Conquer Club

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.

iancanton wrote:unsure about that, but how did u do it in pearl harbor for the aircraft bonuses?

ian.

<collection>
  <name>Kate Aircraft</name>
  <components>
     <component>K1</component>
     <component>K2</component>
     <component>K3</component>
     <component>K4</component>
     <component>K5</component>
     <component>K6</component>
  </components>
  <bonuses>
     <bonus quantity="2">3</bonus>
     <bonus quantity="4">4</bonus>
  </bonuses>
</collection>

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.

InkL0sed wrote:I've just had a thought.

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?

Blitzaholic wrote:I like the title

cairnswk wrote:Where's that yeti_c to look at these bonuses?....

cairnswk wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:I've just had a thought.

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.

cairnswk wrote:Were +.5 possible in xml i would definitely consider .5 for each person in the family.

iancanton wrote:

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.

oaktown wrote:Poll removed as per mapmaker's request.

Results:
Are the graphics on this map good enough?
Poll ended at Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:39 am

1. Yes - they are not flat but have character, substance and provide theme for the map
10, 42%

2. Yes - but with comments as noted below
2, 8%

3. They're not good enough
11, 46%

4. Not good enough and comments are below
1, 4%

Total votes : 24

Incandenza wrote:I definitely like the bombarding terits starting neutral... as far as the other childless marriages, I dunno....