Requesting a 36 territories map

There are 34, 35 territory maps for small and 39, 41, 42 etc for medium The 36 territory map would be perfect, in my opinion, for hosting 6p increased cards games - everyone starts with 6 territories and there wouldn't be any neutrals. Furthermore...... 36 is my favourite number :roll: (closely followed by 6 & 16) - [user]lazer36[/user] knows all about that :p [quote]Message: gg From: AlexCheckMate To: lazer36 AlexCheckMate said: 01 Feb 2019, 00:43 36 is just #epic 36 = 1*36 2*18 3*12 4*9 6*6 6^2 (& thus also: the amount of outcomes one can have when rolling with 2 dice) 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 (triangular number) 100100 in binary the sum of a twin prime (17+19) 1+2+3+...+34+35+36=666!!! =D $ perfect ACT score every internal angle of a pentagram amount of push ups i can do consecutively time in minutes I need for a full speed 9km run ......... and probably even a lot more coolios[/quote] -Alex

This is an exert from the DXII Guide to Map Making: [quote] 36-38 and 45-51 territory maps are currently not allowed because in many cases the player to go last has fewer troops to place on their first turn. For example in a 3 player game on a 45 territory map Player 1 gets 5 troops to place but if he takes a territory from Player 2 then Player 2 will only get 4 troops to place.[/quote]

[quote=aeronautic]This is an exert from the DXII Guide to Map Making: [quote] 36-38 and 45-51 territory maps are currently not allowed because in many cases the player to go last has fewer troops to place on their first turn. For example in a 3 player game on a 45 territory map Player 1 gets 5 troops to place but if he takes a territory from Player 2 then Player 2 will only get 4 troops to place.[/quote][/quote] Didnt know/read this, must've slipped through. That said... I don't quite understand the rule. I understand the possible issue... but that's just up to players not creating such setups/not joining them, if they do not wish to get in such trouble? Furthermore.... I dont think this can really be used..... for just about every amount of territories, you could find a scenario that would lead to issues... e.g. for a 24-25, 30-31, 42-43 territory map with 2 players => both start with 12, 15, 21 territories and thus +4, 5, 7 respectively; conquering 1 causes for a reduced upkeep for the other 36-38 (covered already) 48-51 (covered already) 60-64 territory map with 5 players => all start with 12 => so +4 72-77 territory map with 6 players => all start with 12 => same problem 84-90 territory map with 7 players => all start with 12 => same problem end many many more options - just the first few that popped into my mind That said.... if for whatever reason (I dont see why) it's still frowned upon to create such a map... so be it... but I think the current reasoning against it is flawed. Also... if this remains to be an issue, perhaps there could be some coding done to ensure that every player has the same upkeep in the first turn (if that's desired) - can also immediately take out the 'unfairness' of a player having the luck to start with a complete region... PS - can't believe I posted at 16:34 instead of 16:34........ should've waited 2 minutes xD

The territory numbers blacklisted are not for the genuine players who would avoid the wrong setups, which would cause the troop advantage, but for the players who would utilise its ability and exploit it. It only really matters where; 1) Troops can be dropped from 4 to place, down to 3 to place, hence 36-38 and 45-51 territories, because this is the most critical attack number i.e. having 6 v 3 instead of 7 v 3 to attack with. 2) Where the troop reward of 4 troops for 12 territories can be dropped to 3 troops for 11 territories before your first turn. It can pretty much put you out of the game before you've started.

I can see the reasoning there. Mediterranean States............66 territories..............2p.............22 territories each. Player 1 gets 7, takes 2 territories from player 2. Player 2 now only gets 6. Thanks for this Alex, it's an aspect I hadn't thought of.

I think there is a possibility for this on virtually all maps. What if everyone started with say 5, but then the first 4 people all attacked the 5th person so when they started they get 4. This has happened to me several times.

[quote=GriffinUcos]I can see the reasoning there. Mediterranean States............66 territories..............2p.............22 territories each. Player 1 gets 7, takes 2 territories from player 2. Player 2 now only gets 6. Thanks for this Alex, it's an aspect I hadn't thought of.[/quote] Your post made me realise about a flaw in my post. [quote=AlexCheckMate]24-25, 30-31, 42-43 territory map with 2 players => both start with 12, 15, 21 territories and thus +4, 5, 7 respectively; conquering 1 causes for a reduced upkeep for the other[/quote] [b]This is incorrect.[/b] When there's 2 players, there's still a 3rd neutral. I can't edit my original post anymore at this point... but if anyone else is willing to, that'd be swell (use the strike through and add the correct - so i/we also know/remember what the issue was) - to avoid spreading misinformation. [spoiler=edit proposal][s]24-25, 30-31, 42-43 territory map with 2 players => both start with 12, 15, 21 territories and thus +4, 5, 7 respectively; conquering 1 causes for a reduced upkeep for the other[/s] ==> 36-38, 45-47, 54-56, 63-65 territory map with 2 players => both (& the neutral) start with 12, 15, 18, 21 territories and thus +4, 5, 6, 7 respectively; conquering 1 causes for a reduced upkeep for the other[/spoiler] [quote=aeronautic][b]( A: )[/b] The territory numbers blacklisted are not for the genuine players who would avoid the wrong setups, which would cause the troop advantage, but for the players who would utilise its ability and exploit it. [b]( B: )[/b] It only really matters where; 1) Troops can be dropped from 4 to place, down to 3 to place, hence 36-38 and 45-51 territories, because this is the most critical attack number i.e. having 6 v 3 instead of 7 v 3 to attack with. 2) Where the troop reward of 4 troops for 12 territories can be dropped to 3 troops for 11 territories before your first turn.[/quote] So by that logic [b]( B: )[/b] ... shouldn't there be more numbers blacklisted? [quote=AlexCheckMate]60-64 territory map with 5 players => all start with 12 => so +4 72-77 territory map with 6 players => all start with 12 => same problem 84-90 territory map with 7 players => all start with 12 => same problem[/quote] + many more [b]( A: )[/b] I personally don't think this can be (nor should be) 'policed'. I sympathise with the issue, but I believe the restrictions don't make a lot of sense. I'm happy the 60-64, 72-77, 84-90 territories in a map are allowed (note that e.g. Iberia, a 60 territory map, is even advertised as a large map for 5-8 players; therefore also advertising to play it with 12 territories each in the 5p setting..., same holds for North America (64 territories)) I don't think any 'wrong' setups really exist. Just setups which have an increased risk of causing some disbalancing in the first turn. Say in a 39 territory map (Brazil) player 1 succesfully attacks player 3 to works towards his prospected region and player 2 also attacks player 3 - which is not at all an unlikely scenario - you kind of play with the same situation... player 3 getting +3 due to being down to 11 from 13. Could write up many more scenarios, but that'll just be pointless (especially with people prefering short texts to read). Just the fact that only being the sole victorer (unless teams) counts in d12 games, will already give rise to a balancing effect (especially in increased cards games). Anyway.... I'm not trying to cause a fuzz. If the majority (or even a minority, or whatever) wishes to keep certain numbers banned, so be it. I'm just saying that I believe I would like to play in such 'risky' maps and that the logic behind banning certain numbers seems flawed to me. -Alex

[quote=AlexCheckMate]I don't think any 'wrong' setups really exist. Just setups which have an increased risk of causing some disbalancing in the first turn. Say in a 39 territory map (Brazil) player 1 succesfully attacks player 3 to works towards his prospected region and player 2 also attacks player 3 - which is not at all an unlikely scenario - you kind of play with the same situation... player 3 getting +3 due to being down to 11 from 13. Could write up many more scenarios, but that'll just be pointless (especially with people prefering short texts to read).[/quote] This is what I was trying to say...there will always be some things you just cannot account for.

That's why [url=https://dominating12.com/forums/4/strategy-tips/2534/why-sametime-is-the-best-game-type]sametime[/url] games are the best game type :)

damn, u guys really are thinking about this game a lot...I get it, lots of things to concider when creating maps, doing this site etc.

How about a 1 territory map? That way, every time I create a game I will win!

[quote=Hoodlum]That's why [url=https://dominating12.com/forums/4/strategy-tips/2534/why-sametime-is-the-best-game-type]sametime[/url] games are the best game type :)[/quote] Eeehm... 'sure' :p not going to dive into that discussion - i'm fine with whatever view people wish to have =D It's rather off topic though... and although I do appreciate some slight banter here and there, I would prefer to also get some 'real' input, especially when it concerns posts by the crew. So, regardless of same-time; what do [i]you[/i] think of allowing a 36 territory map on the dominating12 grounds? Would you think you'd like to play on it? [quote=farspaceplace]damn, u guys really are thinking about this game a lot...I get it, lots of things to concider when creating maps, doing this site etc.[/quote] Quantity and quality are not the same thing :p Just a thought that randomly popped up, was doing completely different stuff when it occurred. [quote=elysium5]How about a 1 territory map? That way, every time I create a game I will win! [/quote] Same as I replied to [user]Hoodlum[/user] - I'm fine with chitchat, but please also give [i]your view[/i] on the suggestion that has been presented to you here, preferably with arguments. I suppose I could interpret your remark as a shoot down of the idea, but I wouldn't want to put anything in your mouth, so if that interpretation would be correct, I'd prefer if you just straight up said that (and if that were the case, I wouldn't appreciate the comment - not without additional text - it doesnt appear proper to me). As for the funny reply: Yes, I'd totally play 1 territory maps :P Would be perfect to doctor my stats into a high win/loss ratio^^ -Alex

i dont like the number 36, something about it bugs me, dunno why. i say let's just keep it as is

I forgot to mention and could have saved you a whole lot of time.... None of the blacklisted territory counts have anything to do with 2P Games. These are a whole different creature and other methods of fairness are currently being discussed. The whole point of unfairness is where in multiplayer games, the person who goes last can be reduced to the point where the game is over before it starts and when the territory count creates the critical 12 territories for 4 and 15 territories for 5 where 1 player will definitely be reduced to less reinforcements and will be rendered unable to recover right from the "off", this is unfair and so, D12 avoids that advantage / exploitation.

I 'm quite happy to see a 36 territory map if it keeps Alexcheckmate happy. His knowledge of 36 is commendable. Personally I prefer 42!! Yes to 36 territories and it is up to players to decide if the creator of the game has selected a bad number of player.