I think subgroups for randomization would be a good thing, and if it's possible/easily implemented, it would be nice to have.

I know it's been brought up before, but I would really love territory minimums... even if it's just an option of 0 or 1 overall, and then per territory (perhaps only as an option with abandon on), so you can have a board which partial abandon. A minimum of 1 would be standard play, a minimum of 0 would be abandon-able.

I would also like to be able to stray further from 1 eventually, so you must leave 2 behind, but you can treat it as n being the minimum, once it drops below n, the territory is taken or becomes empty, either neutral or player owned, based on abandon settings.

M57 wrote:

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

 ...But the whole idea is to avoid complicated designer options...

I haven't followed the thread that brought us to this point, but I have to say that I laughed loud and hard at you saying this, M.

I know.  ..it's true.

What I really want to say is that new designer options need to be powerful, flexible, and efficient, yet the front end for these same options have to be as simply presented as possible so that all designers understand them intuitively.

M57 wrote:

What I really want to say is that new designer options need to be powerful, flexible, and efficient, yet the front end for these same options have to be as simply presented as possible so that all designers understand them intuitively.

Um... too late

Edward Nygma wrote: I know it's been brought up before, but I would really love territory minimums... even if it's just an option of 0 or 1 overall, and then per territory (perhaps only as an option with abandon on), so you can have a board which partial abandon. A minimum of 1 would be standard play, a minimum of 0 would be abandon-able.

I would also like to be able to stray further from 1 eventually, so you must leave 2 behind, but you can treat it as n being the minimum, once it drops below n, the territory is taken or becomes empty, either neutral or player owned, based on abandon settings.

For someone who likes to hit 'T' to attack, such options could be frustrating on a board.  For example, I hit 'T', move all units forward, abandon at the end of turn is on, and now I have to waste a fortify to back fill. 

Honestly, I am unsure of how this option would be easily denoted on the board so that it would be understandable.

It's essentially just an option that allows a blend of abandon and standard play. You can set it so that some territories will allow you to abandon while others don't. If properly denoted, it would be easy. Even if not labeled at all, if used properly it would be excellent.

Take Sound Check for example, http://www.wargear.net/boards/designer/1242 . This map allows you to change what bonus structure you receive by connecting each bonus to a slide bar, which only allows 1 unit per player, so each player can only activate one at a time. That feature requires abandon to be on, and also requires that empty territories return to neutral. Unfortunately, the game would play much better if the entire board weren't restricted to the abandon rules, but only partial abandon. That way, the bonus selector would have minimums of 0 (abandon), while the rest of the board had minimums of 1 (leave 1 behind, standard play). It wouldn't be confusing, it would be made so that it's understandable and open.

I've run into the issue a lot, where abandon is necessary for one aspect, but ruins the rest of the board. I think territory minimums with only the option of 1 or 0 to start out, would be extremely helpful and would open many-a-door.

Edward Nygma wrote: It's essentially just an option that allows a blend of abandon and standard play. You can set it so that some territories will allow you to abandon while others don't. If properly denoted, it would be easy. Even if not labeled at all, if used properly it would be excellent.

Take Sound Check for example, http://www.wargear.net/boards/designer/1242 . This map allows you to change what bonus structure you receive by connecting each bonus to a slide bar, which only allows 1 unit per player, so each player can only activate one at a time. That feature requires abandon to be on, and also requires that empty territories return to neutral. Unfortunately, the game would play much better if the entire board weren't restricted to the abandon rules, but only partial abandon. That way, the bonus selector would have minimums of 0 (abandon), while the rest of the board had minimums of 1 (leave 1 behind, standard play). It wouldn't be confusing, it would be made so that it's understandable and open.

I've run into the issue a lot, where abandon is necessary for one aspect, but ruins the rest of the board. I think territory minimums with only the option of 1 or 0 to start out, would be extremely helpful and would open many-a-door.

Despite our best efforts, there's usually no way of working around this feature with the system as is.

As support to this idea, I have a board ready to go except I have 1 territory that I need* abandon on to work, but having it on ruins the rest of the board.

*"need" is a little strong. It would also work if the territory could be set to "revert to neutral" after every turn. Or, I do have an ugly sort-of-work-around that I don't want to use. So I am waiting for the world to change.

The argument that it *could* be confusing, to me, isn't a strong one. It's easy to make the options we already have into a confusing board, but it's also possible to use the potentially confusing features into something fantastic. I don't think it would be too difficult to implement, since both options are already available independently of each-other, but at the same time, I understand if it's not a high priority. Though it is to me.

Nygma - I am not at all against the proposal; I agree with you that as long as the ability is denoted so that players understand it, it would be a great tool that would fix some of the difficult to implement design ideas. Some of the workarounds are probably more confusing than having this design tool.

I'm pretty fond of letting the game play without spelling everything out. Especially when it's more smooth to let it happen than it is to try to explain everything that goes into it. As long as the player understands abandoning territories, I don't think it's much of a stretch for specific territories which can be abandoned.

Has anybody yet suggested introducing a toggle-able board feature that would set continent bonuses to scale over time?

Lux had a mechanic like that, where you could specify the rate at which continent bonuses would increase over time. It was usually something like x% increase every y turns. Card bonuses frequently get bigger over time, and I think it would be pretty interesting if continent bonuses could do the same things. Thoughts?

Would this be a designer or user option/feature?

Could be either, really. I think designer would select a checkbox whether to enable user-customization or whether to keep it at a set value (default = 0%, or fixed continent bonuses).

If this goes through, it should be able to diminish too.

Sounds like a Designer feature.
Although I wouldn't mind seeing Non-Ranked Customizable games available in which all Rules are opened up (perhaps add in with purchasing a board).

Along the lines of Kjeld's suggestion I've thought a dynamic elimination bonus would help some boards out also.

Along with Yertle, I'd also like to see Public Casual games. Non-ranked with open seats.

Amidon37 wrote: Along the lines of Kjeld's suggestion I've thought a dynamic elimination bonus would help some boards out also.

That would also be cool. +1