Hey, mapmakers!

Normally in a map without super bonuses the bonus army values are generally 1 or 2 lower than the # of territories it contains.

But in this case (I often use this) I have multiple layers of bonuses, and I'm wondering what "rules" you all use to determine army values?

For example:
Layer 1 (Smallest Bonuses): 1 or 2 lower than size
Later 2 (Middle): 1 third of the size
Layer 3 (Largest): 1 tenth the size

So what do you guys use? Post them here, I'd like suggestions to use on a new map to come! (Currently hidden, but you guys will see it soon enough!)

I had this dilemma on my 'Europe 1812 [1.7k]' Map. What I decided to do was have the normal bonuses half of the total territories (unless they had an odd amount, in which case I'd round up), so it was like this:

Territories|APT
......1.........1
......2.........1
......3.........2
......4.........2
......5.........3
......6.........3

...and so on

If the next bonus up, the super-bonus, wasn't part of a larger mega-bonus, I used the same rule as the normal bonuses. If it was, which seems to be your position, then I set it to a quarter of the territory value, but I rounded down for when the territory number dived by four was lower than x.5, like this:

Territories|APT
.....10........3
.....11........3
.....12........3
.....13........3
.....14........4
.....15........4

...and so on

Because I didn't use ultra- or hyper-bonuses, which also seems to reflect your situation, I used the same quarter system for the mega-bonuses. One mistake with that map, however, is that the bonuses were too large, and my way of doing it may not work as well for a map with more appropriately-sized bonuses (in terms of territories).

Edited 10/27/2014 20:51:32

What I Normally do is value all super bonuses at 0 and let players who use the map set their own value if I include super bonuses. However, with the map I'm currently making, I'm using super bonuses with an actual value. The value of the small bonuses is;
1 territory (0)
2 territories (1)
3 territories (1)
4 territories (2)
5 territories (3)
6 territories (3)
7 territories (4)
8 territories (4)
etc.

And then for the super bonus I work out what the value of that should be if it were just those territories without any bonus armies from the smaller territories and then take away the value of the small bonuses within the super bonus.

Edited 10/27/2014 07:33:05

For small maps I use the number of territories but for larger maps and bonuses, well it varies hugely per map.

For megabonuses, I think that the bonus value should be equal to the amount of bonuses inside it. For mega-mega bonuses, based on the number of megabonuses inside.

MrOobling, that's fine if all the bonus in the super bonus are the same size, which in most cases they won't be.

Ok, thanks for the help and ideas, guys. I've just came up with one and it is here:
(From smallest to largest.)

(3/5)+(1/5)+(1/5)

So if the player controls only small bonuses, he'll only get 3/5ths the size value for his income. If he controls the medium bonuses with the small ones inside it he'll earn about 4/5ths, and if he controls the largest bonus he'll get roughly 1 army per territory.

Clement, it is ok as presuming the ordinary bonuses are 1 or 2 less than the number of territories, a superbonuses with an extra army for every bonus would mean it would be 1 or 0 less than the number of territories.
However, it wouldn't work with your valuing of bonuses (although I don't really like ones with bonuses like yours as you never get enough armies to do special moves).

Edited 10/28/2014 07:42:32

Just found this thread, and it interested me because I'm just up to that point myself.

I've used three tiers of regional bonuses; it's a city, so -

13 Boroughs (mainly 2-4 areas)
Areas (6-10 blocks)
Blocks (mainly 8-9 territories)

I've just used roughly 50% of the number of territories at all three levels. I really want there to be rewards that kick in at all stages. That gives me totals all the way up that come to 150% or so.

On top of which I've also used bonuses for individual territories, and also combinations scattered across the map. Both of these ideas were inspired by zxctycxz's Europe 1812 map. I really liked this map, especially the way rewards were offered for completing various combinations of British Empire, etc, I just wished they were substantial enough to motivate someone to do it. So all the harder to achieve bonuses get disproportionately high rewards, because it's got to be worth someone's while to do it.

How disproportionately high to set it will probably come out in testing :-)

I did 1:2:4:8 on my Qwedlandia map, and this was stubbornly resisted, so I'd suspect that
an alternative, insanely hard MATH version would work
Lets try something like a Flesch Grade:

x forms territories, y points of attack,z forms the number of nearby bonuses
You want the x coefficient to be less than the y coefficient(and less than 1), and the xand y coefficients should add from 0.5~1.5. The z coefficient should be below 1/2y. Then we add fluff

---

traditionalround=roundtd
rounds happen first

---

round.up(0.4x)+round.down(0.6y)+0.3z
round.down(round.up(0.4x)+round.down(0.6y)+0.25z-1.5)
round.down(round.up(0.4x)^2+round.down(0.6y+0.7)^2+0.25z-1.5)
round.td(sqrt(roundup(0.4x)^2+round.down(0.6y+0.7)^2)+0.25z-1.5)
round.td(sqrt(roundup(0.4x+0.6)^2+round.td(0.6y+0.7)^2)+0.25z-1.5)+1
Fluff=maximum attainable with human precision
So lets see
x&y&z|result
1&1&1|1

Yes, I know that I have only checked on one situation, so I have to work on it, and produce a graph from Mac Grapher (I have both OS's now), but think about this, this is a method that could be changed. I indeed started with 0.3 as the
decreasing factor in the outermost round. I had to change it to 1.5, and probably higher. This is clearly a work in progress. So work on it and adapt it to your own map. In my map, this would give insanely high bonuses for the islands, but even higher for the interior landmasses.

---

Preliminary notes:

• Have not checked any situations other than 1+1+1
  
• y>=z