TenHanger wrote:World 2.1 needs bonuses update
by TenHanger on Apr 30th, '10, 21:37
I love world 2.1, it's the best; however, it needs some bonuses to be updated to reflect actual difficulty levels in obtaining the bonus. Outright, Europe getting 6 extra men just for conquering 5 "extras" countries is WAY too generous. To get Europe is almost the easiest feat in the game. Unlike Central America, which is always under attack, Scandanavia has no natural enemies and is easily conquered and defended. From there, it's just a matter of time to get central europe for 3, and then it's easy to get the rest for SIX! While in "RISK" Europe is nearly impossible to get an hold, this is not the case in World 2.1. So this reward is too generous, and really makes it hard on the other players who actually have to work to obtain and defend their bonuses. The guy who gets dealt a good hand in Europe, is automatically at huge advantage.
SECOND SUGGESTION: The all-of-asia bonus is just THREE? I've actually never seen anyone get the Asia bonus it's so hard. By the time anyone gets it, the game is over anyway. So as extra incentive to get people to try for it, THAT bonus should be 6 or 7. Still likely to happen very little, but at least it will be tempting and menacing for someone to obtain it.
THIRD SUGGESTION: No one can get or hold Arabian bonus. It should be rewarded heavily, with at LEAST a 5 bonus similar to Redfrika. Like Europe in "RISK", Arabia is CONSTANTLY right in between the easiest of all bonuses, Eastfrika (orange) and India bonus. So the owners of these two bonsuses, PLUS the owner of Europe always battle for this bonus of a mere 4. If one actually gets it, it should be worth 5 minimum, and 6 might be logical.
Call this world 2.2 or 3.0 with the simple changes, and I guarantee (especially the Europe x 11 thing) the game is better. At the very least, take Europe down to just a 10.
sinc'y,
TenHanger
Well, nearly 300000 games have been played on 2.1, its not going to change for just a few little corrections in bonus recalculations, since the current ones work quite well, and, because of the size of the map, those few bonus changes would actually mean very little to very few games. If a new map based on the world is made however, these would make sense to consider.
What Im saying is, you are probably even right, but its mostly irrelevant. The bonuses mean so little that they simply dont have to be perfect on a map this big, and the uniformity of play far outweighs any need for perfection when it comes to perceived bonus value. Its kind of like arguing about which presidents are on Mt Rushmore. You may have a case for 4 better ones, but unless you make a new mountain, its all conjecture.