iancanton wrote:although i don't actually recall much discussion on the matter, i understand the reasoning behind why the sundowner bonus and, to some extent, the ghan bonus, are small. however, countrylink has stations in three states for +3 and indian pacific looks virtually impossible to hold (and therefore likely to be ignored) for a niggardly +4.
Personally I'm alright with the low bonuses for the longer routes. If this were a purely classic style map, of course I would push to make a 12 territory bonus more generous than +4, but nobody is going to be starting the game and going after those long routes as their initial foray into picking up extra armies. More likely, the long routes are going to be gravy bonuses for somebody who already has some meat and potatoes bonuses. For example, once a player has wrapped up Ausrail for +4, they only need to grab an additional, and very linear, four additional territories to hook up another +3. Seems too generous to give the Ausrail player another +6 for getting four more territories.
iancanton wrote:as for tasrail, the map has 61 starting territories, so there will always be at least 1 starting neutral. why not put that neutral in a place where it'll actually be doing some good, in other words hobart?
I always go back and forth with making half of a two territory region a bonus, because while on the one hand it keeps somebody from getting it on the drop, but in this case it means only one player really has a chance of going after the region because nobody else can attack HBA other than the LNC player. Ian's point about the map having 61 territories may push me into the camp of starting HBA neutral.
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:16 am
