If I have a map with 14 starting locations, how do I do the scenario so it will put in neutrals for ones not used?  What I'd like is if there 6 players, each would get 2 locations and the other 2 would be neutral.  I have tried it by setting them all to the same seat and turning the rules thing off and it wouldn't work and also tried setting them all to different seats and it wouldn't work.

I would like this to work, but if not I will revolutionize Wargear by making the first ever 7 player only map!  That's something to plop down on Ye Ol' Resume!

Stop using Scenario mode? Then just rely on random territory assignment...

I've noticed that WarGear assigns neutrals first, then divides the remaining spaces between the players, and any players that get fewer territories will get extra armies on some of their spaces to make up the difference.  I wonder if it would make more sense to assign the players an even number of territories first and adjust the neutrals to absorb any unevenness.  I think that would let Risky do what he's trying to do.

I would prefer Red Baron's suggestion as well. It would make it possible to design scenario-based maps for different numbers of players.

If I have a bunch of set neutrals and also set players I should just not set the places the players go and just set the neutrals? Does that sound right?

I think the way it should work is that any player positions and neutrals assigned in a scenario should be initialized first. Then, if any of the player positions are unfilled (for example if there are six seats but only five players), they should be replaced with the same number of neutrals, and it should always be the seats at the end that are neutral (seat six in the above example). Then, the remaining unassigned spots should be divided randomly between the players, evenly if possible, filling any remaining spots with neutrals unless the no neutral mode has been selected.

You should just make different scenarios for different #s of players =P.

I think that's a great suggestion re: neutrals filling in around players so players always get the same number of territories each. The only downside I can see is that the proportion of neutral territories will vary as the number of players varies. Anyway I will update the code tonight for this.

As regards how scenario placement works, that's exactly how it works except that scenario positions are randomly allocated to players, not filled up from 1 to n. This has the effect of randomising start positions which my understanding is generally desirable. Potentially this could be an additional rule option.

I don't really feel that keeping neutral territories at a particular proportion is necessary or even desirable in many cases. They should be there just to fill in extra spots to keep things even.

I'm just thinking you might get some weird cases like this:

30 territories
9 players + 1 neutral player = 3 territories per player and 3 neutral territories

30 territories
10 players + 1 neutral player = 2 territories per player and 10 neutral territories

So for one neutral setting you could end up with completely different numbers of neutrals when one extra player joins the game - is that desirable?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who launches a 30 territory game with 9 or 10 players is asking for trouble anyway.

I've implemented this change guys - see how you go with it. From the testing I've done it seems to balance out player territory counts nicely. There may be some strangeness at edge conditions (e.g. as mentioned in my previous post) so let me know if that happens and I may be able to adjust the forumula.

tom wrote: I've implemented this change guys - see how you go with it. From the testing I've done it seems to balance out player territory counts nicely. There may be some strangeness at edge conditions (e.g. as mentioned in my previous post) so let me know if that happens and I may be able to adjust the forumula.

There is a new formula for Neutral Count?

Wait, there is a NEW Mexico?

RiskyBack wrote: Wait, there is a NEW Mexico?

I was thinking the other day that New York has got to be about 400 years old by now.  So how much older does it have to get before we can call it just York?

Red Baron wrote:

RiskyBack wrote: Wait, there is a NEW Mexico?

I was thinking the other day that New York has got to be about 400 years old by now.  So how much older does it have to get before we can call it just York?

Would that require changing the name of York to Old York?

Cramchakle wrote:

Red Baron wrote:

RiskyBack wrote: Wait, there is a NEW Mexico?

I was thinking the other day that New York has got to be about 400 years old by now.  So how much older does it have to get before we can call it just York?

Would that require changing the name of York to Old York?

Possibly.  And what happens if we ever build cities on the moon named after these places?  Do we call the new cities New New York and New York or New York and New Old York?

But we digress from the topic....

Yertle wrote:

There is a new formula for Neutral Count?

It's the same formula as you suggested... except now it uses the neutral player count to balance the territories received by the other players so all players should receive the same number of territories if neutrals are turned on.

Which formula? The second one?

Yes.