get on updating the map...

- bases autodeploy +1 and can be assaulted from SP only.
- all land territories have -1 decay.
- bonus area ...

I like it. NJ can be convenient for getting around, but no one wants to stay there -1 per round for holding the NJ territory, which connects the bridges, works well both from a gameplay and a humor standpoint, haha.

TSF bonus - +6 autodeploy and 30 neutral was the last suggestion made, to which carl and I agreed, but have not gotten feedback from anyone else since. Is there more discussion to be had here or should this be finalized?
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you and carl here, Tanarri. I ...

Sully, its good to hear a fresh perspective, and I think you raise a good point that warrants consideration.

The one thing I really disagree with you is the autodeploy on the lab. This was a major discussion-topic a while ago and it was decided that any free autodeploy on either the map or the ...

This is similar to Arms Race except with a twist: if someone takes one sector you get hit by massive decays.

Unfortunately, autodeploys (and hence, decays which are just negative autodeploys) cannot be made conditional.
We could have it like this, though:

- sectors are regular neutrals
- sp is ...

I agree, if the decay is used, it needs to be offset by some sort of Feudal like bonus. Do you mean +1 per 2 territories within a region or +1 for any 2 territories? I assume this is in addition to the standard +1 per 3 (min 3) bonus?

I am somewhat indifferent regarding whether the SP is an ...

In the interest on kick starting the progress on this map again, below is a summary of the different discussions that have been on the table gameplay wise in the last couple pages.

SA and AR - +3 troops and 15 neutral for SA and +12 troops and 60 neutral for AR seem to be the concensus. Are there ...