[Poll] Treasures of Galapagos - Luggers need to be lowered?

[thenobodies80]

Hello,

It's passed a while since the Treasures of Galapagos map was quenched, but it seems that some users have expressed desire to see a lower number of starting neutrals on Luggers.

Before proceeding further, cairnswk asked me to start this poll to understand if the requested change is just restricted to a small group of people, or if instead there is large consensus in seeing this value decreased (to have those connections more used in games).

Thanks to everyone

Nobodies

[Rusty_Dog]

IMHO, reducing the luggers down to 7 neutrals, or even 8, will not have an impact on the map or strategies. At 7,8 or 10 neutrals, the individual luggers will still not be worth the troop expenditure to bring them down. Reducing them to 5, may encourage a player to contemplate taking one.

My .$02

[cairnswk]

IMHO, reducing the luggers down to 7 neutrals, or even 8, will not have an impact on the map or strategies. At 7,8 or 10 neutrals, the individual luggers will still not be worth the troop expenditure to bring them down. Reducing them to 5, may encourage a player to contemplate taking one.

My .$02

my $50 worth, when the map first started the neutrals on luggers were set at 5.
That made it too easy for players to anniahlate each other eariler on in the game with some players not getting opportunity to stay for a couple of rounds. So it was increased to 10.
Bringing it down to 7 or 8 may allow the luggers to be used again, but 5 is not in contemplation.

[iancanton]

have u considered reducing the neutrals to 7 per lugger, in conjunction with making each of the 9 reefs a start position (total 9 start positions), but limiting the maximum start positions per player to 2 (the latter option was not available when the map was originally created)? this will reduce the number of occasions where good dice on turn one lead to a silly bonus (and effectively a win) on turn three for the starting player.

ian.

[cairnswk]

have u considered reducing the neutrals to 7 per lugger, in conjunction with making each of the 9 reefs a start position (total 9 start positions), but limiting the maximum start positions per player to 2 (the latter option was not available when the map was originally created)? this will reduce the number of occasions where good dice on turn one lead to a silly bonus (and effectively a win) on turn three for the starting player.

ian.

No ian, i had not considered that, but it seems worthwhile.
Do we have to do a poll on that also. i guess something will have to be additioned to the map graphically if that happens?

[Erland]

have u considered reducing the neutrals to 7 per lugger, in conjunction with making each of the 9 reefs a start position (total 9 start positions), but limiting the maximum start positions per player to 2 (the latter option was not available when the map was originally created)? this will reduce the number of occasions where good dice on turn one lead to a silly bonus (and effectively a win) on turn three for the starting player.

ian.

No ian, i had not considered that, but it seems worthwhile.
Do we have to do a poll on that also. i guess something will have to be additioned to the map graphically if that happens?

This is a really good idea for addressing the original problem in two-player games, and it is a relatively unobtrusive change because it would affect only 1v1 games. It might be best to wait until this first change (if approved) has been in effect for a while before doing a poll to see if Luggers again are a problem in 1v1 games and if ian's fix is needed.

[Erland]

IMHO, reducing the luggers down to 7 neutrals, or even 8, will not have an impact on the map or strategies. At 7,8 or 10 neutrals, the individual luggers will still not be worth the troop expenditure to bring them down. Reducing them to 5, may encourage a player to contemplate taking one.

My .$02

If going down to 7 doesn't have any effect, then we should consider this suggestion in conjunction with ian's suggestion to limit starting territories to 2 per player.

[MrBenn]

have u considered reducing the neutrals to 7 per lugger, in conjunction with making each of the 9 reefs a start position (total 9 start positions), but limiting the maximum start positions per player to 2 (the latter option was not available when the map was originally created)? this will reduce the number of occasions where good dice on turn one lead to a silly bonus (and effectively a win) on turn three for the starting player.

ian.

No ian, i had not considered that, but it seems worthwhile.
Do we have to do a poll on that also. i guess something will have to be additioned to the map graphically if that happens?

You wouldn't need to change anything on the map in either case. I say just do it!

[rdsrds2120]

I think that a max number of starting positions would be great for ToG!

-rd

[cairnswk]

Disaappointing number of votes on this one...only 48 people want the change?

[natty dread]

Enough to make the change I'd say...

[Seamus76]

Postby cairnswk on Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:46 pm
Disaappointing number of votes on this one...

Postby natty_dread on Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:20 pm
Enough to make the change I'd say...

I agree on both.

[Erland]

We got responses from everyone who is actively playing this map and cares about it, the most critical subset of the CC population when a change is contemplated, so what more is needed or can be expected? The map has been out for a very long time now; the overall number of maps is probably double what it was when it came out;there just aren't a huge number of people to whom this decision is important. Given the overwhelming opinion of these voters I strongly believe there is sufficient justification for making the change.