cairnswk wrote:my calcs say Baruni should be +5, but i don't beleive it was ever fully examined in the discussion.
my error, it was covered, and i have now found that discussion, apologies Ian.
So going forward, i failed to change the Baruni bonus to +5....nolefan5311, can you adjust that please, and i will attend the gfx..
iancanton wrote: cairnswk wrote:
iancanton wrote:the baruni bonus looks as if it ought to be worth more, instead of less, than napa napa rot because of the extra border and more central location: +5 instead of +3.
OK, I understand, if M7 is made a neutral, will that still require Baruni to be +5?
however u look at it, baruni is more difficult than napa napa rot. i like the way the maunten area restricts access from east and west except at the m1, m5 and m6 points. however, the internal arrangement of maunten is too much of rail pot mosbi
. instead of making m7 start neutral, why not merge away two maunten regions (m1 with m2 and m3 with m4) to a total of 5, obviously with a reduced bonus? combined with the viles n1, this gives 88 starting regions, which is also a golden number.
iancanton wrote:a major problem at the start seems to be caused by the stacks of 7 in front of each tribe.
instead of 12 on each tribe and 7 on the tribe buffer region, how about 12 and 3, so that no attack is advisable from the buffer region on turn 1 unless troops are added?
the reinforcement divisor being 4 will also help greatly by reducing the starting deployment from scary to chunky.
ian, i can cope with 12 and 3 if the divisor is 4, as long as this change is not going to allow any player to wipe someone out too early.
both regions of each start position ought to be coded as underlying neutral to avoid potential bonus drops.
OK, that can be done also, although is it too much! are we going for overkill here?
do we still have 88 starting regions for large games?
as far as i know we have.
if so and if we implement a maximum of 2 start positions per player,
...then there are 72 random starting regions
plus 8 2-region start positions for large games
-->(22 regions per player, deployment of 5 in 4-player games;
Agreed on divisor of 4.
-->14 regions per player, deployment of 3 in 6-player games),
Agreed on divisor of 4.
...72 regions plus 6 2-region start positions for 3-player games (28 regions per player, deployment of 7)
...72 regions plus 4 2-region start positions for 2-player games (28 regions per player, deployment of 7).
...this is a bad number for 2-player games because player 1 can reduce his opponent's deployment by gaining just one of his regions,
so i recommend a maximum of exactly 3 2-region start positions per player.
3-player is a special case where this doesn't matter so much, since a starting advantage can lead to the other two players ganging up on player 1.
OK, i understand that, sorry I had to break it up to get head around it.
So we have:
1. Divisor of 4
2. max of 3 x 2 region start positions/player
3. reduce the 7 (buffer) in front of tribe to 3....
Can we compromise on 5 buffer in front of tribe... because i am still not convinced that in 2 players games, the first player is going to have enough deployment if he gets a tert adjacent to the 3 buffer to be able to come very close to wiping that buffer out, thus immediately placing the opponent in a defensive position to have to countermand that almost wipeout.