asm wrote: Lame. Popcorn and pedantry, but nothing to say? Go back to your chemistry.

Whatever. Have you even graduated yet? Get with the program, slacker.

Vataro wrote:

asm wrote: Lame. Popcorn and pedantry, but nothing to say? Go back to your chemistry.

Whatever. Have you even graduated yet? Get with the program, slacker.

HA! I'm at school right now. Multitasking FTW.

Would it be possible to lower the minimum on standard attack dice to 1-sided. I know it could complicate things for new map makers, but would be great for the "roll-free" boards.

Ed, how does this make for a roll-free board? I'm assuming there's a defender who will also roll a 1+ sided dice (and always win).

Although I do like the idea of the territory being a non-attacking territory.

Aye to what M said, wouldn't you want the Standard Dice (for both Attack and Defend) to be able to go down to 0? That way you wouldn't need to create border modifiers everywhere.

Yes, I think the minimum for all dice sides should be 0, so that you can make a board where there's no chance of winning a roll. Take Five (http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Five) for example. The game is meant to be played where you never have to take a chance, all attacks will lose, unless attacking an empty territory. I'm making a board with a 15x15 grid, in which each territory can be attacked by each of 2 single separate territories, I'd really rather not put in 450 modifiers if there's an option to set worse dice. Currently the worst odds I can do are 2v20, which is a 10% chance of victory, or something near there. I can take that and make each one -2 A modifiers, but I think the number of sides shouldn't be difficult to implement, since there's already a system in place.

Edward Nygma wrote:Currently the worst odds I can do are 2v20, which is a 10% chance of victory, or something near there. 

2 sides for attacker vs 20 for defender? That's far worse than 10%. Rolling 1 die vs 1 die, the attacker should win 2.5% of the time according to the back of my envelope. With more dice being rolled, the odds would get worse from there.

3v1, sorry.

Hugh would have to deal with that one.

EDIT: But it still can't be better than 5% (the odds of the defender rolling a 1)... Actually I think it would be 4.375% (attacker rolling 3 2-sided dice vs defender rolling 1 20-sided die) for an attacker win.

d2 vs d20:

3 vs 2:
attacker:
wins 2: 0.125%
wins 1: 4.843%
wins 0: 95.031%

3 vs 1:
attacker:
wins: 4.375%
loses: 95.625%

worst odds possible 1 vs 2:
attacker:
wins: .125%
loses: 99.875%

I've updated the Designer to support zero and one sided dice... see how you go with that :)

You're the man tom!

Fix your darts map please! Step totally spent 30 units attacking one of my territories but she managed to kill it :(.

I like that about the darts map, actually.

Same here. You never really know how many units you'll lose. First time I attacked EN to capture one of his I ended up only losing 11 or something along those smaller lines.

But I am interested in seeing how it'll play out once he switches it over....

It should be fixed now.

No dice, pure play.

Following up on carnivorous territories, maybe they should be a continent attribute instead of a territory attribute.

Edward Nygma wrote: Following up on carnivorous territories, maybe they should be a continent attribute instead of a territory attribute.

I think you are right in that mechanically it's very similar to a continental bonus.  The difference is that carnivorous and spawning bonuses/penalties need to be allocated only to that territory.

It would be nice to take this idea and expand it (I mentioned this idea earlier).

If you get a continent bonus for Australia, those troops should be applied to Australia (maybe randomly).  It makes no sense that prosperity in Australia should permit you to drop its corresponding bonus troops in Greenland (unless perhaps you have a supply line feature that functions similarly to unlimited fortifies).

But this sounds hard to implement and I don't really think developers would be all that interested. I mean, it doesn't really open doors on the design end.  But what I find intriguing about it is that it could be instantly applied to just about any standard board with the flick of a button, right there next to fog as an additional option.   As a player option, it seems like it could become popular, but I'm just speculating.  A simple spawning/carnivorous territory attribute with one pull down value menu sounds like the most elegant designer feature that addresses the basic idea to me at this point.

Anyway, the more I think about these features and their possibilities, the more I come back to the barren feature as being one of the most significant game changers feature wise.  I can't tell you how many board ideas I'm coming up with where I am putting them off because working on them would be a waste of energy when I consider that a barren button might be in the pipeline.

I've been talking for a long time about continent modifiers, and I think this should fall under that category. I envision a sub-menu system where there's a cause and effect section. IF Cause = Continent ownership THEN Effect = +/- unit count, +/- borders, +/- units in specified territory, +/- Border modifiers, etc. I suppose barren doesn't work this way, but for spawning and carnivorous territories, you could set 1 territory to be the continent, then have the effect be specified unit placement, or specified unit loss, but it also leaves the option open to say if you have all of these territories, this one starts losing units or gaining them, which, in my opinion, is better than specifying one territory.