modify the setup

I like the setup used in this site: 3 units for each territory randomly selected and also same number of territories for each player and the others are neutral. But i think we can do better.

* Here my proposal:
- not allow the regions bonus in the first turn;
- always start with 10 territories maximum for each player;
- just 2 units for neutral territories.

* For 2 players match I suggest 13 territories both, but the starting player received in his first turn just 2 units reinforcement rather than 4.

- not allow the regions bonus in the first turn
We will implement this one when we have time, it is somewhere on the todo list

- always start with 10 territories maximum for each player
I believe I have seen this one before somewhere too, but im not sure

- just 2 units for neutral territories.
Why, I like neutral to have some sort of inpact. Otherwise they will be gone way to early, and you hardly notice them in a game.
I like neutral.


And well, 2p games will always be weird and based on luck more than others, not sure if that will help

10 territories is the perfect number to start with. Reinforcement of 3 armies, not more, otherwise the game become unfair in favour of who play first.

I heard someone here say that some map is unfair to play with a specific number of players. I think we just need to refine the setup. With 10 territories max we will solve all the problems.

About neutrals I know what you say Matty. It's a nice randomly impact. But every player try to use them like barriers (they don't attack!) and often those stand till the end of the game. It is unpleasant. Who designed the map had not planned barriers on it, they can make the game really unfair.
2 units neutrals would be not barriers but territories to conquer and surely they would disappear early... I would love to try this variation.

[ I am not an experienced programmer but if you need a Java programmer I may try to be usefull ]

well, no java on the site, just javascript, html and php.

we want to make an option where you can specify the max starting territories so you could specify 10 if you wanted but if you chose a large map you could specify 17 or whatever.

We could also have the option to specify how many armies neutral territories get. This shouldn't be hard to do.

Please be patient. We have a back log of options to implement.

Oh nice, many options is good for all. Surely there is a lot of work to do.

My idea is to play always with 10 territories also in large maps. Usually I don't chose large maps with few players. The problem is that every time I chose a map I need to extimate how many territories it have.

Can we put the number of territories on the side of map images plz?

you can find out how many territories a map has by clicking on 'my rank' then on the left side under 'shop' click on 'maps'

in the future we will have a map browser for the Create Games screen that will give you info about the map while you are choosing which map to play on.

Last "European" night (it was yesterday evening in Oregon) I tested Africa 1890 map (with 71 territories) to play a 7p cap game.

10 territories each one and only 1 neutral (Kordofan). It was a well balanced match. Game 41673.

Just one region (Lower East Africa) was conquered early. It was not necessary to weak the strongest player to balance the game. I repeat 10 territories (or less) is the perfect start, not more.

Just for let you know... 4 cards without set helped me to die. Matty took the advantage, but the ending was very crazy and unlucky for him.
(I don't want to go out of topic, who want to discuss about the game can do this on that page. I have already done it)

Just for let you know... Kordofan, the only one neutral on 71 territories, still survive unconquered!

Well, "no bonus in the 1st turn" is due. I would love to know other players' opinions - specially the best players here - about "10 territories start" and "2 units neutrals". THANK YOU.

And if you have time to spend, tell me also what you think on my suggestion about "2 players game".

I agree it was a very nice (but weird) game.

But I dont see why you want all games to be like that one.

I mean, I also played lots of nice games on the world expanded map with 4 players. Yes, we started out with alot more troops, and huge bonusses, but then I dont really see the problem of that.


And yes, the neutral survived, well, nice for him, but whats the problem of it? I simply had no interest in taking that region, and since I had all other territories, I really didnt want to take the poor neutral.
And later in the game, liders path went over another one, so it survived yes.
Well, the only thing you would change by getting neutrals with 2 armies is easy cards in the beginning of the game.
Why would you want that?

The no bonus in the first turn is defenitely a must for 2p games - they are really unfair if one of the players starts off with a bonus.
But for more than 2 players I dont really see that much of a problem either. Bonusses dont matter that much, and with less players you usually can get one in a couple of turns anyways.
And if not, still no problem


And about the 2 player settings. It might help a little bit, but having good or bad rolls decide a game between equals. Not who starts.



Please note that there is a large difference between 7 players having each 10 territories (and thus one neutral)
and 2 players having each 1- territories (and thus fifty-one neutrals - thats alot)
Though I do understand now why you want the neutrals to have 2 armies, 51*3 is way to much

I really hate your answers Matty! You spend time for writing but you don't spend time for reading what I write and thinking it. It looks you are just defending the site methods without reason. I am tring to get better as the subtitle means. Don't ruin my work please! I said that African game was balanced, not a "very nice game". I want all the games balanced in its start! It seems you prefer unbalanced starts with neutrals impact, advantage to play first with many troops reinforcement and region bonuses on the first turn! I didn't say it's a problem if a neutral survive, just noticed it's a death point on the map. Wow you noticed that weaker neutrals produce easier cards in the game beggining. You ask me why I want that, I have a clear answer but I wanna ask you why not. Most of 2p games are won by the starting player. I am happy you said my proposal on 2 player settings "migth help a little bit" but I think it can help more than a bit. With fair start and equal players, dice and cards will decide the winner... Obvious. Yes Matty, 2p with 10 territories both with 51 neutrals and 7p with 10 territories each one with 1 neutral are very different, but they have a similarity: they (usually) are balanced games! Get some test.

All the modifications proposed are already tested in my home and they look to work. I am not such a good player, I don't understand highest strategies, but I think I can understand enougth if a game is more or less fair in its start.

My idea is very simple. More then 3 troops reinforcements in the beggining are unfair. Since 10 territories! ) It works in EVERY MAP with EVERY NUMBER of players!

Can I see a real opinion from someone plz?

[And suggest me how to abbreviate the word "territories" plz! Lol]

Well, I did read your text , but indeed I do not understand it.

I mean, I haven't played THAT much 2 player games, but If I win or loose them its usually either because of skill, because of dice rolls (on important moments) or because someone had a 3 card turn in and the other only at 5.
That, or someone started out with a region in the beginning, though it never happend to me (I started out with a region once myself, but I gave one territory of it away just for balance - my opponent was a beginner anyway and I wanted him to learn how to play 1 vs 1).

Yes, you are right, it will help to balance the start in a 1 vs 1 game to make it a little bit more fair.
My point is however that it will only make it a tiny little bit more fair, because the start of a game is just not that important or decisive.


However, I do want to share one more thing. I once played a 9 player game. 5 players never took a turn, 1 player only took one turn.
So you can sort of say it was a game where everyone started with only very little territories, and lots and lots of neutrals.
You know who won? The one with the best setup, because he could as first get a region, accidentally had a territory bordering my region, why he could prevent me from taking it, while the only other player left missed a turn.
I could not attack his region unless I killed at least 4 neutrals.
That was NOT a balanced game!

So I'm sorry if im taking you down, or sound dumb. Maybe I am, Im defenitely not the best player out here. Just sharing my thoughts.

Off-topic Matty! I am not interested on what honest player you are when you play against beginners. You didn't answer me, why not easier cards in the beggining. And the game you shared was absolutly not balanced, but is far from my proposal bcoz I never told about very little ter..ies. I told about 10 starting ter..ies; 13 in the case of 2P. Really it seems you don't think before write!

If you don't understand me bcoz my english I am sorry I can't do better. If you are just making the stupid for making me nervous (I don't know why) so I beg you for fighting on the battlefield, not in the forum!

I agree Matty: the win is usually bcoz of skill, dice and cards, not the setup. In spite of that I like better a fair setup!

Really I like as the game works and I have only suggested to refine it a little bit. My proposal doesn't change the game a lot. The greatest changings are just in the cases of few players on a big map. They are unfair!

By the way I am tired to waste my fingers on the keyboard. No one looks interested on my proposal and no one have given an opinion, except Matty.

I don't need to go on bcoz Vexer has already said there will be an option for setting the max amount of starting ter..ies. So i will can set it as I like!

Thank you. Take care guys!

[Sorry Vexer, actually I can see the maps amount of ter..ies only in the flick-r page, but not every map is listed there]

I, unfortunately, agree with Matty. I do not have time to write a huge thing about it, but I KNOW 10 territory start would ruin most maps.

Each and every map is different with different regions, the amount of regions,the amount of territories in those regions, bonuses, and maybe most importantly, gameplay. Also, a 2 player game is different from a 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 player game in strategy and in territory distribution. If Each of these things are different in each and every map, why then should each map start with the same number of territories.

I think I'd like the idea of no region bonuses during the first round, although it is rare for someone to receive a bonus right at the beginning. 

On the other points I think I like the army distribution as it is. And I usually like neutral armies, and use them.

She uses them to back stab you and make you suffer XD