[Abandoned] - CUBA

[Industrial Helix]

Ok, implementing Natty's solution.

[bigimg]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5395/cubaconquer.jpg[/bigimg]

[Riskismy]

I still don't think they're anywhere near equal.

Take R. Castro and Lee, and let's assume that after a 3-4 turns they have both taken the territory 'below' them, the city and one more territory. Raul has had it a tiny bit tougher, having to defeat 2 armies on his city, but it's next to insignificant.
At this point Raul would have a total +5 bonus, while Lee would have to make do with +4.

I think the cities at M-26 commanders needs at least 3 neutrals, and/or they should need any 3 territories for their +1 bonus. Keep in mind that rep.-commanders are required to head into what must be considered home territory for another player, and thus fiercely defended.

Also, I think starting at the west end is a great disadvantage as compared to starting at the east end. The east simply has much more room to manoeuvre and take bonus areas, which is very important considering how few territories you need to gain a bonus. Maybe there's room for a territory between La Habana and Pinar del Rio?

The westernmost m-26 commander should be Fidel, I guess? Not on the map. Neither is one of the rep.-commanders.
Neither is neutral presence for territory Las Tunas.

[natty dread]

The cities should be +1 for 1.

[theBastard]

I think all was fine as:
city +1 autodeploy
+1 for 2 regions with M 26 7 commander
+1 for city with Rep. commander

the starting attacks:
each commander attack region with city. so:
- if M 26 7 comm. take region and he then take city, he gain +1 auto.
- if he take region and another region he gain +1 bonus.

- if Rep. comm. take region and city he gain +1 auto and +1 bonus.
- if he take only another region he gain nothing.

it looks as advantage for Rep. commanders, but their bonus (+1 for each city) is harder to take as M 26 7 commanders (+1 for 2 regions).

[Industrial Helix]

Good point Bastard...

Let's adjust it to +2 for 2 territories with any M-26-7 commander and get rid of the territory bonus altogether.

This way, it take two moves to get a bonus with M-26-7 commanders and two moves to get a bonus for Rep commanders. All is fair.

[theBastard]

Good point Bastard...

thanks

Let's adjust it to +2 for 2 territories with any M-26-7 commander and get rid of the territory bonus altogether.

This way, it take two moves to get a bonus with M-26-7 commanders and two moves to get a bonus for Rep commanders. All is fair.

not bad idea this could works...

[Industrial Helix]

[bigimg]http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/5395/cubaconquer.jpg[/bigimg]\

Ok... lets take a look at the neutrals.

[Riskismy]

I think you must be ignoring me and/or testing my patience, because this only makes it worse and I have a hard time imagining that you can't see that.

To reiterate:
After a few turns, two commanders of each kind has taken:
2 standard territories
1 city
and are still holding their commander.

At this point, a M-26 commander would get a total of 5 troops, while a rep.-commander would get a mere 3. Now the M-26 commander will gain another +2 for each standard territory he takes, while the rep.-commander will need to head straight through at least 2 enemy territories (land + city) to gain a mere +2.
That's fixed in the same way you fix a broken headlight by breaking the other.

Also, I kindly ask that you address this:

Also, I think starting at the west end is a great disadvantage as compared to starting at the east end. The east simply has much more room to manoeuvre and take bonus areas, which is very important considering how few territories you need to gain a bonus. Maybe there's room for a territory between La Habana and Pinar del Rio?

[Riskismy]

an M-26 commander would get:
+2 autodeploy for commander
+2 for any two territories
+1 auto for city

a rep.-commander would get:
+2 auto for commander
+1 for city

What am I missing?

Edit: hehe, natty, rather delete your posts than let it be known you can be wrong eh? Poor form, very poor form.

[natty dread]

The cities should be +1 for 1.

Also, I don't know what posts you are talking about.

[Riskismy]

"They both get +3" doesn't ring a bell?
Of course it doesn't, I must have been imagining it. I do have a lively one

[natty dread]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, the cities should be +1 each. Or if they shouldn't, then, now they should.

[Riskismy]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

heh. Liar.

Anyway, the cities should be +1 each. Or if they shouldn't, then, now they should.

The cities are +1 each.

[Industrial Helix]

Ah ahh... I see what you mean Riskismy. Though, I only see a difference of 1...

City auto 1 + Cities 1 + Commanders 2 = 4 Rep. de Cuba Commanders
City auto 1 + 2 Territories + Commanders 2 = 5 m-26-7 commanders

How about +2 for each additional city over 1 with a Rep. de Cuba Commander?

As for your other comment.... i think the West is a bit deceptive in that respect. If anything a sea link from Isle de la juventude to Playa Giron would give Fidel Castro the same amount of room as his brother in the west.

Sorry for missing your points, they were good ones, sometimes I don't fully read the thread and just scan it. Thanks for being patient.

[Riskismy]

Well, according to the legend the rep-commanders need 2 cities for their +1 army, which means:

City auto 1 + Commanders 2 = 3 Rep. de Cuba Commanders
City auto 1 + 2 Territories + Commanders 2 = 5 m-26-7 commanders

How about +2 for each additional city over 1 with a Rep. de Cuba Commander?

That would help a lot, but I think I'd go even further. Perhaps cities don't even give a bonus to m-26 commanders (in which case the current bonus for rep.-commanders should stay)?
Another area to tweak would be the neutrals, like you have already done. Making it harder for the M-26 commanders to take their cities might even things out a bit.

Edit: re: Raul / castro:
Yeah, I guess you're right about them being deceptive. Taking a count of standard territories within 2 jumps of the starting position, they both have 4, and the other 2 have 5. I guess it's no biggie after all.

[Industrial Helix]

Ah yeah... I dunno how I missed that. I'll change it to what I had in mind.

The trouble with cities and the m-26-7 guys is that there is no way to do conditional autodeploy. My idea is that the cities hold a value no matter who has them based on population, supplies, ect. So the Autodeploy makes sense to me and I'd like to keep it. I think the previously mentioned adjustment ought to balance things out.

[Industrial Helix]

And, here's an update... I changed all the neutrals to 2 for simplicities sake. Any other concerns?

[bigimg]http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/5395/cubaconquer.jpg[/bigimg]

[Riskismy]

Not from me. Looking forward to see how it plays out in action

[TaCktiX]

Looks fine to me. Any of the complaints I have are in reference to the legend which is going to get a graphical makeover. Overall I'd say this one's about ready to head onto graphics.

[Industrial Helix]

I have a plan to streamline it and make that commander area less bulky.

[theBastard]

it would be better +3 for 2 territories with M 26 7 commander.
also "attacking" territories must be changed and good deployed...

[Industrial Helix]

That would disrupt the balance of the map, I think.

[theBastard]

That would disrupt the balance of the map, I think.

what exactly - +3 for 2 territories with M 26 7 commander? or change of deploying of attacking territoies?

lets calculate:
if Rep. comm. will holds 4 territories (2 cities, 2 regions) he will cash +2 auto, +3 for two cities = 5 (for four territories)
if M 26 7 comm. will holds 4 territories (2 cities, 2 regions) he will cash +2 auto, +2 for two regions = 4 (for four territories)
if M 26 7 comm. will holds 4 territories (4 regions) he will cash +2 for two regions, +2 for another two regions = 4 (for four terr.)

I think the M 26 7 comm. bonus is harder to secure, because when he lost one of these 4 territories he will lost one bonus.
if Rep. comm. lost one of his 4 territories he still holds two cities so +2 auto and +3 for two cities.

also how will cities bonus work for Rep. commanders? +1 for first, +3 for two. and what for holding 3 cities? still +3?

[Industrial Helix]

Shouldn't m-27-6 commanders be counted as picking up the autodeploy for the cities as well?

within four territories, each player should be able to gain +4... so maybe the Rep Cuba commander should get +1 for each city held in addition to the autodeploy.

[MarshalNey]

OK, my intial post just got eaten up by a glitched preview, and I don't have the time to type up the details again tonight.

Let me just say that before this goes any further I need a cleaned-up (updated) legend and map. The starting points for the Communist Commanders don't match, and the connection symbols don't match. Futhermore, the bonus instructions are a bit vague and bulky at the same time.

For the first instruction that bonuses "do not double" with additional Commanders, I think that you mean "do not stack" or "are not cumulative". Doubling had me confused for a few minutes searching for actual doubling bonuses in the legend, until I came to suspect that you were referring to the case when a player has exactly two Commanders and applying to two or more Commanders.

The Cities instruction is clear in the first line, but the "+1 for First and +3 for every 2 Cities" lines are open to some interpretation... is it +1 for the First and +3 for every 2 Cities thereafter or do you mean it as it reads where the first city counts as +1 and also counts toward a +3 bonus? I'm also assuming that the latter bonus also requires a Republic Commander, although it's on a different line.

Also a bit consternated that the Territory bonus uses an inverted format for the Communist leader bonus. Consistency in presentation usually leads to better clarity.

As for what I suspect the gameplay itself to be, well... it's definitely a shootout. I think 1st or 2nd turn eliminations are a possibility; normally I don't argue for higher neutrals but perhaps 3s instead of 2s--?

--Marshal Ney