The map doens't need to be 'fair'.

I would like to toss this out for discussion.

While, yes, it is important that no strategy be overwhelming (every map choice should have at least 2 viable and equally competitive strategies, preferrably more), I would like to say that the map doesn't need to be fair.

i.e.: Afrika doesn't need to have the same chance to win (reliably, when played competently) as europe, or Korea+Japan for instance. If you want a challenge, you can get it by playing Africa (or highly contested Europe): no need to keep tinkering/devising strategies so that Africa has 'equal win chance'.

What IS important, is that Africa be AS MUCH FUN to play as Europe. Guer.War. helps, and therefore is a good thing.

Agree? Disagree?

AMEN brother

I whole heartedly agree. With the choice of imperialist and guerilla warfare the poor areas are just as much fun to play as the rich areas.

Agreed

Africa, 1-20 players, no alliances, 25 join turn time, 5000 starting time.

Oh why do I do this to myself? Those games are a nightmare, great but a nightmare to play.

Keep Africa poor!

What about cheaper units in africa that would make sence and still be fair!

Kirjoittanut takeanap_oleon, 29.04.2011 at 06:04

What about cheaper units in africa that would make sence and still be fair!

No, no and no. You are saying exactly the oposite that is proposed in this [old but smart] thread. Keep the map as it is. Africa has already a lot of chances to win if played right, there is absolutely NO NEED of balancing the map.