Moderator: Cartographers
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
If the inner oases are going to get +4, then the Oasis of Truth (which seems like an inner oasis) would seem too easy to reach. It takes 2 territs to get there from the Fertile lands, while every other inner oasis takes at least 3.wcaclimbing wrote:sounds good to me.rocky mountain wrote:how about increasing the inner 6 oases bonus to +4 instead of +3? it will also encourage people to go towards the grand oasis as well... just a thought
To add on to that -- maybe we should make it so you start getting extra armies at 6 instead of 12? That way even with 8 players, you can start getting territory bonuses immediately.edbeard wrote:I think each oasis giving three armies is enough incentive to go after them. One territory three armies. Not going for them would be silly.
Additionally, you need to kill about three territories to move from oasis to oasis (or the fertile land to an oasis) so you have the potential get +1 from holding three more territories.
thats a good point... i hadn't thought of the +1 territory bonus before... i take away my +4 idea unless wcaclimbing wants to keep it. either way.edbeard wrote:I think each oasis giving three armies is enough incentive to go after them. One territory three armies. Not going for them would be silly.
Additionally, you need to kill about three territories to move from oasis to oasis (or the fertile land to an oasis) so you have the potential get +1 from holding three more territories.
but what about 2 players? you would get lots of extra armies on the first turn. also, it would be the same as any other game with 8 players, which is fine.InkL0sed wrote:To add on to that -- maybe we should make it so you start getting extra armies at 6 instead of 12? That way even with 8 players, you can start getting territory bonuses immediately.
rocky mountain wrote:thats a good point... i hadn't thought of the +1 territory bonus before... i take away my +4 idea unless wcaclimbing wants to keep it. either way.edbeard wrote:I think each oasis giving three armies is enough incentive to go after them. One territory three armies. Not going for them would be silly. exactly. you wouldn't stand a chance without taking a few.
Additionally, you need to kill about three territories to move from oasis to oasis (or the fertile land to an oasis) so you have the potential get +1 from holding three more territories. Most gaps have either 1 territory or 2 beween them. O-T-T-O or O-T-O. so taking an oasis 2 spaces away would get you an extra +1, cause you have to take 3 territories to take the next oasis.I think I'll leave it out. I added it to the map, but It will just be confusing to explain inner vs outer oases. the +4 is back to a +3 now.
but what about 2 players? you would get lots of extra armies on the first turn. You wouldn't get that much extra. theres ~40 Fertile Lands. that means each player starts with 13 territories in a 2 player game. It still would leave them with the +3 bonus. exactly the same as the minimum 3.also, it would be the same as any other game with 8 players, which is fine.InkL0sed wrote:To add on to that -- maybe we should make it so you start getting extra armies at 6 instead of 12? That way even with 8 players, you can start getting territory bonuses immediately.I think that would make it too easy to keep the fight in the fertile lands. The point is to put all the bonuses in the desert, so people are forced to leave. if they can get a bunch of extra armies just by killing their neighbors in Fertile Land, then they will most likely stay there.

As soon as there are enough things that actually need updating.rocky mountain wrote:so when will the next update be shown?

InkL0sed wrote:Can you start posting updates with [bigimg] instead of as tabs please?
i think thats a good idea.jetpac wrote:I'd think you'd have to show how army numbers would look, right? A few of the terits look like there might not be room for them on the small map (Durno, especially) and some others look like the background might make it hard to see the numbers (Payn, Derm, maybe Oasis of Kindness and Wicaia). Maybe there wouldn't be a problem, but it'd be nice if I could see. Other than that small potential issue, I don't see any problem with the graphics.
I might work on it today.rocky mountain wrote:whats going on with this map now?


read pretty much all of page 24. Thats where the discussion was.TaCktiX wrote:One question: did you consider making the inner oases give +4 or +5? Someone suggested that to encourage going for the Grand Oasis instead of annihilating all else. I agree.

I win the inattentive noob award, my apologies.wcaclimbing wrote:read pretty much all of page 24. Thats where the discussion was.
TaCktiX wrote:I win the inattentive noob award, my apologies.wcaclimbing wrote:read pretty much all of page 24. Thats where the discussion was.