Spritzking wrote:maybe take down the bonus of the himalyas to 2? it has just 2 frontiers and bengal has 3 but just a 2 bonus... frontiers is more important than number of teritories
Don't understand the call for Himalayas to be 2. It's not a straight calculation of three borders, four territories. If that was the case you might make it 2. It's obvious to me it needs to be 3 in the wider scheme of the game.
Himalayas is flanked by 2, 3 territory 2 bonus continent. This should ensure Himalayas is contested territory in the early stages of the game. So worries that Himalayas will be always be got first and dictate the game should be unfounded. Bengal and Sikhs will be got first and rival powers there will contest Himalayas.
Himalayas also needs to be rewarded with 3 bonus armies both to balance Mughals and Sikh power (+6) - this means the strategy "get Punjab, Mughals and Sikhs first" will face resistance from Himalayas - and to provide somewhere for Mughals and Sikh power to develop, because options for development from the NW are otherwise weak.
Hindus (7) + Deccan (4) = 11
Mughals (4) + Sikhs (2) + Himalayas (3) + Bengal (2) = 11
Without the extra bonus army the southern half of the map will be over powered. Deccan, Colonialists and Hindus will always be dominant. With the extra bonus for the Himalayas gameplay should be more balanced and depend on good strategy. Sometimes North will win. Sometimes the south.
Himalayas also enables balanced 3/4 player action - Mughals + Sikhs = 6
Himalayas + Bengal = 5
Colonialists = 5
Deccan or Hindus = 7/4
However the clinching argument really is what I said about Himalayas being flanked by 2 territories that will be got first. Plus border on Colonialists.