one further bonus to reduce is ykele. by any measure u choose, ykele is somewhat less connected than aery, which has a +3 bonus, so ykele ought to have a bonus of no more than +3.
Victor Sullivan wrote:Methinks Towers G-J need to be +3: 3 borders, 4 territories. Seems justified.
thenobodies80 wrote:About connections, i can clarify grocer and tavern, schack c and tower f. About the others you listed i'm not sure...to me it's clear that they border(since there's a road that makes a connection)....but what i can do is to draw something like what i did to link alchemist, church and tayt square....that triangular shape....it could help?
yes, adding triangular junctions will eliminate all doubt.
my revised summary of the order of difficulty of holding bonuses, taking into account that this isn't a conquest map and that the minor bonuses do not start fully-neutral (i had known this from before, but was still fooled by the white 88s - sorry for any confusion caused): loent (+5 or +6), nyw and yana (both +4 or +5), tayt (+3 or +4), noeh (+3), aery (+3), niad and ykele (both +2 or +3), towers ghjk (+2 or +3), minor bonuses (+2). i can see the argument behind the original design for each city to give a minimum +3, so that there's a clear difference between the cities and the smallest bonuses.
carlpgoodrich wrote:Regarding the gameplay, I am worried that games will stalemate really fast. Everyone will get their city bonus, but then there is relatively little motivation to expand and lots of motivation to protect (the losing condition). Do other people see this as a problem?
we can possibly make it so that holding 3 or more cities will increase trading wealth and therefore double all of ur city bonuses, to give some incentive to take someone else's city in a 3-player or 4-player game. might that help?