Vexer's formula
  • 9 posts
  • Page 1 of 1
The_Bishop wrote:
Sometimes it seems to me that some new map makers haven't a clear formula to assign the bonuses to the regions or simply they put them by feelings.

The standard for the site is the Vexer's formula:

----------------------------------------------------------
Number of territories / 3
          +
Number of territories to defend / 2.5

----------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if it was already in the DXII Guide.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
Vexer wrote:
I'll make this sticky until Fendi writes it into the guide.
The_Bishop wrote:
Personally my approach to this formula is the following:
"Round down regions with 4 or less tert's, round up those with 5 to 8 tert's, add one for 9 or more tert's".

Typical example: 4 tert's and 3 borders gets 2.5333 from the formula, and it is often and logically rounded down to +2 in our maps.

Calculator here.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
SethHrab wrote:
I have a question on this, in terms of calculating borders.

If a territory has a border with two external territories, do you calculate that as 2 borders or 1 for that specific territory?

I think I mean this especially for territories with multiple sea connections, hell some could have 3+ external connections on that one territory which in theory makes it more difficult to defend.. would it warrant then counting this territory as having 3+ external borders? Maybe a good example is the Westeros map with the anchors being vulnerable to any anchor of the same color.
SethHrab wrote:
I have another ..odd.. question.

Given that owning a region can give a + troop bonus to the player that owns it.. is there a way to have owning a region/regions give a - penalty to players that don't own it/them?

I have a very specific idea for this, but need to know if it's possible or not..
The_Bishop wrote:
The formula says "territories to defend".

Nope sorry, we cannot make any penalties for not owning certain regions.
Then what is the sense of that? Rather then '−1 for not owning' I do prefer '+1 for owning', less tortuous!
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
SethHrab wrote:
Ahh, bummer. It tied into an idea I had for maps surrounding colonizing mars/the moon. Things like "water generation stations" which might only be 1 or 2 stations and controlling them would mean you would shut them off to your enemies, thereby creating a negative bonus if you held say, the two water generation stations on the moon. Obviously people would die, but they'd still live by doing gross stuff like drinking their own pee or something, so I had it in my head that if it were possible, then holding those two water generation stations would result in a -1 bonus for anyone else.
Blagoje_Jovovic wrote:
It is impossible to be the first to break through the barrier, who still believes that humans have ever gone outside the firmament?
Its in the realm of science fiction ;)
and there are two moons too so need more watter ;)