Ladder Games / Early Luck / Starting Cities

[Chazar]

I wish that ladder games would allow more than one starting city per side.

Reason:
I observe that many ladder games are boringly decided by very early misfortune, such as losing a strong starting unit or hero against a neutral city, since this leads to a large delay in the expansion. On the other hand, it makes no sense to avoid risky battles either: if a 75% winchance gives me a solid expansion lead, then taking the risk is worth it, as it will win me 75% of all my games overall.

I don't think that rigging the chances any further, as the 90% rule already does, can fix this problem, since as long as risk pays in the long run, player will and should take risks at their own discretion! Deciding whether the risks are worth it are at the core of the game!

I think the solution lies in toning down the impact of such misfortune a little bit.

For example, I think it would be better if everyone starts with 2 scouts and 2 minotaur instead of 1 scouts, 2 light infantry and 1 minotaur. Losing a minotaur is still bad, but just not as devastating. However, altering starting units is difficult and again always prone to chance.

Instead, why not allow map makers to preset up to 5 starting cities per player in a specially marked laddering map setup? If one has already the capability to produce in three places, then the huge impact of failing to capture the second city on turn one by misfortune is somewhat reduced. It is still bad, but no more decides the entire game. Also, if I lose a strong starting unit against a neutral I have more options to proceed: Do I buy strong production in one city? Or cheap production in all my starting cities? Or do I save money for another hero? Pllayers having more choice in spending their starting gold is good. Interesting choices are always good for games (unless the choice is a no-brainer)!

What would be the drawbacks?
Players are free to pick the map and map-setup to their liking. Again, more choice.

Furthermore, since I suggested to introduce a new tick box for each setup within the map settings to determine whether or not preset starting cities are used in ladder mode, all existing ladder maps continue to start with a single city. Only if map maker deliberately updates their map, a setup may have more than one starting city in ladder mode. So it would not break anything. The tick box should also be greyed out, if more than 4 or 5 starting cities are preset.

I am also sure our community is already strong enough to quickly weed out possibly unfair ladder maps due to starting city setup.

To sum up:
My suggestions just adds choice, but does not alter the existing game. All win, no loss!

[KGB]

The problem is that most maps can't give out that many starting cities because they don't have that many on the entire map. This is especially true on 50x maps where there may only be 20-25 cities in total.

Also giving out cities means less to conquer = less hero experience = lower hero levels which means buying leveled heroes is more important than ever.

What the game *really* needs to do is use the DLR model for starting armies. Instead of giving everyone exactly 4 or 5 starting units the game should let the players select what they want and how many they want from a pool of points. This fixes the following issues:

1) Starts where one player is in the woods and another in the hills and the starting armies contain a dwarf or giant that benefits the hill player (Or Sandworm on maps with one player in the desert etc). Now players would select units based on their starting terrain/hero choice.
2) Loss of an early strong unit. Since players are responsible for their selections its on them if they don't take enough starting units or select the wrong ones.

For example lets say the game uses 2000 starting points. Each unit costs what it does in gold to buy the production. So you could take a Pegasi (1250) and 7 Lt Infantry (700) = 1950 points. Or you could take 20 Lt Infanty (2000) = 2000 points. Or a Ram (550) an Eagle (325) a scout (75) and 7 Orcs (1050) = 2000 points. Or 2 Spiders (1600) and 4 Lt Inf (400) = 2000. Or a Green Dragon (1800) and 2 Lt Inf (200) = 2000 points. Basically combo that doesn't exceed 2000.

This makes selecting starting units a strategy rather than being randomly assigned or being assigned X number of cities.

KGB

[Chazar]

I'm not asking for the game to assign X starting cities!

I was asking to allow map makers to decide whether or not players start with X cities on a particular map.

The mechanism is already in place for scenario maps, so it ought to be very easy to implement as well - just lift the restriction slightly.

[KGB]

I understand what you asked for. But I fail to see how it's going to help with the problem you describe.

Lets say the map maker selects 2 starting cities (or 3 or whatever) for each player.

1) Map maker has to make sure the 2+ starting cities don't suddenly imbalance things.
2) That's 1 or more fewer cities to conquer. Which means less XP for your hero. It also means less plunder for gold too.
3) You need to buy production in these cities. About half the starts are 800 gold or less. Spending 500 on a hero leaves 300 for 2+ cities.
4) This REALLY makes L1 gold ruins that much more valuable than items/allies/sage.

You really believe having 1 more city making Lt Inf (or maybe Orc if you are lucky) on turn 1 is going to make THAT much of a difference if you lose an early Minotaur or Spider or Gryphon on a neutral? If that's the case just give out 2 extra Lt Inf to the starting units which is 2 turns of a 2nd city.

I have NO problem letting players start with more than 1 city. It makes for a nice change of pace. But I have ZERO belief it's going to solve the problem of the loss of an early key unit / hero because the other player(s) will have that extra city too.

KGB

[tabanli]

I think a better map may include couple of razed cities nearby with a lot of gold to start with.

[KGB]

I think a better map may include couple of razed cities nearby with a lot of gold to start with.

Problem with that is that if you give out say 2K in gold and someone hits the Jackpot on RD ally on turn 2-3 they aren't going to rebuild. Instead they are going to run wild with an early RD that may be game breaking.

Incidentally my Gargantuan Map does exactly what you propose (2 starting cities, 2 nearby razed cities, a L1 ruin, lots of +40/+50 gold sites and lots more razed cities / gold sites all over the map) and it's not proven to be a very popular map even though it has a VERY low early luck factor due to slow expansion

KGB