Treasures of Galápagos [Quenched]

[edbeard]

how about a 9th reef where that shark is (south of reef 1). It'll give reef 1 a natural enemy

The only problem is it'll make 3 player games have 3 players with 3 reefs and two player games each player will have 3 reefs. This is a problem because you get -1 army per snorkel held which is 0 per turn if you hold 3 reefs. I propose that instead of -1 armies per snorkel, each snorkel has a -1 decay.

[cairnswk]

how about a 9th reef where that shark is (south of reef 1). It'll give reef 1 a natural enemy

The only problem is it'll make 3 player games have 3 players with 3 reefs and two player games each player will have 3 reefs. This is a problem because you get -1 army per snorkel held which is 0 per turn if you hold 3 reefs. I propose that instead of -1 armies per snorkel, each snorkel has a -1 decay.

-1 decay would be best i guess, rather than lose 3 terts in hand bonus...you may only get three armies at beginning of a turn if you don't gain a bonus on the way.
Of course, if you move too many armies off the reef, you stand to lose you natural reef plus water bonus or other reef associated bonus if you don't leave enough armies to cover for the decay.
Very nasty that one is!

OK...i've added that 9th reef and re-numbered all the others...& moved lugger Wolwin.
The reef is 10 from Darwin and 10 from Isabela West, but there is of course no guarantee that this tert will have a starter unless it is a 3 player game or triplets.

What this will mean is that someone may have a good chance of getting a second reef in a large game.

[DiM]

how about a 9th reef where that shark is (south of reef 1). It'll give reef 1 a natural enemy

The only problem is it'll make 3 player games have 3 players with 3 reefs and two player games each player will have 3 reefs. This is a problem because you get -1 army per snorkel held which is 0 per turn if you hold 3 reefs. I propose that instead of -1 armies per snorkel, each snorkel has a -1 decay.

-1 decay would be best i guess, rather than lose 3 terts in hand bonus...you may only get three armies at beginning of a turn if you don't gain a bonus on the way.
Of course, if you move too many armies off the reef, you stand to lose you natural reef plus water bonus or other reef associated bonus if you don't leave enough armies to cover for the decay.
Very nasty that one is!

OK...i've added that 9th reef and re-numbered all the others...& moved lugger Wolwin.
The reef is 10 from Darwin and 10 from Isabela West, but there is of course no guarantee that this tert will have a starter unless it is a 3 player game or triplets.

What this will mean is that someone may have a good chance of getting a second reef in a large game.

actually you don't have to keep troops in the reef because the decay stops at 1 army. it doesn't turn neutral. so as long as you have just 1 on the reef you won't lose it and you won't lose any armies either but if you leave just 1 somebody might come and take that defenceless reef, which adds a whole new gameplay twist where most people will leave their reefs undefended for fear of losing 1 army each turn.

also with 9 reefs nobody will get an extra reef regardless of number of players.
2p & 3p - 3 reefs per person
4p - 2reefs per pers and 1 neutral
5p - 1reefs per pers and 4 neutral
6p - 1reefs per pers and 3 neutral
7p - 1reefs per pers and 2 neutral
8p - 1reefs per pers and 1 neutral

but i'm a bit disturbed by the 4 neutral reefs in 5 player games.
since the neutral reefs will have just 3 armies, in a standard game a person surrounded by neutral reefs will have a huge advantage cause he won't have to fight anybody for resources and he can also take the neutral reefs easily while the others fight eachother. on the other hand in assassin games if you are stranded in a corner surrounded by neutral reefs it means your target is miles away and before you reach it the game might be over.

i know i keep posting about assassin games but i do believe those are very easy to exploit games if the map has even the slightest imbalance. look at the 8p doodle games. i would ban those games as there's no strategy involved.

anyway back to assassin games. i'm afraid that depending on the drop you might win in 1-2 rounds or have no chance at winning at all.
imagine a fog assassin. i start in reef 6 and my target in reef 7. just 6 neutrals separate us. if reef 7 goes for the santa cruz water he'll kill SF2 and then battle for SF1 to get to the water. i come from reef 6 kill 2 neutrals then another 2 neutrals and i'm already facing him. it could be over in 1-2 rounds.

on the other hand if i start in reef 4 and my target in reef 9 i have to go through 2 luggers. FE1 > Fernela lugger > Floreola Lugger > Es1 > Es2 > Reef9
that's a total of 17 neutrals. almost 3 times the distance between reef 6 and reef 7. and as i said if it is fog then i might never know my target is there until i do further exploring. and by the time i do that the game could be over.

[cairnswk]

actually you don't have to keep troops in the reef because the decay stops at 1 army. it doesn't turn neutral.

Bugger!!

so as long as you have just 1 on the reef you won't lose it and you won't lose any armies either but if you leave just 1 somebody might come and take that defenceless reef, which adds a whole new gameplay twist where most people will leave their reefs undefended for fear of losing 1 army each turn.

Mmmm...that may need to change because my intention was that these reefs would autodecay to neutral bonuses.

also with 9 reefs nobody will get an extra reef regardless of number of players.
2p & 3p - 3 reefs per person
4p - 2reefs per pers and 1 neutral
5p - 1reefs per pers and 4 neutral
6p - 1reefs per pers and 3 neutral
7p - 1reefs per pers and 2 neutral
8p - 1reefs per pers and 1 neutral

This is good i guess.

but i'm a bit disturbed by the 4 neutral reefs in 5 player games.
since the neutral reefs will have just 3 armies, in a standard game a person surrounded by neutral reefs will have a huge advantage cause he won't have to fight anybody for resources and he can also take the neutral reefs easily while the others fight eachother. on the other hand in assassin games if you are stranded in a corner surrounded by neutral reefs it means your target is miles away and before you reach it the game might be over.

i know i keep posting about assassin games but i do believe those are very easy to exploit games if the map has even the slightest imbalance. look at the 8p doodle games. i would ban those games as there's no strategy involved.

well don't stop posting about these games, because i tend to forget about accommodating for them, so you input is invaluable.

anyway back to assassin games. i'm afraid that depending on the drop you might win in 1-2 rounds or have no chance at winning at all.
imagine a fog assassin. i start in reef 6 and my target in reef 7. just 6 neutrals separate us. if reef 7 goes for the santa cruz water he'll kill SF2 and then battle for SF1 to get to the water. i come from reef 6 kill 2 neutrals then another 2 neutrals and i'm already facing him. it could be over in 1-2 rounds.

on the other hand if i start in reef 4 and my target in reef 9 i have to go through 2 luggers. FE1 > Fernela lugger > Floreola Lugger > Es1 > Es2 > Reef9
that's a total of 17 neutrals. almost 3 times the distance between reef 6 and reef 7. and as i said if it is fog then i might never know my target is there until i do further exploring. and by the time i do that the game could be over.

in your fog assassin scenario, that is really the luck of the drop. i guess it is not really ideal, but once it happens once, i am sure players will not forget it. and while i am not good at stats, what really are the chances of that happening with a randomization of 9 player starting points.
Anyone care to calculate the probability ( i've forgotten how to) of that happening.

For Reef 4 to Reef 9 scenario, would it be prudent to move Lugger Cristocruz closer to Reef 9....say where that shark is?

[yeti_c]

but i'm a bit disturbed by the 4 neutral reefs in 5 player games.
since the neutral reefs will have just 3 armies

Incorrect - with the new starting positions code - which I'm assuming will be used - the neutrals will start with the same amount of armies as any player.

C.

[cairnswk]

Incorrect - with the new starting positions code - which I'm assuming will be used

Correct.....

- the neutrals will start with the same amount of armies as any player.
C.

The neutrals will start with the numbers indicated on the map above.

[oaktown]

My 2¢, in no particular order...

9th reef - fine. There are going to be extra reefs in most game situations, so what's one more??

Assassin and terminator games: no map is perfect for every game type, so don't knock yourself out trying to make it so. For some reason people insist on starting 8 player assassin games on the Doodle map, so you can't be held responsible for anybody who decides to start an assassin game on a map with single starts. What we need is map info linked to the map thumbs when you start a game, but that's another discussion for another thread.

Autodecaying to neutral terrtories - DiM is correct, territories that bleed armies stop at one. And Edbeard has a point - two and three player games are going to be a disaster because everybody will start with zero armies to place. But I don't like the autodecay option much better.

There are other options: you can work the XML so that everybody starts with an initial deployment of 2 regardless of how many reefs you hold. Set up each reef as a -1 region, but have them override each other. It'll take some explaining in the legend; -1 max penalty for holding Reefs.

And are they snorkels, or reefs? Seems like they are snorkels in the legend, but reefs on the map.

[cairnswk]

My 2¢, in no particular order...

9th reef - fine. There are going to be extra reefs in most game situations, so what's one more??

Assassin and terminator games: no map is perfect for every game type, so don't knock yourself out trying to make it so. For some reason people insist on starting 8 player assassin games on the Doodle map, so you can't be held responsible for anybody who decides to start an assassin game on a map with single starts. What we need is map info linked to the map thumbs when you start a game, but that's another discussion for another thread.

Autodecaying to neutral terrtories - DiM is correct, territories that bleed armies stop at one. And Edbeard has a point - two and three player games are going to be a disaster because everybody will start with zero armies to place. But I don't like the autodecay option much better.

There are other options: you can work the XML so that everybody starts with an initial deployment of 2 regardless of how many reefs you hold. Set up each reef as a -1 region, but have them override each other. It'll take some explaining in the legend; -1 max penalty for holding Reefs.

And are they snorkels, or reefs? Seems like they are snorkels in the legend, but reefs on the map.

Thanks oaktown....i'll have a think about this over the next week while in sydney.

Current version below.

[edbeard]

fyi, reef 4 connects directly to a treasure territory

I need more time to think about other balancing issues

[TaCktiX]

Good balancing edit by making fresh water a universal 3 territories away from all reefs.

[Kaplowitz]

It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that the snorkels were the starting places, and i kind of remembered that from before.
Could use make the opacity higher, because i think its really hard to tell that the snorkels are the starting points.

[edbeard]

It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that the snorkels were the starting places, and i kind of remembered that from before.
Could use make the opacity higher, because i think its really hard to tell that the snorkels are the starting points.

once a game is started, you'll figure it out right quick

[cairnswk]

It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that the snorkels were the starting places, and i kind of remembered that from before.
Could use make the opacity higher, because i think its really hard to tell that the snorkels are the starting points.

Yes, i'll look at that Kap...

Good balancing edit by making fresh water a universal 3 territories away from all reefs.

Is that not the case now???

fyi, reef 4 connects directly to a treasure territory

I need more time to think about other balancing issues

easy solution...move that treasure to Isabela...will that fix that issue?

edbeard,...if you'd like to continue identifying them...then i will examine and implement after i come back....next Monday 12th May.

[TaCktiX]

Nono, cairns, they are 3 territs away. Sorry if that came off as sarcastic, I do consider it a balanced change for the better.

[cairnswk]

Nono, cairns, they are 3 territs away. Sorry if that came off as sarcastic, I do consider it a balanced change for the better.

i didn't take it as sarcastic, but i thought you were asking me to do that which is why i questioned it.

[AndyDufresne]

There seems to be still a fair amount of game play discussion. Once most of that is cleared up and settled on, we can get this moving.


--Andy

[mibi]

It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that the snorkels were the starting places, and i kind of remembered that from before.
Could use make the opacity higher, because i think its really hard to tell that the snorkels are the starting points.

yeah it took my about 5 minutes to find the snorkels.

[cairnswk]

It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that the snorkels were the starting places, and i kind of remembered that from before.
Could use make the opacity higher, because i think its really hard to tell that the snorkels are the starting points.

yeah it took my about 5 minutes to find the snorkels.

It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that the snorkels were the starting places, and i kind of remembered that from before.
Could use make the opacity higher, because i think its really hard to tell that the snorkels are the starting points.

Yes, i'll look at that Kap...

edbeard,...if you'd like to continue identifying them...then i will examine and implement after i come back....next Monday 12th May.

yes mibi, i'm hearing you guys but i can't do anything on this until tomorrow when i get home from Sydney.

[cairnswk]

Update on V21...

This update changes:
1. the clarity of the snorkel starting territoires, and
2. moves the treasure from Isabela North so it isn't beside the reef as a bonus.

[Kaplowitz]

the snorkel is much better

[cairnswk]

There seems to be still a fair amount of game play discussion. Once most of that is cleared up and settled on, we can get this moving.


--Andy

So what else has to be done on this to belance it...i think like oaktown said we could go around in circles trying to balance for Terminator and Assassin games....but otherwise i think it is pretty balanced from a starting veiwpoint.

[cairnswk]

the snorkel is much better

Kewl Kap...

[yeti_c]

the snorkel is much better

Agreed.

C.

[TaCktiX]

There's an inexplicable white patch above the Fernandina penguin.

[yeti_c]

There's an inexplicable white patch above the Fernandina penguin.

It looks like a different penguin - perhaps this is an "old" penguin that Cairns hasn't replaced at some time?

It first appears on page 13...

C.