USApoc: neutral radioactives?

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:09 pm

I've taken a glance at some of the new XML features lack has implemented. I wonder: should I change the USApocalypse map so that the radioactive countries always start out neutral (probably with just one army each)? This would prevent people starting out at a disadvantage due to holding one or two of them. On the other hand, it might also make people just avoid them in general, thus taking away some of the strategic interest of having them in the first place. Or it might just let the first player grab four of them in one go (although that might not be a bad thing, since other folks would be motivated to do something about it...). Opinions?

Syzygy · Post by **Syzygy** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:20 pm

I don't really play that particular map as I've had the bad luck of starting with radioactive territories too many times.

Implementing the XML to have them start out neutral would be a good improvement IMO.

snufkin · Post by **snufkin** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:41 pm

I haven´t played it for a while but I think that´s a good idea.

Unit_2 · Post by **Unit_2** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:45 pm

This is a great idea, but i think it should be in all maps that have - not just USA one.

Pain Killer · Post by **Pain Killer** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:27 pm

Unit_2 wrote:This is a great idea, but i think it should be in all maps that have - not just USA one.

ahem, we have radioactive territories only in USApocalypse.

as for the suggestion, i don't know really what to say. making them neutral might be a good thing do to the fact that you no longer loose an armie on the way, but making them neutral i see two major flaws:

1. making neutral with 3 armies, would disencourage people to go for them because you need 3 of them to get a minimal bonus of 1, if you take only 2 you loose armies put in battle to capture the territories and plus 1 reinforcement
2. making neutral with 1 army, lets say we have a 2 or 3 player game, the first player was good position around all the nexus, in a case of very good luck he takes them all and fortifies them with armies form adjectant locations, the second, eventually third player needs to take at least 3 of them to calm down the bonus, lets say in a 3 player game if both players concentrate on the territories, they can stop the bonus, but in a 2 player game it would be nearly impossible to take them down.

looking into the fact that to take a continent you need to take a irradiated territorie, you could implement the neutral 3 option or leave it as it was.
in fact if you have 2 of them you could easily take a third and get +1 bonus.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:25 pm

As much as I hate to start out with them, making them neutral seems counter to the idea of having them in the first place!

--Andy

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:49 pm

This would get rid of my reasons for not playing the map.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:09 am

If the original creator of the map can be contacted and comes here saying he/she wants neutral radioactive territories then lets do it.

Otherwise no.

Snowman · Post by **Snowman** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:20 am

No it works best as it is. Making them neutral would make them unattractive to attack unless the bonuses are changed.

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:22 am

[To Coleman:] I do appreciated that sentiment, and I wholly agree that no one's map should be changed without their consent (except in cases of obviously unintentional bugs). However, what if the original author were open to the idea, but wanted to hear the community's views on it before making a decision?

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:24 am

That's great, but my view is that it is entirely up to him...

Okay, can't lie, I don't want them neutral myself.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:25 am

The USapoco map maker IS the one who jsut propsed this idea coleman

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:23 am

starting them off as neutrels would be great espically and would add a new dimension to game play. Espicallly since there is one in every continent thus forcing players to own them when are going fo a continent!!

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:55 pm

Coleman wrote:That's great, but my view is that it is entirely up to him...

Okay, can't lie, I don't want them neutral myself.

gimil wrote:The USapoco map maker IS the one who jsut propsed this idea coleman

he(Jota) made you look so silly

thegeneralpublic · Post by **thegeneralpublic** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:16 pm

I remember the first time I played that map I only got to place two troops...it was one of my first games, too. It certainly wasn't very welcoming. I would vote start them out with neutrals, but maybe only two per?

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:10 pm

reverend_kyle wrote:he(Jota) made you look so silly

Not on purpose!

khazalid · Post by **khazalid** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:28 am

no no no.

usapoc might not be the prettiest but its one of the most playable on cc, especially doubles. dont change it, i beseech ye

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:24 am

Hmm. We do have twice as many people voting for change as there are voting against it. That's a pretty big margin, but I'll let it go for a few more days before making a decision. (I figure if it ends up close to even, I'll leave it as it is.) If I do change it, that leaves the question of whether to make it one neutral army apiece or two.

I've never played two-player, but it sounds like having only one army on each of them might make it too easy for the first player to grab a big advantage on the first turn. On the other hand, I'm not sure how well two-player games work on that map as it is, since it looks like there's about a 50% chance of one player starting with a bonus while the other starts with a penalty. So that might not matter.

On the other hand, two armies on each will probably make them a lot less tempting, which means they wouldn't matter at all until people start forming full continents anyway.

It's too bad we can't do any controlled tests of it. Oh well.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:35 am

I'm wondering if the poll results would have been different if no was listed before yes.

Keredrex · Post by **Keredrex** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:32 am

…Is It Possible to have 2 versions.... The original USA Apocalypse... and one with the neutral Radioactives...OR
What about a trial run... Change it but only for a certain amount of time to allow enogh of the club to play and vote on this option... I must admit .. I would like to play it with the neutrals.. But i love the map the way it is also

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:53 am

A trial run is something you'd have to get lack's OK for.

humanityimpaled · Post by **humanityimpaled** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:57 am

I love it the way it is.
Please don't change it.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:40 pm

I'm glad to see the 'don't change' is catching up with the 'change'. I think any change would make the territories more a moot point during the game.

--Andy

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:17 pm

FACT: If they were neutral they would remain neutral the entire game

you would have to be a complete idiot to attack them, weakening yourself first round to get that -1 bonus you oh so soughted. Then when you get another 2 by round 4 everyone else would be much stronger positions and people will just snatch them off you quickly.

Keredrex · Post by **Keredrex** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:52 pm

nagerous wrote:FACT: If they were neutral they would remain neutral the entire game

you would have to be a complete idiot to attack them, weakening yourself first round to get that -1 bonus you oh so soughted. Then when you get another 2 by round 4 everyone else would be much stronger positions and people will just snatch them off you quickly.

Not true you still need the Radioactives to get the Region Bonuses.. and Even the Smallest Region bonus of 3 would Equate to 2 extra men per round...given the -1 from owning a radioactive... I still say we need a trial run... I love the map as it is But I like this idea

USApoc: neutral radioactives?

Should the radioactive countries on the USApocalypse map start out neutral?

USApoc: neutral radioactives?

How Bout THis