Moderator: Cartographers
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
yeti_c wrote:I don't think being paired with a neutral castle is too big a deal - if someone is and they grow strong - they'll just get picked on by someone else...
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:yeti_c wrote:I don't think being paired with a neutral castle is too big a deal - if someone is and they grow strong - they'll just get picked on by someone else...
A good point, although 3,4 (maybe 5) player games could still lead to a large advantage that may make you strong enought to make retaliation difficult? Maybe not?
yeti_c wrote:gimil wrote:yeti_c wrote:I don't think being paired with a neutral castle is too big a deal - if someone is and they grow strong - they'll just get picked on by someone else...
A good point, although 3,4 (maybe 5) player games could still lead to a large advantage that may make you strong enought to make retaliation difficult? Maybe not?
Maybe in a 3 player - but - there will be 2 players with neutrals in 3 player (or none) - (Or 1 player with 2 neutrals - but they won't have enough armies to capitalise on that I don't think...
I'm not sure it's an issue...
C.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Geger wrote:Hey... I have an idea :
Beside in the Castle everybody start with 1 (or 2) extra region(s) outside. I think this will add more variations to the games
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
iancanton wrote:what is our current preference for the number of starting castles each in 1v1?
ian.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
t-o-m wrote::D
One thing that ive already told you, i dont like the way that there's only one entrance to each castle
iancanton wrote:imperial dynasty castle appears to have a unique advantage: it is one kingdom territory closer to the nearest village, xeu, than anyone else. this affects barbarian's chances negatively, since xeu is the closest village to barbarian castle. the other three villages are each contested by two equidistant castles.
imperial dynasty castle's edge can be removed by expanding the area of id2 and id4, so that id3 no longer adjoins id7.
other than the above, the arrangement of the kingdoms looks more symmetrical than in the original feudal war map.
ian.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
iancanton wrote:that looks better! now i'm trying to think of a method to minimise the handicap to anyone who has the bad luck to start with both might and feudal, which are a long way from the three southern villages.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:iancanton wrote:that looks better! now i'm trying to think of a method to minimise the handicap to anyone who has the bad luck to start with both might and feudal, which are a long way from the three southern villages.
Shouldn't be to much of an issue. there is still plenty of single terrs to build on to gain some extra bonus.
InkL0sed wrote:gimil wrote:iancanton wrote:that looks better! now i'm trying to think of a method to minimise the handicap to anyone who has the bad luck to start with both might and feudal, which are a long way from the three southern villages.
Shouldn't be to much of an issue. there is still plenty of single terrs to build on to gain some extra bonus.
I agree. Someone with Might and Feudal would be guaranteed a village, and could defend it all with two territories.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Users browsing this forum: No registered users