Skip to content


My feedback

1 result found

  1. 42 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    The issue with local deployments and overlapping bonuses comes up when you think about deploying. When players deploy an army to a territory that is part of two bonuses and they control both of those bonuses, the game would need to know which bonus you want to take the army from.

    Imagine three territories: 1, 2, and 3. There’s a bonus A made up of territories 1 and 2, and a bonus B made up of territories 2 and 3. Both bonuses give 1 army per turn and therefore the player gets 2 income. Imagine a player controls all three territories (and therefore both bonuses), and then tries to deploy an army on territory 2. The game needs to know if it should allocate that army from bonus A or B.

    There are a few strategies it could use to decide:

    Strategy 1: It could just pick one at random.…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    I agree this would be a huge improvement! I think the hierarchy of bonuses should be based on size, so that you allocate to the bonus with the fewest territories first. This would be intuitive in the common case of macro bonuses, as it would function the same as how anywhere does now, saving the most flexible allocation possible. On maps with complex semi overlapping bonuses, you could still get what you want, you just have to figure out the precedence. In the case of overlapping and equal size, could just default to alphabetical or something the user can figure out. Since this is an edge case compared with macro bonuses, I don't think this is that big a deal and the user can still get to anything they want!

Feedback and Knowledge Base