Moderator: Cartographers
TaCktiX wrote:Also, if you could put a borderline in the water between Grand Oasis 1 and 2? The land border between the two is so short that a lot of people would miss it.
DiM wrote:also delete the border going through the oasis lake. water is a natural border so you don't need to put that line.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:About time
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:Not so great, is it?
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Kaplowitz wrote:There is no reason to go for the Oasis of Strength and Glory. Yes there is. Especially in games with a lot of players, Oases will be valuable (cause an extra +3 is a lot for only holding one territory). They will be more important later in the game, after most of the other oases have been taken. Instead of fighting for one and draining your armies, there are a few left over that you can easily take. People will most likely be leaving lots of armies on each Oasis they own, so they don't lose them. It would be much easier to take out a 3 (and the 1s around it) than fight against a big army to take a different Oasis.
Also, if you need to get from one fertile land to the other (1v1 games, maybe.) What way would be easier, Going around the outside and picking up one or two extra oases (including Strength or Glory) or crossing through the middle of the map through all the 2s and 3s and 4s and 5s?
They are out of the way. Maybe give them a smaller neutral, or make a bonus for all Oases. if you were in a position to take all of the oases, wouldn't you just be better off taking out the Grand Oasis?
Kaplowitz wrote:Maybe give them a smaller neutral, or make a bonus for all Oases.
wcaclimbing wrote:Kaplowitz wrote:There is no reason to go for the Oasis of Strength and Glory. Yes there is. Especially in games with a lot of players, Oases will be valuable (cause an extra +3 is a lot for only holding one territory). They will be more important later in the game, after most of the other oases have been taken. Instead of fighting for one and draining your armies, there are a few left over that you can easily take. People will most likely be leaving lots of armies on each Oasis they own, so they don't lose them. It would be much easier to take out a 3 (and the 1s around it) than fight against a big army to take a different Oasis.
Also, if you need to get from one fertile land to the other (1v1 games, maybe.) What way would be easier, Going around the outside and picking up one or two extra oases (including Strength or Glory) or crossing through the middle of the map through all the 2s and 3s and 4s and 5s?
They are out of the way. Maybe give them a smaller neutral, or make a bonus for all Oases. if you were in a position to take all of the oases, wouldn't you just be better off taking out the Grand Oasis?
At least thats how I see it. Yeah, they are a bit far from the action, but they will still be important in some situations.
If more people ask for it to change, then I'll do it, but right now they seem a bit too important to make them any weaker (after all, they are surrounded by 1s. very easy to get to)
InkL0sed wrote:wcaclimbing wrote:Kaplowitz wrote:There is no reason to go for the Oasis of Strength and Glory. Yes there is. Especially in games with a lot of players, Oases will be valuable (cause an extra +3 is a lot for only holding one territory). They will be more important later in the game, after most of the other oases have been taken. Instead of fighting for one and draining your armies, there are a few left over that you can easily take. People will most likely be leaving lots of armies on each Oasis they own, so they don't lose them. It would be much easier to take out a 3 (and the 1s around it) than fight against a big army to take a different Oasis.
Also, if you need to get from one fertile land to the other (1v1 games, maybe.) What way would be easier, Going around the outside and picking up one or two extra oases (including Strength or Glory) or crossing through the middle of the map through all the 2s and 3s and 4s and 5s?
They are out of the way. Maybe give them a smaller neutral, or make a bonus for all Oases. if you were in a position to take all of the oases, wouldn't you just be better off taking out the Grand Oasis?
At least thats how I see it. Yeah, they are a bit far from the action, but they will still be important in some situations.
If more people ask for it to change, then I'll do it, but right now they seem a bit too important to make them any weaker (after all, they are surrounded by 1s. very easy to get to)
Good, valid point. I'm convinced.
rocky mountain wrote:if you kill the other player(s) do you atomatically win, even without taking the grand oasis?
t-o-m wrote:rocky mountain wrote:if you kill the other player(s) do you atomatically win, even without taking the grand oasis?
how else would you win then, if there are no other players then it would just be your turn all the time untill you take the grand oasis - that is if the game went on after there was only one player left.
rocky mountain wrote:okey dokey, and bryguy, did you mean games do end if...
bryguy wrote:t-o-m wrote:rocky mountain wrote:if you kill the other player(s) do you atomatically win, even without taking the grand oasis?
how else would you win then, if there are no other players then it would just be your turn all the time untill you take the grand oasis - that is if the game went on after there was only one player left.
no games end if
A. the objective is reached
B. your the last person standing
C. its freestyle and everyone gets kicked for missing to many turns at the exact same moment
Users browsing this forum: No registered users