Vataro wrote:

Mongrel wrote:

Mongrel wrote: Tom, can we lower the territory bonus? I would like to assign a +1 for every 20 territories owned.

Actually, could you make it +1 for every 25?

I'm very curious what kind of board would only give +1 for 25 territories, and why I would ever want to play it. :P

For Five, in the event that the board mixes to the point where no row or column could be easily attained, we still want to minimize draws. The territory bonus would be another way to win late in the game- hold and protect enough land.

Essentially it's a way to solve the stalemate issue... if you can't get a +1 to end the game because the board locks up... you get +1 for owning over half the board, which ends the game.

Ah, true.

It would be real nice if you could have a scenario initial set-up that could be simultaneously random and non-random.

In other words, engage "scenario based" in the rules, and allocate as you usually would in the design tab in the scenario section, but after clicking on an individual territory you could additionally assign that territory as "unallocated".  The adjacent number of units per territory pull down would apply, and of course the seat number would be NA.

That's already possible - just leave the territory with no defined scenario setting.

OK, let's say I have selected something and allocated it and then changed my mind, and I want it unallocated. How do I do that?

Delete?

Are you asking that a specific territory have a certain number of units no matter who ends up owning it? I.e Territory A is set to have 5 units no matter who owns it but Territory B is set to have 10 units no matter who owns it.

If not then maybe tom's answer is complete, although what I think tom has said is what you have on your Fall of Rome board, so I assume you know it...

delete works ..I think.

I end up with a "+" on a white background.

-Thanks

I'm pretty sure this suggestion goes here but forgive me if it doesn't!

I'd like to have the option of selecting either a public board or a beta board when I go to the Create Game tab to start a game.  As it is right now, only public boards are displayed in the drop-down list so I have to go to the Boards tab & select Beta Boards in order to start a game on one.

If this suggestion is implemented, it'd be pretty cool if we could also get the board browser list for the beta boards.  (You know the "Or use the [board browser]" option under Select a Board....)

A Max Army Distance Movement setting in the designer would be very useful.  This would be a Global setting for all armies.  It would enable the designer have control over player  use of "blitzing" strategies, making game-play more "realistic", and many number-of move-sensitive boards (like Gearfight) could be made much more fluid and workable.  Sounds tricky to code, but..

Default = Unlimited

Like a border maximum. This border can only handle so many units passing through per turn... I like the idea. I tried to simulate that using unit maximums, so you have to "trudge" through an area, only able to move 2 through at a time, like a swamp, or a run on sentence. Border maximums are a good idea though.

I was thinking about an option to start a game where one player may fill multiple seats. That way I can simulate a game, and play each turn, just to see what may happen. #v# with 2 players would be nice as well, where 1 player controls an entire team.

I also like the idea of groups of territories to randomize in the designer. Say there are 2 or 4 players. I could select 4 territories, and set them to randomize specifically among the players, then select a separate group of territories to randomize. This way I can be sure that the players receive vital territories, but still have the ability to randomize the board. This is available if I require a finite number of players and just set the starting places in stone, then leave the rest open, but if I could set groups of areas to randomize separately, it could be achieved with the option of multiple game sizes with common factors.

Edward Nygma wrote: I also like the idea of groups of territories to randomize in the designer. Say there are 2 or 4 players. I could select 4 territories, and set them to randomize specifically among the players, then select a separate group of territories to randomize. This way I can be sure that the players receive vital territories, but still have the ability to randomize the board. This is available if I require a finite number of players and just set the starting places in stone, then leave the rest open, but if I could set groups of areas to randomize separately, it could be achieved with the option of multiple game sizes with common factors.

YES.

How about the ability to specify whether the neutral player counts as a player in terms of receiving elimination bonuses, including any capitol capture and % territory take-over associated with that.

Edward Nygma wrote: I also like the idea of groups of territories to randomize in the designer. Say there are 2 or 4 players. I could select 4 territories, and set them to randomize specifically among the players, then select a separate group of territories to randomize. This way I can be sure that the players receive vital territories, but still have the ability to randomize the board. This is available if I require a finite number of players and just set the starting places in stone, then leave the rest open, but if I could set groups of areas to randomize separately, it could be achieved with the option of multiple game sizes with common factors.

I like the idea, but what if there are 4 territories and 3 players? .. or 8 territories and 3 players? How would you want that to randomize? I can think of at least 3 different ways that I would "prefer".

In Fall of Rome, I have 12 rogue territories (and made it 12 for a reason) set up inside the empire that are distributed to players.  Ideally, I'd love them to get spread around "less" randomly.  I once played a game with 5+ people where I was dealt half of 'em.

I don't understand... did you explain your better method, or just say you have a better one? With my proposed idea, you could take those 12 territories and group them so that with 2,3,4,6 or 12 players could divide them up evenly, and it would be even every time. With 5 players the system would be broken, unless you could divide them "evenly" and make the rest neutral. The proposed idea does make things less random, it would make it so you could never get half of the specific territories, because they're evenly split every time separately from the rest of the board being randomized.

And IRoll11s I like the idea of neutral capitals being assimilated, I think it would work well with setting players, then turning the extra players neutral, so there could be multiple neutral players, and capturing a neutral capital or eliminating a neutral enemy would provide the same bonus as if it were a player.

Edward Nygma wrote: I don't understand... did you explain your better method, or just say you have a better one? With my proposed idea, you could take those 12 territories and group them so that with 2,3,4,6 or 12 players could divide them up evenly, and it would be even every time.

I don't have a "method", cause i'm not sure how it would work.  I"m not even sure what I would prefer. You tell me.  Let's say I have a lot of territories that get doled out randomly per usual, but then I have an additional 12 special territories..

..that I want doled out as "evenly" as possible. So if 5 people sign up, each player gets two of these territories, and the remaining 2 territories go neutral 

..that I want doled out as "evenly" as possible, with any leftovers going to two lucky (or unlucky) players. So if 5 people sign up, each player gets two and the remaining 2 territories go to two of the players

..that I want doled out, but only one to each player.  So if 5 people sign up -- 5 of these special territories get doled out, one per customer, and the rest go neutral.

IRoll11s wrote: How about the ability to specify whether the neutral player counts as a player in terms of receiving elimination bonuses, including any capitol capture and % territory take-over associated with that.

Sweetness.

Option 2 would be the best my plan could do, option 1 would be great, and option 3 would be cool.

Edward Nygma wrote: Option 2 would be the best my plan could do, option 1 would be great, and option 3 would be cool.

I don't doubt that tom could do any or all of them.. But the whole idea is to avoid complicated designer options.

In my mind this isn't a super critical designer feature.  That said, I would nevertheless probably use it, and if I had to vote for and option, I probably not vote for 3 because if I wanted to have everyone start with a special territory, like a capital, I would probably just allocate them.  No need for the feature.

..and if I had to choose between 1 and 2, I'd probably go for 1 because it's "fair".