Less starting neutrals on maps.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2025 11:05 pm
Basically my general take on it is this: less neutrals (on map starting positions) tends to mean more fun - and probably also likely to be more competitive in most cases, especially in maps that are “stacked” via favorable randomized starting positions to give one player an easily defended bonus region by way of surrounding neutral territories. Related, I think it would be good if starting positions were not generated with one player already holding a bonus, especially if that player moves first and can get an early - and possibly definitive with good play - lead by defending this bonus.
I realize there are maps in which this does not make sense (for example the desert oasis map should have the center portion being all neutrals), but for those in which the map premise plausibly allows for less starting neutrals then less would generally be better IMO.
As such I would suggest for many maps where it makes some sense (a vote via players who have played the maps should give a good indication of possible improvements IMO) the neutrals should be kept to a minimum, in many/most cases only to the number that cannot be filled equally by the players (eg. 60 territories for a 3v3 would be 10 each, no neutrals while 65 would be 10 each with 5 neutrals).
I realize there are maps in which this does not make sense (for example the desert oasis map should have the center portion being all neutrals), but for those in which the map premise plausibly allows for less starting neutrals then less would generally be better IMO.
As such I would suggest for many maps where it makes some sense (a vote via players who have played the maps should give a good indication of possible improvements IMO) the neutrals should be kept to a minimum, in many/most cases only to the number that cannot be filled equally by the players (eg. 60 territories for a 3v3 would be 10 each, no neutrals while 65 would be 10 each with 5 neutrals).