Classic Cities :Pot Mosbi [Quenched]

[rmt333]

very nice map...nice job. its got my useless vote

[Victor Sullivan]

Ah! I totally forgot to post this: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... Mosbi1.xml

-Sully

[isaiah40]

Aren't you a little early for that Sully? Everything looks good to me so far. Does anyone else have any other gameplay related concerns, before I stamp it?

[Victor Sullivan]

Aren't you a little early for that Sully? Everything looks good to me so far. Does anyone else have any other gameplay related concerns, before I stamp it?

I made that months ago when this map was just in PMs between cairns and me.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

Regarding the impassable legend, the glow or fuzziness around the text is a little hard. Maybe go with the style of text you have in the bonus legend.

Done

The killer neutrals mentioned in the legend are the solawaras and pasis? What does Walters connect to?

Fixed, i had simply forgot to move the army holder to connect to the line

The bonus legend takes some getting use to. Some of the continents have recognizable shapes, and others are closer to one another. It might be just that the large map is tall, which means there is a touch of scroll between looking over the legend and looking at the top of the map for corresponding bonus zones. The small map may not have such a problem.

Ah Andy, this is the small map. 892 x 800

Looking at the game play, it looks like every tribe is set up access to a easy/middle range bonus zone. Highland, Asaro, and Enga might have some of the better expansion possibilities while limiting borders. Motu might fit into that group too.
Hm, best of luck.
---Andy

Yes, but because others will be starting in those areas also, they'll still have to battle it out for supremacy

[cairnswk]

very nice map...nice job. its got my useless vote

thanks rmt333 for dropping in.
Vote, what vote, oh you mean support - well thanks. pleased you like it.

Aren't you a little early for that Sully? Everything looks good to me so far. Does anyone else have any other gameplay related concerns, before I stamp it?

Yes i do, i need to process the probability drop tool before you go stamping.

Until then, here is V7....with some small changes as suggested by Andy.

Click image to enlarge.

[cairnswk]

104 regions - 3 killer neutrals and i neutral on Tokarara + 8 neutrals in front of each tribe = 92 regions.

Why the neutral in front of tribes?
To stop quick elimination of each player's tribe...it is a condition that you must hold your tribe otherwise you will be eliminated.
What value should this be?
Well to start, i have set this at 7 neutrals on Version 8...but that can be adjusted if thought to be too high.

I have done a count of the regions directly between each tribe around the board.
Jiwiki <-> Chimbu = 6
Chimbu <-> Enga = 7
Enga <-> Highland = 5
Highland <-> Asaro = 7
Asaro <-> Hulli = 7
Hulli <-> Iwan = 8
Iwan <-> Motu = 9
Motu <-> Jiwiki = 8

Here is the Probability stakes

Click image to enlarge.

Version 8 showing neutrals in front of tribes set at 7
+ a couple of toned down colours
+ moved the Iwan Tribe to arrive in Kila Kila (makes the distance between Iwan and Hulli larger)

Click image to enlarge.

[AndyDufresne]

104 regions - 3 killer neutrals and i neutral on Tokarara + 8 neutrals in front of each tribe = 92 regions.

Why the neutral in front of tribes?
To stop quick elimination of each player's tribe...it is a condition that you must hold your tribe otherwise you will be eliminated.
What value should this be?
Well to start, i have set this at 7 neutrals on Version 8...but that can be adjusted if thought to be too high.

I have done a count of the regions directly between each tribe around the board.
Jiwiki <-> Chimbu = 6
Chimbu <-> Enga = 7
Enga <-> Highland = 5
Highland <-> Asaro = 7
Asaro <-> Hulli = 7
Hulli <-> Iwan = 8
Iwan <-> Motu = 9
Motu <-> Jiwiki = 8

Hm, I understand your reasoning for the large neutral, but it also kind of stifles easy expansion into natural bonus zones. If I was the Huli tribe for instance, I might be disappointed that to get my bonus zone of 3 regions, I'd have to take out 7 neutrals early on. Hm, but I'll give it some thought.


--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

104 regions - 3 killer neutrals and i neutral on Tokarara + 8 neutrals in front of each tribe = 92 regions.

Why the neutral in front of tribes?
To stop quick elimination of each player's tribe...it is a condition that you must hold your tribe otherwise you will be eliminated.
What value should this be?
Well to start, i have set this at 7 neutrals on Version 8...but that can be adjusted if thought to be too high.

I have done a count of the regions directly between each tribe around the board.
Jiwiki <-> Chimbu = 6
Chimbu <-> Enga = 7
Enga <-> Highland = 5
Highland <-> Asaro = 7
Asaro <-> Hulli = 7
Hulli <-> Iwan = 8
Iwan <-> Motu = 9
Motu <-> Jiwiki = 8

Hm, I understand your reasoning for the large neutral, but it also kind of stifles easy expansion into natural bonus zones. If I was the Huli tribe for instance, I might be disappointed that to get my bonus zone of 3 regions, I'd have to take out 7 neutrals early on. Hm, but I'll give it some thought.


--Andy

I currently have the starting positions coded to include each tribe's adjacent territory, and I'll probably edit the XML so that tribes start with more than 3 troops. No neutrals necessary

-Sully

[cairnswk]

...
I currently have the starting positions coded to include each tribe's adjacent territory, and I'll probably edit the XML so that tribes start with more than 3 troops. No neutrals necessary
-Sully

Mmmm, OK did we discuss that...it's been so long i don't remember.

So what value should the tribes start with?

And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

[Victor Sullivan]

...
I currently have the starting positions coded to include each tribe's adjacent territory, and I'll probably edit the XML so that tribes start with more than 3 troops. No neutrals necessary
-Sully

Mmmm, OK did we discuss that...it's been so long i don't remember.

So what value should the tribes start with?

I was thinking around 6.

And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

I like to keep it as low as possible. Ideally, >2%.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

...
I currently have the starting positions coded to include each tribe's adjacent territory, and I'll probably edit the XML so that tribes start with more than 3 troops. No neutrals necessary
-Sully

Mmmm, OK did we discuss that...it's been so long i don't remember.

So what value should the tribes start with?

I was thinking around 6.

OK. Now i was just thinking about this further...
when start occurs, wouldn't it also be better to code the region in front of tribe as a high value also...if another player get one of the surrounding territories, in any game your opponent could still take you out in a couple of rounds if they have good dice.
I'd be inclined to code both of those with 6.

And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

I like to keep it as low as possible. Ideally, >2%.
-Sully

Well what would you propose for those 2 and 3 regions...more neutrals ?

[Victor Sullivan]

...
I currently have the starting positions coded to include each tribe's adjacent territory, and I'll probably edit the XML so that tribes start with more than 3 troops. No neutrals necessary
-Sully

Mmmm, OK did we discuss that...it's been so long i don't remember.

So what value should the tribes start with?

I was thinking around 6.

OK. Now i was just thinking about this further...
when start occurs, wouldn't it also be better to code the region in front of tribe as a high value also...if another player get one of the surrounding territories, in any game your opponent could still take you out in a couple of rounds if they have good dice.
I'd be inclined to code both of those with 6.

Perhaps a compromise of 9 and 3? That way, the high troop can't be accessed until the second turn.

And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

I like to keep it as low as possible. Ideally, >2%.
-Sully

Well what would you propose for those 2 and 3 regions...more neutrals ?

I'll see if I can't make some magic with the starting positions, otherwise, yes, we would have to resort to neutrals.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

...
Perhaps a compromise of 9 and 3? That way, the high troop can't be accessed until the second turn.

That's sound like a plan, I'll change the above graphic to reflect start positions rather than nuetrals.

And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

I like to keep it as low as possible. Ideally, >2%.
-Sully

Well what would you propose for those 2 and 3 regions...more neutrals ?

I'll see if I can't make some magic with the starting positions, otherwise, yes, we would have to resort to neutrals.
-Sully[/quote]
OK, that would be a preferred solution. Thanks!

[cairnswk]

Here is the adjusted version 8 showing those starting positions.
Apart from the neutrals all the other territories will be normal random drop play positions unless we have to adjust for probability drop situations.

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

Oops! You mixed up the 3's and 9's. The 9's should be on the tribes.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

Oops! You mixed up the 3's and 9's. The 9's should be on the tribes.

-Sully

If that's the case, then i'd prefer to go back to the 6 & 6.

[isaiah40]

6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

[cairnswk]

6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

Well. i think 6 & 6 would be better on each of the tribes and the region in front...
isaiah40 - it can wait until next week in case some others want to comment.
and happy TG and WA all round eh?!

[AndyDufresne]

I don't have any idea really what the values should be, but if Isaiah thinks 6&6 is alright, and if some others chime in, it sounds fine to me.

Keep up the good work.


--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

Well. i think 6 & 6 would be better on each of the tribes and the region in front...
isaiah40 - it can wait until next week in case some others want to comment.
and happy TG and WA all round eh?!

My thinking behind it is that there is a delay in being able to use all of those troops (as you would have to reinforce them from the tribe), so the taking over of your adjacent bonus area would not be immediate.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

Well. i think 6 & 6 would be better on each of the tribes and the region in front...
isaiah40 - it can wait until next week in case some others want to comment.
and happy TG and WA all round eh?!

My thinking behind it is that there is a delay in being able to use all of those troops (as you would have to reinforce them from the tribe), so the taking over of your adjacent bonus area would not be immediate.

-Sully

Mmmm. I understand where you're coming from Sully.
Let's look at this from another angle.

How many bonus troops is each player likely to get in the first round for each 2-8 player game?

[Victor Sullivan]

6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

Well. i think 6 & 6 would be better on each of the tribes and the region in front...
isaiah40 - it can wait until next week in case some others want to comment.
and happy TG and WA all round eh?!

My thinking behind it is that there is a delay in being able to use all of those troops (as you would have to reinforce them from the tribe), so the taking over of your adjacent bonus area would not be immediate.

-Sully

Mmmm. I understand where you're coming from Sully.
Let's look at this from another angle.

How many bonus troops is each player likely to get in the first round for each 2-8 player game?

In terms of the territory bonus?

-Sully

[cairnswk]

....
Mmmm. I understand where you're coming from Sully.
Let's look at this from another angle.
How many bonus troops is each player likely to get in the first round for each 2-8 player game?

In terms of the territory bonus?
-Sully

Well, on round one, first player is likely to get how many troops - you know 3 for 12 etc.

(Answer my own question?)
3 for 12
4 for 15
5 for 18
6 for 21
7 for 24
8 for 27
9 for 30
Is this correct?

[cairnswk]

Anyone want to assist on the above question?