Top Dog wrote:I'd try tweaking the fonts once again... I know you said earlier they might just be filler for now...
Do you mean the street names or all of them?
Top Dog wrote:as for the losing condition... wouldn't it make it quite easy for someone to simply take out a weaker players HQ, get all their cards, get their gang bonus, and easily take out the rest of the neutrals in the building for an extra bonus. I guess I'm saying that it could slingshot any one player into a huge advantage in just one turn.
I know the "or 5 regions" rule will help.. but I'm still not so sure about this...
Thanks TD for the feedback
Yeah I know that losing conditions make people nervous, but this one is far more friendly than, say, Middle Ages, and that map works fine I think.
The 'or 5 regions' will prevent early eliminations, even in 8 player games unless a serious gang-up occurs (a player would have to lose 4 regions and take none in return). In addition, the gangs are not easy to take in the 1st place since they start with 6 troops- having played 3rd Crusade a lot (which also has starting positions with 6 troops) I know that most players are very reluctant to gamble their deployment attacking a stack of 6 with anything like even numbers. And the gangs give no autodeploy or other bonus (also like 3rd Crusade), so the incentive is low.
In other words, if very early elimination is a concern, it shouldn't be. I am confident that this scheme is proofed against sucker-punches
I do think that eliminations will become a concern in larger-player games (6 or more) after several rounds, depending upon how aggressive the players involved are.
Also, just because the losing condition is balanced doesn't necessarily make the losing condition a good idea. If it doesn't provide any benefit but just clutters the map with rules, it should go.
So, perhaps I should explain my thinking in providing a losing condition:
(1) It will enhance the theme of a fight for survival, of the map vs. the players
(2) If a player is eliminated, their regions become neutral- and I love the idea of 'living troops' turning into undead blockers
(3) With the minimum regions requirement, I'm interested to see how this would affect team games. Often, you'll see a team with one player who has 30 regions and another who has only 2 or 3 and is just feeding his teammate troops. The losing condition on this map would force teams to have a better-rounded approach, where every member has to fight to stay strong.
So those are what I think would be the benefits, but does this outweigh the added complication to the map? That is the question, I think.
isaiah40 wrote:Personally, I say scrap the losing condition and keep what you have.
I gotcha Izzy
Any reason in particular? I'm not convinced either way so far, I'm very much on the fence as to whether I should abandon the idea or not.