> I would also like to advocate for a revision of the default color palette, or at least another option.

I'm for this also.  I don't think black should be a default color.  I use it too often for borders, and then if it is a fill map it doesn't look good.  I'd rather 'orange' got a bit brighter, and we added a brown.

And made Khaki in the tan family... like Khaki should be.

Toaster would like to see:

Factories that can be triggered by neutral.  So you could have a territory that was a +2 factory to itself and would grow for the entire game if no one owned it. (and there are for sure no other stable territories on the board)

ratsy wrote:

Toaster would like to see:

Factories that can be triggered by neutral.  So you could have a territory that was a +2 factory to itself and would grow for the entire game if no one owned it. (and there are for sure no other stable territories on the board)

The Player "Neutral" would need a slot in the rotation.  Would that be assignable? 

I would like to see Tactic Cards:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1087/Commanders_Generals_and_Tactic_Cards

The primary tactics would be:

- Attack Left Flank

- Attack Center

- Attack Right Flank

- Defend Left Flank

- Defend Center

- Defend Right Flank

The battle resolution puts a high weight on which tactics are used.  For example, if I was attacking 10 armies against 3 or 4, they could potentially win if using the most effective tactic.

In general the more aggressive tactic wins unless it is directly repulsed by the defending tactic.  

Example 1:

Player A chooses Defend Left flank and Player B chooses Attack Left Flank.  Player B's troops essentially attack around the unprotected Right Flank of Player A's troops.  Player B would have a huge advantage in this battle.

Example 2 (See pic):

Player A chooses attack left flank and Player B chooses Attack Center.  This would have more mixed results because both parties are essentially being aggressive.  I believe Player A would have the edge because he is outflanking Player B.

EDIT:  I don't know why my pic isn't uploading.  Are .png allowed?

AttilaTheHun wrote:

I would like to see Tactic Cards:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1087/Commanders_Generals_and_Tactic_Cards

This is interesting, but as you describe it in this thread it seems a bit different from your description in the above linked thread.

Your description in this thread makes it sound more suited to Simulgear in that defensive and offensive positions must be proscribed.

I recommend taking the conversation back to the original thread and fleshing it out a bit more.

M57 wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

I would like to see Tactic Cards:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1087/Commanders_Generals_and_Tactic_Cards

This is interesting, but as you describe it in this thread it seems a bit different from your description in the above linked thread.

Your description in this thread makes it sound more suited to Simulgear in that defensive and offensive positions must be proscribed.

I recommend taking the conversation back to the original thread and fleshing it out a bit more.

Sounds good, I'll revitalize the thread.

M57 wrote:

ratsy wrote:

Toaster would like to see:

Factories that can be triggered by neutral.  So you could have a territory that was a +2 factory to itself and would grow for the entire game if no one owned it. (and there are for sure no other stable territories on the board)

The Player "Neutral" would need a slot in the rotation.  Would that be assignable? 

I'm speaking w/o all the facts here, but all you should need is a trigger before seat #1's turn that activates neutral growth. 

In my head it all sounds really easy and should be implemented post-haste!

Toaster wrote:

M57 wrote:

ratsy wrote:

Toaster would like to see:

Factories that can be triggered by neutral.  So you could have a territory that was a +2 factory to itself and would grow for the entire game if no one owned it. (and there are for sure no other stable territories on the board)

The Player "Neutral" would need a slot in the rotation.  Would that be assignable? 

I'm speaking w/o all the facts here, but all you should need is a trigger before seat #1's turn that activates neutral growth. 

In my head it all sounds really easy and should be implemented post-haste!

What if the designer doesn't want it to start until after the first round?  What if this very specific feature could be a small piece of more far-reaching neutral feature set. How might it be implemented differently? Should neutral be allowed to create all types of factories? What happens when a player is booted and a series of factories kicks in that makes it virtually impossible for a players to win because they become isolated from each other because of neutral creep. Universal-N has saved one of my boards from such a problem, but if neutrals can create more neutrals, I'm thinking there are lots of ways that designers can make a mess of things with this feature. What if a designer want's some neutral territories to be continents only when they are neutral, but others to be continents for players, but not neutrals?

I like the idea, but post-haste sounds premature.

Well... and you can certainly back me up on this one M57... it would take an infinite amount of creativity to stop designers from making a mess of things!  

ratsy wrote:

Well... and you can certainly back me up on this one M57... it would take an infinite amount of creativity to stop designers from making a mess of things!  

Yeah, it's true that the complexity and power of the existing designer features make it quite easy for designers to create boards prone to stalemating, crashing and burning, or just plain old boring, tedious and poor game-play. So I guess it's beyond the point where we should be worried about the ability of a new feature to give designers even more ways to create Frankenboards.

But we should want to make sure that every new button in the designer utilizes the most powerfully efficient and elegant way to achieve a need or desire.

M57 wrote:

 What if the designer doesn't want it to start until after the first round?  What if this very specific feature could be a small piece of more far-reaching neutral feature set. How might it be implemented differently? Should neutral be allowed to create all types of factories? What happens when a player is booted and a series of factories kicks in that makes it virtually impossible for a players to win because they become isolated from each other because of neutral creep. Universal-N has saved one of my boards from such a problem, but if neutrals can create more neutrals, I'm thinking there are lots of ways that designers can make a mess of things with this feature. What if a designer want's some neutral territories to be continents only when they are neutral, but others to be continents for players, but not neutrals?I like the idea, but post-haste sounds premature.

You could make it after the last seat takes a turn, but 1st seat seemed easier because all games have a Seat #1 as opposed to Seat "N" (or "X," or whathaveyou).

To me, "Universal" should mean that it always happens whether the trigger owner be friend, foe, or neutral.

You don't want the neutrals to trigger factories, then use "Universal-N."

Toaster wrote:

You don't want the neutrals to trigger factories, then use "Universal-N."

Where P = Player, N = Neutral, and E = Either.

What if I want it to trigger a factory ONLY if:

The continent is N and the factory is N = Proposed?
The continent is E and the factory is N = ?
The continent is P and the factory is N = Universal-N
The continent is N and the factory is P = ?
the continent is P and the factory is E = Universal
The continent is N and the factory is E = Proposed-N

What about Auto capture variations of the above for Neutral, etc?

good points m57. Much better to get all the details hashed out first.

I hereby retract any previous desire to have neutral activate factories as long I we can get the following:

I would very much like to have instead to the ability to create a. "Empty" seat.  What you'd essentially have is a computer-controlled player who placed their units randomly each turn and made no attacks.  Territory / continent bonuses and factories would be gained by the empty-seated player just like any other player.  Designers would be able to assign seat number(s) to the Empty Seat(s) and could have multiple ones per board setup. 

You could do a bunch of cool stuff, like include neutral-killing for elimination bonuses or gain cards given to the Empty Seat at game initialization. 

This could allow for a more interesting way for players to vary the number of random neutrals by increasing or decreasing the number of Empty Seats allowed to be in the game.  As in, a designer could allow for 1-3 empty seats at the host's discretion.  If the host wants light neutrals, then invite just 1 empty seat.  If you want heavy neutrals, then invite 3 empty seats to your game. 

In simultaneous territory selection games, the Empty Seat would mean that you could have a random distribution of neutrals unknown to the players.

This could even be a nice way of allowing designers to use these Empty Seat(s) to initially test a new board themselves w/o having to wait (or annoy) their fellow players with finding missing borders or misplaced factories.  Of course, the "Only 1 Active Seat" games would only be available for DEV games.

+1 to empty seat - Like this idea alot.

Here's an interesting one: the ability to "zoom" on the map. This might be more of a player's wish list item...

AttilaTheHun wrote: Here's an interesting one: the ability to "zoom" on the map. This might be more of a player's wish list item...

Yeah; We're designers. What do we care about those silly player's wishes, anyways.  ;)

A lot of times, this can be a function of the operating system or the browser, no?

Toaster wrote:

..the ability to create a. "Empty" seat.  What you'd essentially have is a computer-controlled player who placed their units randomly each turn and made no attacks...

..this could be envisioned as step one in the direction of creating dumb bots.  Eventually, why couldn't neutrals be allowed to attack, i.e., play?

Somewhere on some past thread, I proposed a down and dirty simple algorithm for Gearbot play.

It was discussed in detail, but for instance, a bot could take over when a player is booted, keeping a sense of fairness in the game.  I hate it when a booted player's stack protects/helps someone who otherwise would have lost..

Currently when you take a person's last capital they are eliminated and the victorious player gains a percentage of the defeated players troops. 

I would like an added option where a designer can specifiy what percentage of he player's territories they gain.  I'm thinking the territory percentage check would have to happen first, and then each gained territory would have the unit % check applied to it.

The real beauty of this addition is 2-fold: 

1. Gain the ability to obtain territories (abandon/retain)with 0 troops on them.
2. Allows for lands to be conquered w/o the overpowerment of lands+troops gained.

Example: Player A kills B.  B had 10 territories with between 3 and 8 troops on each. 

• Territory Assimilation is set to 50%, Troop Assimilation is set to 50%.  Player A gets 5 territores with between 1 and 4 troops on them; same as currently established 50% assimilation.
• Territory Assmilation set to 100%, Troop Assimilation to 50%.  Player A gains 10 territories; each with 50% of the troops they previously contained.
• Territory Assimilation 50%, Troop Assimilation 0%.  Player A gains 5 territories; each with 0 troops.