Classic Cities :Pot Mosbi [Quenched]

[isaiah40]

I have a question first. How many territories are starting neutral besides the 3 killer neutrals? If I read right, the territories in front of the tribes start neutral as well, right? If so I count 3 Killers, 8 adjacent to the tribes, 1 in the 2 territory bonus comes to 12 territories starting neutral. That leaves 92 starting territories, not exactly one of the sweet starting numbers. As a matter of fact, the next best starting number is 80. Here's the break down based on 92 starting territories:
2 players --> 30 territories
3 players --> 30 territories
4 players --> 23 territories
5 players --> 18 territories
6 players --> 15 territories
7 players --> 13 territories
8 players --> 11 territories

Out of the above starting territories the following is the break down of tribes that actually start:
2 players --> 4 tribes
3 or 4 players --> 2 tribes
5 - 8 players --> 1 tribe each

So the total territories left to be doled out would be
2 players --> 26 territories
3 players --> 28 territories
4 players --> 28 territories
5 players --> 17 territories
6 players --> 14 territories
7 players --> 12 territories
8 players --> 10 territories
Only 7 player games is bad. So I think this is pretty darn good. I'm okay with these numbers, as long as I counted everything right.

[cairnswk]

Click image to enlarge.

I have a question first. How many territories are starting neutral besides the 3 killer neutrals? If I read right, the territories in front of the tribes start neutral as well, right? If so I count 3 Killers, 8 adjacent to the tribes, 1 in the 2 territory bonus comes to 12 territories starting neutral. That leaves 92 starting territories, not exactly one of the sweet starting numbers. As a matter of fact, the next best starting number is 80. Here's the break down based on 92 starting territories:
2 players --> 30 territories
3 players --> 30 territories
4 players --> 23 territories
5 players --> 18 territories
6 players --> 15 territories
7 players --> 13 territories
8 players --> 11 territories

Out of the above starting territories the following is the break down of tribes that actually start:
2 players --> 4 tribes
3 or 4 players --> 2 tribes
5 - 8 players --> 1 tribe each

So the total territories left to be doled out would be
2 players --> 26 territories
3 players --> 28 territories
4 players --> 28 territories
5 players --> 17 territories
6 players --> 14 territories
7 players --> 12 territories
8 players --> 10 territories
Only 7 player games is bad. So I think this is pretty darn good. I'm okay with these numbers, as long as I counted everything right.

isaiah40, unfortunately you didn't look at the map above which is on the previous page, nor did you follow some of the discussion that Sully and i had had, where Sully had proposed that the territories in front of the tribes also start not as neutrals but as same starting positions.
At this point in the discussion, there are only 4 neutrals.

We then needed to determine how many troops should start on these two territiories.
My last question was "How many bonus troops is each player likely to get in the first round for each 2-8 player game?"
Is it:
3 for 12
4 for 15
5 for 18
6 for 21
7 for 24
8 for 27
9 for 30

My objective is to determine how many troops need to be placed in front of the tribe to ensure that a tribe is not taken out in the first round.

[Victor Sullivan]

Ah! I'm sorry, cairns. The breakdown looks like this:

8 starting positions of 2 territories each (16 total territories) + 3 killer neutrals + 1 neutral + 84 deployable/droppable territories = 104 total territories, as per the first post.

2 players --> 36 [+12] (no position max); 32 [+10] (max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+10] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+8] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+7] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+6]
6 players --> 16 [+5]
7 players --> 14 [+4]
8 players --> 12 [+4]

Hm, doesn't look good... And the starting values would have to be increased fairly substantially. I suggest we change the standard +1 per 3 territory bonus to +1 per 5, so the values will look much more manageable:

2 players --> 36 [+7] (no position max); 32 [+6] (max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+5] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 16 [+3]
7 players --> 14 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Hm, still not fantastic, but this could be remedied with a neutral:

2 players --> 35 [+7] (no position max); 31 [+6] (max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
3 players --> 31 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
4 players --> 24 [+4] (no position max & max="2"); 22 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 15 [+3]
7 players --> 13 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

Okay, I guess I totally misunderstood everything. Now if the adjacent territories also are starting territories then that will leave you with 100 territories which is not a golden number. Here is the break down of how many men each player gets on his/her first turn. Notice that in 3 and 8 player games the first player to go first can take 1 territory from another player:

2 players --> 50 territories --> 16 men
3 players --> 33 territories --> 11 men
4 players --> 25 territories --> 6 men
5 players --> 20 territories --> 6 men
6 players --> 16 territories --> 5 men
7 players --> 14 territories --> 4 men
8 players --> 12 territories --> 4 men

With these numbers I would go with something like 10 on the tribe and 9 on the adjacent territory. This will take care of the 1v1 games. I believe that this will be way too much, so I suggest on having those adjacent territories start as the nine neutrals,and the tribes start with 5. Here is the break down for the 92 starting territories:

2 players --> 46 territories --> 15 men
3 players --> 30 territories --> 10 men
4 players --> 23 territories --> 7 men
5 players --> 18 territories --> 6 men
6 players --> 15 territories --> 5 men
7 players --> 13 territories --> 4 men
8 players --> 11 territories --> 3 men

So there it is as long as my math is correct.

[cairnswk]

isaish40...doesn't 12 territories = 3 men ?

[Victor Sullivan]

isaish40...doesn't 12 territories = 3 men ?

No, because 12 ÷ 3 = 4

-Sully

[cairnswk]

Okay, I guess I totally misunderstood everything. Now if the adjacent territories also are starting territories then that will leave you with 100 territories which is not a golden number. Here is the break down of how many men each player gets on his/her first turn. Notice that in 3 and 8 player games the first player to go first can take 1 territory from another player:

2 players --> 50 territories --> 16 men
3 players --> 33 territories --> 11 men
4 players --> 25 territories --> 6 men
5 players --> 20 territories --> 6 men
6 players --> 16 territories --> 5 men
7 players --> 14 territories --> 4 men
8 players --> 12 territories --> 4 men

With these numbers I would go with something like 10 on the tribe and 9 on the adjacent territory. This will take care of the 1v1 games. I believe that this will be way too much, so I suggest on having those adjacent territories start as the nine neutrals,and the tribes start with 5. ...

I'm in favour of something like 10 on the tribe and 9 on the adjacent territory, with both as starting territories.

What about you Sully? Let's get this settled, please.

[Victor Sullivan]

Hm, I'm more in favor of 15 on the tribe and 4 on the adjacent territory, so there's more delay with accessing those extra troops.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

Hm, I'm more in favor of 15 on the tribe and 4 on the adjacent territory, so there's more delay with accessing those extra troops.

-Sully

So, Sully you want 4 on Gerehu Faiv and 15 on Enga Tribe.
What happens in a 1v1 game where you opponent gets 15 men to add to his territories, and suppose your opponent gets Gerehu Sikis and Gerehu Wan on the drop. Very likely your tribe will be near wiped out if your opponent is lucky with thier dice.
That's not a position i'd like to be in, and i think we can do better.

[isaiah40]

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

[cairnswk]

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.
does anyone agree with that?

[isaiah40]

I can go with that.

[cairnswk]

I can go with that.

OK i've changed that in V8 above.

Now is there anything else re gameplay we need to discuss?

[isaiah40]

I don't , but I get iancanton to take a peek in here as well.

[Victor Sullivan]

I apologize for my lack of activity around these parts

Anywho, I'm afraid I disagree with your proposal here:

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.
does anyone agree with that?

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3. Granted, Player 1 opens up his tribe, but it has a solid 7 on it, and if he's smart he'd wipe out as many regions of yours around his tribe as possible, then fort troops back to guard. With a smaller amount for the territory connecting to the tribe, it creates a delay in accessing the extra troops - sufficient time for Player 2 to collect his bonus and decide what he wants to do before Player 1 strikes.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

I apologize for my lack of activity around these parts

Anywho, I'm afraid I disagree with your proposal here:

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.
does anyone agree with that?

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3. Granted, Player 1 opens up his tribe, but it has a solid 7 on it, and if he's smart he'd wipe out as many regions of yours around his tribe as possible, then fort troops back to guard. With a smaller amount for the territory connecting to the tribe, it creates a delay in accessing the extra troops - sufficient time for Player 2 to collect his bonus and decide what he wants to do before Player 1 strikes.

-Sully

Don't apologise for debating this Sully, i'm pleased your throwing in different aspects.
I see what you're saying.
Is there any way then that the maximum bonus/deployment received can be limited by using the xml?

[Victor Sullivan]

I apologize for my lack of activity around these parts

Anywho, I'm afraid I disagree with your proposal here:

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.
does anyone agree with that?

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3. Granted, Player 1 opens up his tribe, but it has a solid 7 on it, and if he's smart he'd wipe out as many regions of yours around his tribe as possible, then fort troops back to guard. With a smaller amount for the territory connecting to the tribe, it creates a delay in accessing the extra troops - sufficient time for Player 2 to collect his bonus and decide what he wants to do before Player 1 strikes.

-Sully

Don't apologise for debating this Sully, i'm pleased your throwing in different aspects.
I see what you're saying.
Is there any way then that the maximum bonus/deployment received can be limited by using the xml?

Yes. I can also edit the number of regions per troop:

Ah! I'm sorry, cairns. The breakdown looks like this:

8 starting positions of 2 territories each (16 total territories) + 3 killer neutrals + 1 neutral + 84 deployable/droppable territories = 104 total territories, as per the first post.

2 players --> 36 [+12] (no position max); 32 [+10] (max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+10] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+8] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+7] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+6]
6 players --> 16 [+5]
7 players --> 14 [+4]
8 players --> 12 [+4]

Hm, doesn't look good... And the starting values would have to be increased fairly substantially. I suggest we change the standard +1 per 3 territory bonus to +1 per 5, so the values will look much more manageable:

2 players --> 36 [+7] (no position max); 32 [+6] (max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+5] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 16 [+3]
7 players --> 14 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Hm, still not fantastic, but this could be remedied with a neutral:

2 players --> 35 [+7] (no position max); 31 [+6] (max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
3 players --> 31 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
4 players --> 24 [+4] (no position max & max="2"); 22 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 15 [+3]
7 players --> 13 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

-Sully

-Sully

[cairnswk]

I apologize for my lack of activity around these parts

Anywho, I'm afraid I disagree with your proposal here:

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.
does anyone agree with that?

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3. Granted, Player 1 opens up his tribe, but it has a solid 7 on it, and if he's smart he'd wipe out as many regions of yours around his tribe as possible, then fort troops back to guard. With a smaller amount for the territory connecting to the tribe, it creates a delay in accessing the extra troops - sufficient time for Player 2 to collect his bonus and decide what he wants to do before Player 1 strikes.

-Sully

Don't apologise for debating this Sully, i'm pleased your throwing in different aspects.
I see what you're saying.
Is there any way then that the maximum bonus/deployment received can be limited by using the xml?

Yes. I can also edit the number of regions per troop:

Ah! I'm sorry, cairns. The breakdown looks like this:

8 starting positions of 2 territories each (16 total territories) + 3 killer neutrals + 1 neutral + 84 deployable/droppable territories = 104 total territories, as per the first post.

2 players --> 36 [+12] (no position max); 32 [+10] (max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+10] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+8] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+7] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+6]
6 players --> 16 [+5]
7 players --> 14 [+4]
8 players --> 12 [+4]

Hm, doesn't look good... And the starting values would have to be increased fairly substantially. I suggest we change the standard +1 per 3 territory bonus to +1 per 5, so the values will look much more manageable:

2 players --> 36 [+7] (no position max); 32 [+6] (max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+5] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 16 [+3]
7 players --> 14 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Hm, still not fantastic, but this could be remedied with a neutral:

2 players --> 35 [+7] (no position max); 31 [+6] (max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
3 players --> 31 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
4 players --> 24 [+4] (no position max & max="2"); 22 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 15 [+3]
7 players --> 13 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

-Sully

-Sully

OK. what is your proposal all up, if I give 10 on tribe and 9 up front.
Max 1 looks good in 2 player.

[iancanton]

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

my usual bête noire. saraga needs a neutral start, so does saut nambis and probably waigani too. will each start position comprise a 12-stack and a 7-stack, with no other start positions? i just want to make sure.

OK, we'll start off with 19 trooops between the two territories, but let's go for 12 on the front territory and 7 one the tribe.

You are giving the first player far too much power. A 12 on the front territory plus a deploy could do tons of damage in one turn, potentially knocking the second player (in a 1v1 situation) down multiple territories, reducing said player's territory bonus down by at least 1, though likely more - 2 or even 3.

why not reverse the current 7 and 12 (or victor's suggested 4 and 15), so that the first player starts with 7 (or 4) plus his deployment for attack? this will reduce the first mover advantage somewhat, especially for freestyle (where a big initial stack can be devastating against someone who spends just a few seconds analysing the initial position), but also for sequential games. if someone wants to use his 12 (or 15), then he must fort forward and let someone have a chance at hitting the stack.

ian.

[cairnswk]

Just bumping the map so to see what is going on.

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

I believe ian meant the reverse, cairns

@ian:

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

my usual bête noire. saraga needs a neutral start, so does saut nambis and probably waigani too. will each start position comprise a 12-stack and a 7-stack, with no other start positions? i just want to make sure.

As is currently, yes, though I wonder if perhaps they could be used as an alternative from using neutrals? For example, Waigani could be split between Jiwiki, Motu and Iwan.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

I agree, 12 on the tribe and 7 in front.

[cairnswk]

I agree, 12 on the tribe and 7 in front.

Mmm. what changed your mind?

[isaiah40]

Mmm. what changed your mind?

This:

why not reverse the current 7 and 12 (or victor's suggested 4 and 15), so that the first player starts with 7 (or 4) plus his deployment for attack? this will reduce the first mover advantage somewhat, especially for freestyle (where a big initial stack can be devastating against someone who spends just a few seconds analysing the initial position), but also for sequential games. if someone wants to use his 12 (or 15), then he must fort forward and let someone have a chance at hitting the stack.

ian.

This does make more sense.

[cairnswk]

Mmm. what changed your mind?

This:

why not reverse the current 7 and 12 (or victor's suggested 4 and 15), so that the first player starts with 7 (or 4) plus his deployment for attack? this will reduce the first mover advantage somewhat, especially for freestyle (where a big initial stack can be devastating against someone who spends just a few seconds analysing the initial position), but also for sequential games. if someone wants to use his 12 (or 15), then he must fort forward and let someone have a chance at hitting the stack.

ian.

This does make more sense.

O well! i know when i'm beaten...
3 agin 1 for 7 upfront and 12 on tribe.
the above map has been adjusted.