US Senate map flawed?

by **cleveridea** on Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:45 am

It seems that in flat-rate 3 or 4 player games, the map is so symmetrical that if all players are competent, the game will probably never end. I'm thinking in my games it will be a matter of players losing their minds and wanting the hell out of the game before it will end.

by **detlef** on Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:22 am

That's also my issue with the Chinese Checkers game only it's worse because everyone can attack everyone else. I took one look at the Senate game and stayed away for that very reason. It is far too easy to keep the leader in check so nobody will pull away unless somebody gets tired of playing or hits an insanely bad stretch of luck.

by **Kugelblitz22** on Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:04 am

Chinese checkers is definitely like that. Have to play more senate before I make up my mind.

by **alster** on Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:42 pm

Dunno if it is flawed. But the starting-position will determine the team games if both teams are decently competent. However, most maps are like that. Canada and the U.S. are very much decided by respective team's starting-position.

Think the CCU map is great in this respect. It's a very open map, people can pull nice moves on it and actually surprise.

by **pancakemix** on Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:32 pm

I already can't stand the senate map. It's way too easy to get 7 extra armies.

by **Caleb the Cruel** on Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:49 pm

cleveridea wrote:It seems that in flat-rate 3 or 4 player games, the map is so symmetrical that if all players are competent, the game will probably never end. I'm thinking in my games it will be a matter of players losing their minds and wanting the hell out of the game before it will end.

The evil dice will pick the winner of the game.

by **Molacole** on Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:04 am

alstergren wrote:Dunno if it is flawed. But the starting-position will determine the team games if both teams are decently competent. However, most maps are like that. Canada and the U.S. are very much decided by respective team's starting-position.

Think the CCU map is great in this respect. It's a very open map, people can pull nice moves on it and actually surprise.

so true. King of the mountain is a good one, but king placement can throw off the balance.

by **alster** on Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:34 am

Hmmm... one flaw though that was just pointed out to me - the dems get as big a bonus as the reps. That's not right. Ain't right at all. If the dem area would get any bonus at all, it should be much smaller than the rep one.

What kind of liberal weird-ass site are CC turning into? :shock:

by **vbomb21** on Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:31 am

alstergren wrote:Hmmm... one flaw though that was just pointed out to me - the dems get as big a bonus as the reps. That's not right. Ain't right at all. If the dem area would get any bonus at all, it should be much smaller than the rep one.

What kind of liberal weird-ass site are CC turning into?

ha that is right. republican bonus should be about three times the democrat bonus to make things right.

by **reverend_kyle** on Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:26 am

vbomb21 wrote:
alstergren wrote:Hmmm... one flaw though that was just pointed out to me - the dems get as big a bonus as the reps. That's not right. Ain't right at all. If the dem area would get any bonus at all, it should be much smaller than the rep one.

What kind of liberal weird-ass site are CC turning into?

ha that is right. republican bonus should be about three times the democrat bonus to make things right.

I find someone in the rogue state saying that terribly odd.

Also, the democrats control the house and senate.. so it seems their bonus and amounts of seats should be bigger.

Also I never knew equal was a liberal weird ass thing..

I thought fair and balanced was something the conservative fox news did :roll:

by **Captain Crash** on Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:02 am

cleveridea wrote:It seems that in flat-rate 3 or 4 player games, the map is so symmetrical that if all players are competent, the game will probably never end. I'm thinking in my games it will be a matter of players losing their minds and wanting the hell out of the game before it will end.

And what is the flaw?
Symmetrical play does not a flaw make, it makes for a slow/long, some may say boring, game but it is not a flaw in the map.

Chess and checkers (or draughts) start off PERFECTLY symmetrical!

Adjust your playing style to suit!

by **MR. Nate** on Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:54 am

Although I've never played the map, it seems clear to me that the biggest flaw is the fact that the lobbies get less than the parties. Everyone knows that the lobbies are the real power in Washington. The lobbies should be unattackable, but able to attack every seat on the floor, and get a bonus of, say 15 or 20. Then it would be closer to reality.

by **cleveridea** on Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:30 am

Captain Crash wrote:And what is the flaw?

A flaw in the same sense that tic-tac-toe, though perfectly symetrical, is a pointless game among competent individuals.

The map would not exhibit this pointlessness in an escalating game, or one with more starting players, both creating imbalances.

Maybe even playing without unlimited reinforcement would create enough imbalances.

My contention is that playing 3 or 4 players with no or flat cards and unlimited reinforcements is indistinguishable from playing tic-tac-toe.