subject
balencing 2 player games without neutrals
---------
body
I know that there has been a lot of complaining about the neutrals so I have an other susgestion. Make it so that everyone gets 3 armies for thier first few turns. what do you think
I think that this is a 3 as I love the 2 player games even thouhg I havnt had a chance to play it yet but I think that this might make it better
Neutrals offer a different style of play than regular games. Strategy isn't the same, if they lose, then they need to practice. If they don't like it, then they should go play 3 players.
I like the neutrals, too. It adds a new twist on the strategy of the game. You can win a game without ever taking certain areas, but leaving them as a buffer.
i also like the nutreal. if u have 3 armires for your 1st turn. that still means round 2 the 1st player gets more armies and put palyer 2 at a disadvantage
lol using them as a buffer quickly rose to one of my faveorite thin gs to do. you lose NOTHING if your opponent attacks them, they may lose armies and you wont lose a territory or any troops. once i trapped a player in aussie with neutral on siam, india and china lol
I like the neutrals but I also agree that something needs to be done about continents because I lost in 3 rounds because the other guy held Scandanavia in the Europe map.
However, I think the idea of rerandomising the territories until no-one gets a continent would be better (saw that in some other thread)
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.
