Maybe this thread is more appropriate for the Map Design forum.

I'm wondering if there is any desire or option for card settings/options to be included in the game options dialogue instead of the un-editable board settings. 

I know one of my favorite parts about Colossal Crusade is that the map can't be won with string of eliminations or turning in cards at the correct time. 

I'm sure this wouldn't be easy but I think that it would take some difficulty out of map creation, encourage people to play more maps, and balance game play. 

Anyone else wish that game creators could manipulate card settings on a per match basis?

I would be ok with this if there was some ability for the map maker to restrict it.  In fact, I'd like to see more options like that, where the map maker can turn them on for players to modify.  I think Tom started wargear with the philosophy that on ToS allowing players to modify all these options lead to some crappy games, so he went to the other extreme and locked everything down and gave the designer total control.

Some boards, I know require certain card scales.  And usually I've thought quite a bit about what the card scales need to be & in most of my maps they are set where they need to be, and IMO really wouldn't play as well at most other settings.  But the ability to allow a small range of options or certain small tweak would be great, and would make it less likely to require multiple scenarios.

Another example is fog levels - some maps might play ok on light, medium or heavy fog, but not with none or total, but there is no one to restrict that, so you either have to open it all up, or lock it all down. 

As a workaround, if there is a particular map you want to see a different card scale on, just PM the map maker.  I have in the past made specific scenarios when requested, and in generally I'd be happy to do it again.

Interesting, I didn't know the history of the site. Makes a lot of sense. 

I agree about the card scales for certain maps as well. Even depending on the type of game play it can change drastically. A 12 person team game is different than a 12 person free for all and drastically alters the dynamic of ramping, static, or ramping/rollover card settings. 

I like the fog setting point, there is a "recommended" setting that users can change(for benefit or detriment). 

I haven't personally made a map so I don't know how robust the system is, but it seems very open. 

Good idea about writing map makers. 

I'm all for options, but personal experience has shown that taking out the card cascade can lead to some punishing stalemates on maps that aren't designed with a bonus system that offers an overwhelming tipping point.

Good ol' fashioned RISK suffers from this as much as anything else. Growing up, my dad hated playing RISK with us because we never read the instructions and only used the cards for assigning the initial board layout, never for turn-ins. Games would take days. Once I read the rules for myself and started using cards, I don't think I've ever been at a RISK table for more than a couple hours.

One thing I do remember making maps on Warfish was getting bad reviews from people complaining about maps getting caught in unfinishable stalemates when they were playing under their own set of custom rules. I don't miss that aspect of it, of course, but am generally in favor of giving people all the rope they need to hang themselves.

> One thing I do remember making maps on Warfish was getting bad reviews from people complaining about maps getting caught in unfinishable stalemates when they were playing under their own set of custom rules. I don't miss that aspect of it, of course, but am generally in favor of giving people all the rope they need to hang themselves.

Yep - warfish was horrible for this.  Players could easily setup a game that was horrible.  Tom has given us less freedom, but the benefit is more consistent games.

I'd like to see more freedom for the game host, but allow the designer to limit the freedom to ensure that it doesn't ruin the gameplay.

Mad Bomber wrote: Games that can't be won by a string of elimination or trading in cards at the right time leads to people teaming up in a ffa....which is just not my bag......but then again I don't have a ton of friends....:)

Maybe you should try not beating everyone you play.  If you spread the wins around to some of us, we might like you more.....

It's lonely at the top.