wcaclimbing wrote:I just looked over the map and found that every castle, except for Ghyr, can reach the sanctuary by taking 5 countries. for Ghyr, it takes 6 to reach it.
will the neutrals be modified so Ghyr has a slightly easier path through to the Sanctuary, or will it just put the player that starts with Ghyr at a disadvantage because everyone else will have one less country to take?
Actually unless i am wrong... its 6 for ghyr ... 5 for figy and mua .... 4 for the Xi, Aoria and Borun (including sanctruary)
This is correct - I believe that DiM has put more neutrals in the way of the less territories though to even it up...
C.
yeti_c gave the right answer. there is still a slight difference 2-3 troops max but when you consider the fact that the sanctuary has 75 neutrals and that you must go there with at least 150-200 troops because you must also defend it after you capture it, i don't think 2-3 extra troops will matter.
if you have 200 troops to spare, wouldnt you just kill off the other players first? I mean, people already have neutralphobia and 75 neutrals would be their worst nightmare. Plus who would take the chance of sacrificing thier armies against neutrals if some other guy with 50 armies can come in a sweep up right after you. I think a lower neutral count is better, 35 maybe. Anything over 50 and your probably going to be looking at another map of unintended consequences.
wcaclimbing wrote:I just looked over the map and found that every castle, except for Ghyr, can reach the sanctuary by taking 5 countries. for Ghyr, it takes 6 to reach it.
will the neutrals be modified so Ghyr has a slightly easier path through to the Sanctuary, or will it just put the player that starts with Ghyr at a disadvantage because everyone else will have one less country to take?
Actually unless i am wrong... its 6 for ghyr ... 5 for figy and mua .... 4 for the Xi, Aoria and Borun (including sanctruary)
This is correct - I believe that DiM has put more neutrals in the way of the less territories though to even it up...
C.
yeti_c gave the right answer. there is still a slight difference 2-3 troops max but when you consider the fact that the sanctuary has 75 neutrals and that you must go there with at least 150-200 troops because you must also defend it after you capture it, i don't think 2-3 extra troops will matter.
if you have 200 troops to spare, wouldnt you just kill off the other players first? I mean, people already have neutralphobia and 75 neutrals would be their worst nightmare. Plus who would take the chance of sacrificing thier armies against neutrals if some other guy with 50 armies can come in a sweep up right after you. I think a lower neutral count is better, 35 maybe. Anything over 50 and your probably going to be looking at another map of unintended consequences.
if you have 200 troops that can only mean 2 things. everybody has 200 troops or you rule the board. if you rule the board then it's your choice if you want to go for the sanctuary or kill the other guys.
however if everybody has 200 troops you can try a surprise win while hiding in the fog. let the others build troops while you clean the sanctuary and win.
the problem with 35 is that by turn 8 you could already have 20+armies per turn and that 35 is too low.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
wcaclimbing wrote:I just looked over the map and found that every castle, except for Ghyr, can reach the sanctuary by taking 5 countries. for Ghyr, it takes 6 to reach it.
will the neutrals be modified so Ghyr has a slightly easier path through to the Sanctuary, or will it just put the player that starts with Ghyr at a disadvantage because everyone else will have one less country to take?
Actually unless i am wrong... its 6 for ghyr ... 5 for figy and mua .... 4 for the Xi, Aoria and Borun (including sanctruary)
This is correct - I believe that DiM has put more neutrals in the way of the less territories though to even it up...
C.
yeti_c gave the right answer. there is still a slight difference 2-3 troops max but when you consider the fact that the sanctuary has 75 neutrals and that you must go there with at least 150-200 troops because you must also defend it after you capture it, i don't think 2-3 extra troops will matter.
if you have 200 troops to spare, wouldnt you just kill off the other players first? I mean, people already have neutralphobia and 75 neutrals would be their worst nightmare. Plus who would take the chance of sacrificing thier armies against neutrals if some other guy with 50 armies can come in a sweep up right after you. I think a lower neutral count is better, 35 maybe. Anything over 50 and your probably going to be looking at another map of unintended consequences.
if you have 200 troops that can only mean 2 things. everybody has 200 troops or you rule the board. if you rule the board then it's your choice if you want to go for the sanctuary or kill the other guys. however if everybody has 200 troops you can try a surprise win while hiding in the fog. let the others build troops while you clean the sanctuary and win.
the problem with 35 is that by turn 8 you could already have 20+armies per turn and that 35 is too low.
i see your point if your playing with fog, but other wise, i dunno, I just don't see the sanctuary coming into play.
wcaclimbing wrote:I just looked over the map and found that every castle, except for Ghyr, can reach the sanctuary by taking 5 countries. for Ghyr, it takes 6 to reach it.
will the neutrals be modified so Ghyr has a slightly easier path through to the Sanctuary, or will it just put the player that starts with Ghyr at a disadvantage because everyone else will have one less country to take?
Actually unless i am wrong... its 6 for ghyr ... 5 for figy and mua .... 4 for the Xi, Aoria and Borun (including sanctruary)
This is correct - I believe that DiM has put more neutrals in the way of the less territories though to even it up...
C.
yeti_c gave the right answer. there is still a slight difference 2-3 troops max but when you consider the fact that the sanctuary has 75 neutrals and that you must go there with at least 150-200 troops because you must also defend it after you capture it, i don't think 2-3 extra troops will matter.
if you have 200 troops to spare, wouldnt you just kill off the other players first? I mean, people already have neutralphobia and 75 neutrals would be their worst nightmare. Plus who would take the chance of sacrificing thier armies against neutrals if some other guy with 50 armies can come in a sweep up right after you. I think a lower neutral count is better, 35 maybe. Anything over 50 and your probably going to be looking at another map of unintended consequences.
if you have 200 troops that can only mean 2 things. everybody has 200 troops or you rule the board. if you rule the board then it's your choice if you want to go for the sanctuary or kill the other guys. however if everybody has 200 troops you can try a surprise win while hiding in the fog. let the others build troops while you clean the sanctuary and win.
the problem with 35 is that by turn 8 you could already have 20+armies per turn and that 35 is too low.
i see your point if your playing with fog, but other wise, i dunno, I just don't see the sanctuary coming into play.
if it's not fog then the objective on any map is pretty much useless since anybody can see what you do and try to stop you.
in an evenly matched game without fog nobody will go for the objective regardless of the number of neutrals it has.
let's say there's a 6p no fog game and each player has ~100 troops and the sanctuary is 5 troops. will anybody go for the sanctuary? clearly no because then each and every player will attack him to prevent him from winning. objectives are a good alternative in only 3 conditions:
1. sneaky attack under the cover of fog
2. freestyle games
3. when player clearly dominates the game but doesn't want to waste time attacking everybody.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
folks o easy on the quoting or this will resemble a clubhouse thread
Don't now why people on here don't like being cooks, remember under siege: A former SEAL, now cook, is the only person who can stop a gang of terrorists when they sieze control of a US Navy battleship.
rebelman wrote:folks o easy on the quoting or this will resemble a clubhouse thread
who's quoting here? let's get him
PS: btw i don't mind huge quotes because i use a forum script that crops the quotes and only the last 3 are shown
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
I'm still in favor of 50 neutrals on sanctuary. Anything more probably is too much. Let's set a goal. Out of all the standard games if less than 5 out of 50 (I'm not saying 1 out of 10 because I want 50 games to happen first) aren't won with the objective we lower it from your number, 75 to 50 with an update.
Coleman wrote:I'm still in favor of 50 neutrals on sanctuary. Anything more probably is too much. Let's set a goal. Out of all the standard games if less than 5 out of 50 (I'm not saying 1 out of 10 because I want 50 games to happen first) aren't won with the objective we lower it from your number, 75 to 50 with an update.
Seem like a plan?
what is a standard game - how many players ? as anything from 2 to 6 could all be called standard
Don't now why people on here don't like being cooks, remember under siege: A former SEAL, now cook, is the only person who can stop a gang of terrorists when they sieze control of a US Navy battleship.
Coleman wrote:I'm still in favor of 50 neutrals on sanctuary. Anything more probably is too much. Let's set a goal. Out of all the standard games if less than 5 out of 50 (I'm not saying 1 out of 10 because I want 50 games to happen first) aren't won with the objective we lower it from your number, 75 to 50 with an update.
Seem like a plan?
ok. 50 standar games with 4 players or more.
i'll leave it at 75 and if at least 5 games don't finish with an objective win i'll lower it to 50.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
spiesr wrote:I can't see the map. It is just blank no x or anything like that...
refresh the page or something. i don't know the image looks ok to me and you're the first with this problem
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
So you gotta explain this: can Eon only attack Vesk and Ikalu or any other dock? You should clarify that docks can only attack their respective 'zones' or they can all attack each other. Also, I assume the first person to take sanctuary wins? Or do you have to hold it for a turn?And whats that thing in the ice crossroads? Looks like a telephone pole.
unriggable wrote:So you gotta explain this: can Eon only attack Vesk and Ikalu or any other dock? You should clarify that docks can only attack their respective 'zones' or they can all attack each other. Also, I assume the first person to take sanctuary wins? Or do you have to hold it for a turn?And whats that thing in the ice crossroads? Looks like a telephone pole.
eon can only attack those 2 docks this to me is very obvious on the map and does not require further explanation
all objectives need to be held for a turn thats the way the xml works
they are signposts (sometimes known as fingerposts or saddle horse signs)
Don't now why people on here don't like being cooks, remember under siege: A former SEAL, now cook, is the only person who can stop a gang of terrorists when they sieze control of a US Navy battleship.
rebelman wrote:eon can only attack those 2 docks this to me is very obvious on the map and does not require further explanation
I had a hunch thats what it was, I wasn't sure though.
i thought that eon could only attack those 2 also, cause of the ice thats blocking it from the others
it also is explained in the legend.
docks can only attacks other docks connected by open sea.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
demon7896 wrote:wait, i don't get it. so either you have to eliminate all players, OR you have to conquer and hold the sanctuary for one turn
you got it
I think that a better explanation of this is needed since objectives aren't exactly a well known thing on this site. Something simple like, "Hold Santuary at the beginning of your turn to win"
demon7896 wrote:wait, i don't get it. so either you have to eliminate all players, OR you have to conquer and hold the sanctuary for one turn
you got it
I think that a better explanation of this is needed since objectives aren't exactly a well known thing on this site. Something simple like, "Hold Santuary at the beginning of your turn to win"
i've already said to mibi i don't want to make the objective more clear than it is.
i don't want to say: "hey, dumbass get your troops together and kill the neutrals on the sanctuary then pray you still have it next turn and you'll win"
it says clearly in the legend "break the spell to free the realms" and "the sanctuary holds the spell"
it's obvious you have to kill the neutrals in the sanctuary and it still has feeling to it. "free the realms" "break the spell" not "destroy 75 neutrals and hold sanctuary for 1 turn to win"
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
DiM. I don't understand your logic there. Why are you objecting to making it more clear? How hard would it be to implement something like what edbeard wrote in the legend?
I need a more stable argument than I don't want to on this one.
unriggable wrote:Hold the spell the free the realms (feels like a religious text, since it is so open-ended).
how about??
break the spell and hold the sanctuary and the realms shalt be free
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
