Starting Positions and a +3 bonus for Henegouwen, as requested.MrBenn wrote:http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/27/ ... 092010.xml
Was it just the addition of starting positions that have been changed?
Moderator: Cartographers
Starting Positions and a +3 bonus for Henegouwen, as requested.MrBenn wrote:http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/27/ ... 092010.xml
Was it just the addition of starting positions that have been changed?


Well, I think at this stage it's up to you... I was about to give you the final push out of the Final Forge, but will wait and see what you decide to do.DubWarrior wrote:correction,
some things starts to irritate me.
- What about the neutrals on Arras and Brugge. I see too much games where those important places aren't occupied.
Are there too much neutral troops on it? I find the 5 neutrals pretty high too, especially in the beginning of the game.
- Lokeren is a crucial spot and too easy to hold. By holding Lokeren, one can secure 4 ambachten and Brabant, and so winning the game. I saw this strategy a few times, always with succes. What about moving the border of Eeklo to the right so it have access to 4 ambachten too?


And they're live.MrBenn wrote:Updated files have been sent to lackattack

The neutral values won;t change on existing games; only on new ones.DubWarrior wrote:Thanks, I'm a right: I still see a 5 neutral on Arras and a 4 neutral on Brugge,
instead of the changed 3 neutrals for both...

I've never understood why Brugge is +2. As unaccessible as it is +1 is more than enough.ben79 wrote:you should put more than 3 neutral on bruge and arras ... 3 is too easy for a +2 auto-deploy
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Leehar wrote:I understand why it was moved down to 3 but I still don't think it's a smart idea. a person is able to take it easily, and once he controls it, control of the game becomes too easy, I understand why you want to make it come more into play, but just a 3 for a +2 seems way too small. If you look around at other maps, you'll find very few that are like it.
I just don't get why a normal neutral 3 can be worth +2, if I'm getting my point across. I think a 4 would be infinitely more preferable....
Yeah, but it was 5 initially. Changing it back will just be a case of 1 step forward, 2 steps back.ben79 wrote: 5 would be better, but 4 if that'a all the mapmakers can allow
so nobody will ever attack themben79 wrote:on a 1 vs 1 game the first player got 12 regions, so it gives him 4 troops to deploy, if arras and bruge are only 3 neutrals it's too easy for them to take it.
a 5 neutral would be the best for both 1 vs 1 and 8 polayers ... etc
pamoa wrote:so nobody will ever attack themben79 wrote:on a 1 vs 1 game the first player got 12 regions, so it gives him 4 troops to deploy, if arras and bruge are only 3 neutrals it's too easy for them to take it.
a 5 neutral would be the best for both 1 vs 1 and 8 polayers ... etc
just the beginning of this conversation