iancanton wrote:... i propose that the bonus system is changed so that there is only a +0.5 bonus, rounded down, for each childless marriage (or, equivalently, +1 for every two childless marriages). alternatively, +1 for each, but the first childless marriage held does not count for bonuses. in either case, for each marriage with one child, +1 is sufficient....
ian.
thanks for coming in ian....is .5 possible with the xml ?
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
i see what u mean: it isn’t quite the same. how feasible is +1 for each childless marriage except the first (hold 1 for +0, hold 2 for +1, hold 3 for +2 and so on)? compared with +0.5 for each childless marriage, this reduces the incidence of “permanent” neutrals in 2-player games (because of no-one wanting to kill typically 3 or 6 neutrals and hold 4 territories for each +1 bonus). this can be also be replicated by a +0.9 bonus (rounded down) for each childless marriage, if the xml allows this method.
iancanton wrote:i see what u mean: it isn’t quite the same. how feasible is +1 for each childless marriage except the first (hold 1 for +0, hold 2 for +1, hold 3 for +2 and so on)? compared with +0.5 for each childless marriage, this reduces the incidence of “permanent” neutrals in 2-player games (because of no-one wanting to kill typically 3 or 6 neutrals and hold 4 territories for each +1 bonus). this can be also be replicated by a +0.9 bonus (rounded down) for each childless marriage, if the xml allows this method. ian.
of course this is feasible...but where to write it on the map? The graphic is not structured on this schemata. It is structured on +1 for marriage & 1 marriage plus 1 child, etc. Were +.5 possible in xml i would definitely consider .5 for each person in the family.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
Maybe marriage bonuses should be +1 for every child it yielded, and having an emperor as a child would be +2.
Because, after all, isn't that what they're all scheming about? Making their children emperor?
Well, no Ink. the only people in this lot who were concerned about their child becoming Emperor was Livia and Agrippinella. Julius Caesar & Octavian did it for themselves because they were such political animals; Tiberius never wanted it and was only there because of Livia; Caligula only got it because he was so debauched and "playmate" to Tiberius; Claudius got it because the Praetorian Guards needed an Emperor so they could remain employed; and Nero got it because Agrippinella poisoned Claudius.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
Maybe marriage bonuses should be +1 for every child it yielded, and having an emperor as a child would be +2.
Because, after all, isn't that what they're all scheming about? Making their children emperor?
Well, no Ink. the only people in this lot who were concerned about their child becoming Emperor was Livia and Agrippinella. Julius Caesar & Octavian did it for themselves because they were such political animals; Tiberius never wanted it and was only there because of Livia; Caligula only got it because he was so debauched and "playmate" to Tiberius; Claudius got it because the Praetorian Guards needed an Emperor so they could remain employed; and Nero got it because Agrippinella poisoned Claudius.
Well, alright, I wasn't being completely accurate, but I still think it's worth a thought.
cairnswk wrote:Were +.5 possible in xml i would definitely consider .5 for each person in the family.
+0.5 for each person would still be +1.0 (no change) for a childless marriage, which does not solve the problem of too many starting bonuses. from a suggestion made by oaktown in the holy roman empire thread, where many people had been noticing that their opponents were starting with bonuses, how about coding each of the childless families with starting positions (but only in 2-player games)? would this change the number of starting territories in total in a 2-player game?
cairnswk wrote:Were +.5 possible in xml i would definitely consider .5 for each person in the family.
+0.5 for each person would still be +1.0 (no change) for a childless marriage, which does not solve the problem of too many starting bonuses. from a suggestion made by oaktown in the holy roman empire thread, where many people had been noticing that their opponents were starting with bonuses, how about coding each of the childless families with starting positions (but only in 2-player games)? would this change the number of starting territories in total in a 2-player game?
ian.
InkL0sed wrote:How many childless marriages are there that aren't with an emperor? I think the problem could be mostly solved if the emperors started neutral.
OK here is a version with some starting positions that are neutral that may eliminate all the bonuses.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
I think the gods might be all powerful with a +3 autodeploy...
If you managed to hold all 4 gods - you would be nigh on unstoppable - as you would be able to access almost anywhere on the board with a big lump of armies each time.
Consider +2
Otherwise I can't see much else...
Graphically - The 2 left most god houses (Ceres & Jove) could do with a little more space from their almost touching neighbours though.
Quick proposal: I think that the Gaius Julius Caesar - Marica bonus should be a 1, because even tho it's a 2-child family, it and the neighboring Gaius Marius - Julia Caesaris 1 bonus can be held behind just one terit (Proconsul Caesar). It's basically a 5-terit Oceania.
And I think the Emperors should go back to 5's, or at least Caesar and Caligula, to prevent easy bonus pickups.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM
Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
