natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:I have a bad feeling about how this will playout with the color blind community. There very little contrats across the map.
edbeard wrote:I'm not sure you really solved the major problems you had.
The divisions between borders are still hazy to me.
I still think players are going to be eliminated quite quickly. First turn Reef 3 takes over G1 and Lugger Pintmar. Reef 2 knows that either I can place my armies on the reef and hope not to get killed or I can attack and try to stop him. If you don't take over the Lugger then you're probably dead. On the second turn. But, just sitting there waiting is not a smart strategy either.
Sorry I don't really have any advice for you. I really just don't know how you can make this map work.
We can change the starting value of assigned territories now. Enough neutrals between things and the right start value and nobody is going to die before they move.edbeard wrote:Sorry I don't really have any advice for you. I really just don't know how you can make this map work.
Coleman wrote:We can change the starting value of assigned territories now. Enough neutrals between things and the right start value and nobody is going to die before they move.edbeard wrote:Sorry I don't really have any advice for you. I really just don't know how you can make this map work.
\edbeard wrote:well you still have reefs that are really close together
5 and 6
7 and 8
Those could probably kill each other on their first go. Do we want to have a ton of neutrals in between to stop this from happening? Well, that 'solves the problem' but is that any fun? Does it make for a good map?
All of the Luggers connect right? So, any of the reefs that are within 2 territories of the Luggers are in danger as well. Not just the reef2 to reef3 example I used before.
I just can't imagine how this map can work at the moment. Unless you wanted to put a ton of neutrals everywhere. But, I don't think this is fun and I don't think this is what you envisioned.
edbeard wrote:I realize that but we can't have players being eliminated on the first or second round can we?
Right now I think this would happen quite a bit.
edbeard wrote:yes but there's also the Luggers. Those within 2 territories of the luggers are also in danger.
Many of the reefs start within 2 of a lugger. Like I reasoned in my example above, people are going to be eliminated because of going after that lugger.
Furthermore, I start with 3 on my lugger. 3 + 3 (for standard territory bonus)+3 (for my reef). I think 9 armies can do away with 3 territories quite easily. Four territories isn't out of the question either.
It just seems like it'll be a map where luck is more involved than strategy. But, I think we both know my position by now so I'll let other people do some discussing.
cairnswk wrote:Does anyone want to give me heads up on this question?
Statement: I want to work this so that each player loses an army per round until they have secured a water source.
When they have secured the water source (of which there will be the bonus of the dive start position and the water will be enough to compensate for that lose (should because of the xml, it has to continue occuring for the duration of the game)
Question. is this possible with the xml.
i'm not sure i understand what you want but here's what i think it should be like.
correct, and yes bonuses can change.each person starts with a snorkel and everything else is neutral.
since the snorkel is worth 3 you can't give the player a -1 until the water is taken. but you can do this: make the snorkel worth -1 and make snorkel+water=+4. this way when the guy starts he has a -1 when he takes the water he has 4-1=3.
OK in understand that, but where do the armies come from to take the water. one would have to start with 6 armies or more to get to a water sources, and if you fail then you're up shits creek.
Surely if someone can't get the water in the first round, then this idea is defunct. Some water sources are well away from the snorkel.
neutrals in line to water sources would have to be 1 or 2.
So is it possible to start with 6 armies or more for each player.but if each person starts with a snorkel then the gameplay is very screwed especially in an assassin game. for example reef 6 is 1 terit away from reef 4 and reef 7. so in theory with good dice he can kill either of them in round 1 and win the game.
Tieryn wrote:Just from a quick glance, in the first paragraph, shouldn't that be "treasures" not "natural trasures as you can for botanists"
Wow, thanks Andy.AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, well lets see...
I like the idea behind this map. It's unique...something I never expected to see.
The colors in this map are intense, as most of your maps are. I like it. Though it may be a little too bright and green in the top right corner.
The new legend background looks like it clashes with the brightness in the rest of the map. I also liked the seperation of the legend from the game board...with the new version it is difficult to determine that. I'm not sure I prefer the older legend, but it seemed closer to fitting I think.
For the most part I like the images you have on the map, except for perhaps the sailboat image. It seems a little out of place...at least those on the right side of the map (the ones that seem to have more white).
Lastly, in the text in the upper left hand corner, it may be more proper to say "...natural treasures as you can for naturalists to record." ...as the term botanist just refers to plants, while naturalist refers to both plants and animals.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users