There is a class of games that uses territory bonuses to allow the placing of units in capital-attacking spots. (e.g. the Alpha/Mongrel games and M57's Go-Geared)

When factories are involved, these games become sensitive to when the beginning of a turn is. Right now, a turn begins, the player does or doesn't get the winning bonus, AND THEN factories are applied. Confusion in these games results because the mapmaker says, "The first person to start their turn with x territories wins." But, to the player, they take their turn after factories have produced territories, so they may very well have x territories when they take their turn, but not get the winning bonus. (This was observed in another thread.)

I would like to see the option of applying factories prior to allocating the territory bonus. In fact, I think that should be the default. Even in more ordinary games (games that might produce territories with factories that aren't of the Alpha/Mongrel style), this seems like the logical default. (So, if an option seems to complicate matters, my suggestion is really to change the order of operations instead of creating an option.)

I don't know about Five, Ten, and those games -- but I'm not sure it matters for Go-Geared other than it being a matter of convenience?  I mean - there is the extra "wait-time", but the outcome is eventual and pre-determined.

On the other hand, wouldn't this proposed feature make a huge difference in Go-Diced, because it would put the kibosh on that wonderful potential for a rolll-off at the end?

I'm not saying it swings a determined game.

Ten - Propagate has a stated goal of "Start turn with 100 territories". This is nice, compact, but requiring a definition of "Start turn". You might look down and see 100 territories, but you get no placement.

Go-Geared similarly has a stated goal of starting the turn with over half the territories on the board. Suppose your factories produced enough so you "start your turn" with 41 territories on a 9x9 (some of them factory-produced, so you don't get to place for the win.) Now suppose your opponent is all 1's - you have nowhere to place, and a few blanks left. You place nowhere, your opponent uses his turn to place in a non-capturable blank on the edge. Now he has 41, and you'll see 40 when you you start your next turn. In spite of "starting your turn" (my/intuitive definition) at 41, you lose.

B/c I know the technicality, I would say that the person with all 1's won fair and square and it was a pre-determined outcome. But, the interpretation is weird.

To account for the technicality, all of these games would have to describe it as "Prior to factory production, if you have 100 territories, you can place and win!"

My point is that most people think of the beginning of the turn as what they see when they load up the Flash player.

To summarize (I can tell I'm being overly wordy for something simple):

Hugh wrote:

My point is that most people think of the beginning of the turn as what they see when they load up the Flash player.

I agree that it is confusing, but I think I like the gameplay better the way it is.  The only map I've played enough to have an opinion on is 10, and in really close games I feel like it makes the end a bit more exciting and adds some endgame strategy.

I don't have a strong opinion and I'm sure I'd get used to it either way, so maybe the less confusing option is better.

It would be good to check with Ed Nygma to see how this would affect him.  He has probably done more and thought more about factories than anyone else.

It would be straightforward to change this and I have no objection to doing so. However we should definitely get EN's opinion as he introduced the concept of using factories as logic gates. I've sent him a PM requesting he check this thread.

Sounds like it's just a matter of determining which order is the default.  Great!

Countering/agreeing with Oz: I like the goofiness of it too, b/c it adds complexity. However, simplicity of rule and simplicity in perception of rule are preferred, and if that is absent, good descriptions of the nuance should be encouraged in descriptions and the help pages.

I'd like to hear what EN has to say, but my understanding of his programming methods is that they are factory-based, so that territory/continent bonus order is irrelevant. It is more relevant for Propagate and Go-x.

If it stays as is - I guess I should amend my descriptions, huh?

What exactly is the proposition?  I don't know how it would effect current games (Bejeweled might be the most effected... if I understand).  

Hugh wrote:

I would like to see the option of applying factories prior to allocating the territory bonus. In fact, I think that should be the default.

Above is the proposition.  (Which I think should be the default btw.)

I don't think Dejeweled will be effected at all since the territory count bonus is disabled for that game.

I think I suggested this a long time ago to make sure the 5 shows up in pong... same thing, no?

Edward Nygma wrote:

I think I suggested this a long time ago to make sure the 5 shows up in pong... same thing, no?

Maybe, though isn't what you're talking about a factory-produced scoreboard? (Link! hehehe)

I'm talking about territory (non-factory) bonus for the player to physically place at the beginning of the turn. Factories sometimes turn on empty neutral abandoned territories, which changes the territory bonus. As it is now, the territory bonus calculation occurs first, then factories turn stuff on, then the user plays and places.

I propose factories turn stuff on, then territory bonus calculation, then the user plays and places.

If there are "options", so far we have two good arguments for making factory first/bonus allocation last  the default.

1. What you see is what you get
2. Timely execution of end-game requirements

I'm unable to come up with a design theme or argument that would suggest that the territorial bonus should be allocated first.

I wonder that it should even be an option at this point.  I'd say change it now and wait till some designer asks for it (which will probably never happen) before cluttering up the designer.

Fine with me.  At some point there are diminishing returns for having every option be available, and if there is a sensible default, let's go with that.

I also want to mention that I've explained to at least 5 different people who didn't understand why their game of 10 wasn't over when they got to 100 territories, so this is definitely causing confusion.

This change has been made. Let me know if you see any issues and I will revert if needed.

Thanks tom!

Has the change caused any problems?