They're inefficient and easy to break.

I'd suggest making east US a 6 armies per turn for 7 territories and turn west US into 4 armies for 6 territories. Maybe tweak the Canada border as well so its not so easy to break.

It should at least be a somewhat viable pick instead of being ignored in 90% of games.

No thanks, I prefer it as is.

What would you do about West US considering it has 7 territories as of now? Also I do not understand why one more territory should result in 2 more armies per turn, unless you have a radical border change in mind.

aint broke; dont fix.

Just because it isn't broken doesn't mean it is lucrative, and as the top played map, I think it should as balanced as possible.

would you change the value or germany, ukraine or greece in the europe map, for the same reasons? its a good thing that germany is never going to be taken by anyone, the presence of no man's lands like that is a benefit to maps, it makes them more interesting.

|>would you change the value or germany, ukraine or greece in the europe map, for the same reasons? its a good thing that germany is never going to be taken by anyone, the presence of no man's lands like that is a benefit to maps, it makes them more interesting.

I dont know very much about the europe map, but those bonuses aren't right next to each other, are they? Canada and the US are 3 of the most inefficient bonuses on the map and they are all right next to each other. It makes that entire corner of the map close to useless.

Maybe some other bonus around asia or africa could be slightly nerfed at the same time to add more "no man's lands"

|>What would you do about West US considering it has 7 territories as of now? Also I do not understand why one more territory should result in 2 more armies per turn, unless you have a radical border change in mind.

At first glance I'd say combine California and the northwest, but i dont know, i haven't thought about that much.

I just thought of those numbers above in less than a minute, they were just rough examples. I just think there should be some change to make it a viable pick. A border change, a bonus efficiency change or a little bit of both, i dont know.

C. America is a very common pick, and Greenland, S. America, China, and Indonesia are all fairly common picks. With those areas being picked, controlling the borders around North America gives a good opportunity to expand into some fairly easily defended areas. You can't count on defending Eastern US from Canada, but you sure can defend it from Greenland or Cuba.

I like them in that they are rarely used, but can be quite useful.

Canada on the regular Earth map was actually pretty close to useless, especially in 1v1. Canada on Medium Earth is an alternative that I've seen used to good effect. Also, having non-optimal choices allows for players to pick them and thoroughly surprise their enemies. PaniX picked Canada once as a backup to Greenland and was able to break my "safe" Greenland bonus because of it.

They´re not useless, just arn´t bonuses you want to pick or try to take with little available income. But they´re still useful to take.

Agreed with Duke.

I have made use of the Americas and Canada bonus on occasion as a surprise start. Good power base that provide high incomes and are difficult to invade in comparison to the Asian bonuses. It is only applicable in certain situations but controlling those three quickly can mean easy victory.

As x said above, why fix what ain't broke?

Show me a successful US pick in a ladder game, and i could show you 20 where they weren't even touched. It shouldn't be like that.
They should be efficient or in a strategic location, and they're neither.

By the same logic, Europe and East Russia should be changed since they are inefficient and rarely selected in my experience.

It's useful to have areas that are known to be deficient, to provide a meta-game to the ladder. I wouldn't like it if they were literally useless, but less efficient or less defensible are both fine.

And I can find you dozens of good ladder games where "bad" bonuses were taken. The thing that you seem to be solely looking at is starting positions, when in fact many of the less efficient bonuses are taken later, but aren't part of the starting three.

Primarily that's because it's much faster to take a small bonus than a larger, which has huge implications for long term efficiency. That doesn't make large bonuses bad by any means. Look at West China, for instance. A large number of games where someone successfully completes that bonus turn into a win for them. That doesn't mean that picking it is a good starting option.

See also: Caucasus, Middle East, East Russia, Europe, Greenland. I have seen every single bonus on the board assist in a win. That doesn't mean that they all make good starting positions.

The only thing that makes sense to change here is Eastern US and how badly the internal pathing works.

|> At first glance I'd say combine California and the northwest, but i dont know, i haven't thought about that much.
|>
|> I just thought of those numbers above in less than a minute, they were just rough examples. I just think there should be some change to make it a viable pick. A border change, a bonus efficiency change or a little bit of both, i dont know.

If you want to make a rather radical suggestion like this, wouldn't it be better to have put some actual thought into your proposal? Otherwise it would make more sense to create a topic along the lines of "I think this part of the map is badly balanced, let's discuss a solution".
Anyway, this is WL, you can modify just about everything; tweak the values, play a few testing games, tweak them some more, repeat a couple times, then tell us what you came up with. A solid proposal, backed by experience will make a much better impression than something you whipped up "in less than a minute".

lykus don't be lazy if you want them tweaked change the bonus values your self and create games on it this is one bonus value change not worth arguing over

also they are not ignored plus the canadian border needs no tweaking

Caucasus - High efficiency, borders a lot of bonuses. Easy to break, but can also break other bonuses easily.

West China - similar to Caucasus

Middle East - Low efficiency, very good strategic location.

Greenland - High efficiency, isolated safe bonus

Europe, east russia, canada, east/west US - all 5 for 7, big and inefficient. The east russia and europe make sense because of their positions, but why would three inefficient bonuses be placed adjacent to each other?



I don't know how to make maps and changing a single bonus value wouldn't do enough. If someone wants to edit the map a bit and give it to me I'd make a tournament to see how it works

You can't just edit a map.

You would have to request the SVG file from the owner (Fizzer I believe) and then make any changes. If you are so gungho on doing this why not do the legwork yourself instead of throwing out half-baked ideas?

I actually quite like it when the US/Canada bonuses are wasteland free. I would never pick it as a starting spot, but I quite like C. and S. America, and the US provides two relatively good bonuses for slow expansion.