Rating: 7.57 out of 10 based on 14 ratings
Chart.
You can review this board once you have completed a Public game
Ratings
Thu 12th Apr 01:50
not sure yet, will need to dig deeper
Reviewed by Number Sharks 
Great
Great
not sure yet, will need to dig deeper
Thu 13th Oct 11:57
I really like this board!! Is a lot of strategy and patience!
I really like this board!! Is a lot of strategy and patience!
Sat 7th May 09:53
nice 1 v 1 board, but too much luck involved to rank much higher.
nice 1 v 1 board, but too much luck involved to rank much higher.
Wed 23rd Mar 23:19
One of my favorite maps to play one on one at. Luck is needed on the original map setup for sure, and if bad luck is the only luck you have then you will not have a chance!
One of my favorite maps to play one on one at. Luck is needed on the original map setup for sure, and if bad luck is the only luck you have then you will not have a chance!
Thu 17th Mar 11:29
I prefer the Random Scenario over the other Scenarios due to less neutral bashing. Random Scenario seems balanced and well setup with getting fighting between players on early! Nice work on that Scenario!
Everyone should play this at least once just because of the awesome fill work done on the graphics, completed prior to Dual layers, this board is very cool looking!
I prefer the Random Scenario over the other Scenarios due to less neutral bashing. Random Scenario seems balanced and well setup with getting fighting between players on early! Nice work on that Scenario!Everyone should play this at least once just because of the awesome fill work done on the graphics, completed prior to Dual layers, this board is very cool looking!
Wed 30th Jun 17:06
As my first opponent tell you need to be lucky with the dice in the first turn to win.
As my first opponent tell you need to be lucky with the dice in the first turn to win.
Sun 27th Jun 17:14
new rating it needs some practice to like it Now it is :-)
new rating it needs some practice to like it Now it is :-)
Fri 25th Jun 20:30
As it's currently configured, this board is basically broken. Due to the bottom player having an extra 2 units at start and needing to kill 3 less units to get the bottom continent, the bottom player not only will start off with a +5 bonus after the first turn roughly 66% of the time, it's almost mathematically impossible for the top player to secure a continent on their first turn without otherworldly luck. Given the unit counts of the players, that basically amounts to a +10 bonus for the bottom player at the start of turn 2 (+5 bonus, +5 units that the bottom player either starts with or doesn't have to kill to get a bonus), which is almost insurmountable. I've only lost as the bottom player once, and it took a mixture of me running up against asm (one of WarGear's finest) and some fantastic rolling on his side to make that happen.
With some tweaks, I think this board could be salvaged, either by reducing the starting number of units for the bottom player or by increasing the starting number of units for the top player. Until then, I'd just steer clear of it - it pretty much amounts to flipping a coin, declaring that "Heads" wins, then spending some time proving it.
As it's currently configured, this board is basically broken. Due to the bottom player having an extra 2 units at start and needing to kill 3 less units to get the bottom continent, the bottom player not only will start off with a +5 bonus after the first turn roughly 66% of the time, it's almost mathematically impossible for the top player to secure a continent on their first turn without otherworldly luck. Given the unit counts of the players, that basically amounts to a +10 bonus for the bottom player at the start of turn 2 (+5 bonus, +5 units that the bottom player either starts with or doesn't have to kill to get a bonus), which is almost insurmountable. I've only lost as the bottom player once, and it took a mixture of me running up against asm (one of WarGear's finest) and some fantastic rolling on his side to make that happen.With some tweaks, I think this board could be salvaged, either by reducing the starting number of units for the bottom player or by increasing the starting number of units for the top player. Until then, I'd just steer clear of it - it pretty much amounts to flipping a coin, declaring that "Heads" wins, then spending some time proving it.
Fri 25th Jun 01:59
i love this. i like that things are put up to fate, and that the players before they meet have no real control. the other reviews are correct. thats what i like about this one.
i love this. i like that things are put up to fate, and that the players before they meet have no real control. the other reviews are correct. thats what i like about this one.
Thu 17th Jun 02:28
This is a good attempt at a balanced two player duel map, but a players luck against the neutrals on the first couple of turns seems to be more of a deciding factor than anything else. Since game-play relies mostly on luck, it is not a map I play often, but I am not against joining an open table.
This is a good attempt at a balanced two player duel map, but a players luck against the neutrals on the first couple of turns seems to be more of a deciding factor than anything else. Since game-play relies mostly on luck, it is not a map I play often, but I am not against joining an open table.
Wed 9th Jun 16:27
Close your eyes, cross your fingers, and throw the dice.
All but one of my games were decided before contact, based on initial neutral bashing. With a very small number of options at each turn, and loads of neutrals to get through, the game seems strategically equivalent to rock-paper-scissors, without the head games. Put it this way. Assuming that there are equal chances of grabbing the first continent bonus the first turn (which I think is decently balanced), then both players need to either roll well or roll poorly for this thing to not be essentially over after the first turn. So that means only 50% of the games have a chance at something interesting.
The board is clean, the fill layer is understated (a good thing), and it always feels good to win, but CoD doesn't for it for me. Keep at it though WT! I'm happy to try your new creations.
Close your eyes, cross your fingers, and throw the dice. All but one of my games were decided before contact, based on initial neutral bashing. With a very small number of options at each turn, and loads of neutrals to get through, the game seems strategically equivalent to rock-paper-scissors, without the head games. Put it this way. Assuming that there are equal chances of grabbing the first continent bonus the first turn (which I think is decently balanced), then both players need to either roll well or roll poorly for this thing to not be essentially over after the first turn. So that means only 50% of the games have a chance at something interesting.
The board is clean, the fill layer is understated (a good thing), and it always feels good to win, but CoD doesn't for it for me. Keep at it though WT! I'm happy to try your new creations.
Mon 26th Apr 19:11
A tough board to rate. Excellent graphics work, and balanced about as well as a two person set-scenario board can be balanced. However, starting units and attack options are extremely limited, putting this board way over on the 'luck' side of the strategy <-> luck scale. Very easy to either win or lose the game in the first two turns. Not my cup of tea, but still a good implementation of this type of map.
A tough board to rate. Excellent graphics work, and balanced about as well as a two person set-scenario board can be balanced. However, starting units and attack options are extremely limited, putting this board way over on the 'luck' side of the strategy <-> luck scale. Very easy to either win or lose the game in the first two turns. Not my cup of tea, but still a good implementation of this type of map.
