Moderator: Cartographers

* sigh*natty_dread wrote:... there may be some imbalances in gameplay, but I'll have to finish my games before I know for sure.
Looks like you're having a little trouble with your vowels.Tisha wrote:so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?
Incandenza wrote:I kinda like the idea of making Nimiipuu a 1, it kills a couple birds with one stone, plus it provides minimal protection for bordering bonuses (a 1 is a lot different than a 2 in terms of defense).
this is an excellent suggestion. the single neutral prevents someone from starting with the bonus, but a player can bring it into play immediately without committing a heap of troops.Tisha wrote:so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?
iancanton wrote:u can reduce the number of resultant random neutrals by making tunimiut and taino start neutral too, so that no-one starts with greenland or circum-caribbean. the total number of random-starting regions will then be 69, meaning that 1v1 games start with 23 regions each, 2v2 with 17 each and 3v3 with 11 each.
the 3-region bonuses do not need to start neutral on this large map. however, if nimiipuu starts neutral, then there will be at least 2 additional random neutrals floating around except in the rare 5-player and 7-player settings, so u might as well put them where they'll be doing something useful. if u make it so that tunimiut and taino are each neutral 1 instead of neutral 3, then u'll actually reduce the number of neutral troops on the board. although taino is more important than tunimiut, since circum-caribbean is a +2 bonus, the influence of both of these is secondary to that of nimiipuu, which is the one that needs to be fixed. i'd prefer all three to start as neutral but, if u choose to code only one fixed neutral region, then let it be nimiipuu.Tisha wrote:a three territory bonuses really needs to start neutral in a 72 territory map? come on guys...


I've played it plenty, and have seen no real advantage gained..MrBenn wrote:I know that there has been some discussion about adding a neutral, but I'm not convinced that anything needs to be changed...
So you're going to add a neutral that will start with a single army.... right?so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?

I would prefer a neutral 2... so it's not too easy.MrBenn wrote:Right - I'd assumed that people were getting concerned about the small bonuses, without considering the "golden" numbers
So you're going to add a neutral that will start with a single army.... right?so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?
As far as I can tell, then yes. (and I'd also prefer a neutral 2).Tisha wrote:I would prefer a neutral 2... so it's not too easy.
is that all I need to do?

Ensuring a balanced drop should always be preferred to minimising the number of neutral territories on a map...Esn wrote:A potential objection to the idea of having Nimiipuu start neutral is that it leaves only 71 territories, which means that there will be either 2 or 3 neutral territories no matter how many players there are. And that also affects how many armies everyone starts out receiving - in most cases, it will be 1 less than if there were no neutrals.

