There are 21 total 'non-important' regions for open deployment (this doesn't include the starting bases)
- 2 or 3 players: 7 regions each
4 players: 5 regions each
5 players: 4 regions each
6 players: 3 regions each
7 players: 3 regions each
8 players: 2 regions each
DiM wrote:Winged Cat wrote:NP-4 still seems screwed - and that's not a matter of "things aren't perfectly symmetric", but a matter of AS-6 being able to easily thwart any land advances NP-4 tries.
I see your point about not overconnecting and not making things too symmetric, so...maybe remove AS-6/PA-1? That should resolve the problem, and make NP-4 more of a contender for the PA spots (if SP-1 and SA-2 aren't on their toes about it).
np-4 is not screwed.
remember that besides a human/alien base a player will also start with several other terits on the map.
so even if you get np-4 you'll still be able to deploy in af-1 for example and from there attack the dna lab in sp-3.
if the human/alien bases were the only starting positions then you're right, np-4 would be a pretty bad starting point.
but it's not so as i said before you can just use your other terits to get dna labs or nuke silos and from np-4 simply focus on getting tech lvl 1
While I see what DiM is saying- that the starting positions are not as important as they seem because players begin with other regions- the argument isn't conclusive to my mind for two reasons:
(1) The starting positions are meant to be a clear center of strength, as they are unassailable until late game and have an autodeploy
(2) The map isn't that big at all in terms of deployable regions for the drop; only in smaller games would I side with DiM's argument. In larger games, a player could lose most or all of his non-base regions before he even gets to take his turn.
So, as far as gameplay mechanics are concerned, my only major worry is that NP-4, and to a lesser extent NP-3 and AS-6, have a noticeable disadvantage in terms of options.
In order to combat any idea that I am arguing for symmetry or as it has been stated "making every starting position the same", I am in no way proposing that all of the starting positions have the same surroundings. What I am arguing for is balance which has been confused by many people for symmetry. Actually, all game balance means is that no single player has a marked disadvantage (or is likely to have one at any rate- some allowances are made for bad drops) or advantage over another based solely upon the drop. If one starting position has strengths and weaknesses that another doesn't, that's great! So long as ultimately all players have a roughly even shot.
As for the techs, the starting positions are symmetrical and therefore perfectly balanced. So it only stands to reason that it would be nice to let the starting positions be dissimilar on the 'real world' part of the map, just to allow for variety (and thus replayability). I approve.
However, the variety must not just hand out more options to some players and fewer options to others. The non-important regions would be a compensating factor, except that there are just too few of them and the bases are too strong in comparision. With the single exception of AS-1, every single non-important region on the map is adjacent to a base. Those bases with fewer adjacent territs are limited not only in their attack options, but also their opportunities for spoils and for reinforcing allies in team games.
So, bottom line, I really think that at the bare minimum NP-4 needs one other adjacent non-important region.
----------------
OK, other than that my only concerns are for gameplay clarity... and it looks like there aren't any. Well done
-- Marshal Ney
P.S. Krap I don't want to take back the clarity thing, but I forgot this- for the victory conditions in the legend, it isn't entirely crystal clear that there are 4 possible ways to win. By adding and "OR" in between the two sets on either side, this should be explicit.
will be fixed in the next version.
