So, the only feedback I've gotten on the map in years is that the games take too long. It's been a long time since I played it myself.

Would those who play it agree? What do you think would help it along?

Get rid of the 20 unit per territory cap?

Increase the card scale?

Increase the elimination bonus?

Other?

I haven't played it in a bit.   Do you feel like starting a private game and inviting some map makers?  Could be a fun way to discuss it.

I just read my review - First, I have to say that it has been very highly and heavily reviewed by the community, so it hasn't been for lack of exposure (pun intended). But now that you mention it, I will admit that a cap of 20 slows things down a bit too much for my taste.

With that in mind, I think an interesting scenario twist on the theme would be to "slow down" the spread of disease by latitude.  Cap the poles at 15 and move in with caps going up by 5 in the warmer climbs to represent the effect of temperature on the spread the infection.

In fact, you could take that theme and apply it to dice-mods, ..or the rate at which the factories put units on the board, etc..

M57 wrote:

First, I have to say that it has been very highly and heavily reviewed by the community, so it hasn't been for lack of exposure (pun intended).

It got a great start in the early days, when it was one of the first and few maps around. It doesn't seem to have kept up its appeal, though, as time goes on. Sure, hordes isn't novel anymore and factories/capitals/etc have made it even something of a mundane concept, but I was sad to have it put in front of me that it's not being played anymore.

The market has decided, and I'm not saying its unfair, just that I can't help but take it a little personally.

it's still one of my favorite boards Cram. yes it does take some time when you have more than one good player on the board. i don't see that as a bad thing tho.

Cramchakle wrote:

M57 wrote:

First, I have to say that it has been very highly and heavily reviewed by the community, so it hasn't been for lack of exposure (pun intended).

It got a great start in the early days, when it was one of the first and few maps around. It doesn't seem to have kept up its appeal, though, as time goes on. Sure, hordes isn't novel anymore and factories/capitals/etc have made it even something of a mundane concept, but I was sad to have it put in front of me that it's not being played anymore.

The market has decided, and I'm not saying its unfair, just that I can't help but take it a little personally.

Sometimes I think the degree to which my boards are well received is based on how much I play them.  The exception is Fall of Rome.  I have no idea why, but there is a sub-culture of lightning gamers that play the snot out of that board.

I would say lift the caps - In the end, that's what turned me off.  What is the reason for them, anyway?  Do they somehow support the backstory?  'Cause if they did, that would be a good reason to keep them.

It does have a "patience wins" aspect to it.  I think most of those things would affect gameplay, although for the most part to a degree they aren't truly an issue for those really familiar with the board...as rules are On for Return to Place and Attack (which means the Cap isn't really a big factor when traveling), Cards are unlimited (so you can stockpile), and Eliminations receive Cards/Bonus (if you increase this then you would get even more elimination runs as the final strategy).

Abandon On (with Retain) would probably speed up the gameplay with still being unique.

Part of the inspiration for Hordes was to eliminate some of the stalemates that came from people loading up 40+ armies and endlessly beating on each other at a choke point. The cap limits the number of defenders you can put in one place (though, statistically speaking, it's almost trivial. You have to be very unlucky to lose 20v20 as an attacker). With return to placement and unlimited reserves / cards, the cap is a non-item for attackers. Just plow through your 20 and put some more on.

All these years later, I'm still not sure if it helps with what it was originally intended. It does seem to dictate the pace a little bit when the players don't know the map details down to the point of holding reserves till mid-turn. That's a mechanic I haven't seen used on any map since, so I don't blame people for being unfamiliar.

Cramchakle wrote:

It does seem to dictate the pace a little bit when the players don't know the map details down to the point of holding reserves till mid-turn. That's a mechanic I haven't seen used on any map since, so I don't blame people for being unfamiliar.

When Return to Place is On it is normally best practice to hold reserves till mid-turn, but since it isn't a norm/standard rule I don't think a lot are familiar with it or strategize is correctly.

Yertle wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

It does seem to dictate the pace a little bit when the players don't know the map details down to the point of holding reserves till mid-turn. That's a mechanic I haven't seen used on any map since, so I don't blame people for being unfamiliar.

When Return to Place is On it is normally best practice to hold reserves till mid-turn, but since it isn't a norm/standard rule I don't think a lot are familiar with it or strategize is correctly.

I must admit that I played Hordes of Africa a bunch before finally realizing that this was an option, and sometimes very good strategy.

The board definitely needs a better elimination bonus, payoff for eliminating people is so low that it's not worth it most of the time, except of course simply to finish things, something that is only important towards the end, which creates a catch-22 of sorts. Where it's not worth it to eliminate people except until the end, yet to get there people need to get eliminated, but it isn't worth doing it unless the person is very weak.

Serpentis-Lucis wrote:

The board definitely needs a better elimination bonus, payoff for eliminating people is so low that it's not worth it most of the time, except of course simply to finish things, something that is only important towards the end, which creates a catch-22 of sorts. Where it's not worth it to eliminate people except until the end, yet to get there people need to get eliminated, but it isn't worth doing it unless the person is very weak.

In defense of this criticism, I would offer that for some reason, it's pretty easy to "get weak" on this board ..at least speaking for myself :(

In the game I'm playing right now, i would say that cards are too low. I can remember at the time thinking how I disliked it when end game play on many maps wasn't so much about how you managed limited resources to expand across a lot of distant borders, and it mostly became about taking a single territory to get a card for a cash-in that was worth more than the combination of all of the on-board bonuses. That said, even from a very dominant position, it's hard to put the final nail in the game; it takes a lot of turns with marginal push and pull.

On the one hand, it creates an opportunity for unholy alliances and comebacks. On the other hand, it does draw things out longer than it maybe needs to be.

I'm thinking about making an incremental change to the cards, perhaps bumping each turn in by 1 army. That way, if you've stockpiled enough cards to run through the bonus structure yourself, you'll pick up an extra 5 armies.

I've updated the map with bigger cards, no more 20-per territory caps, and new graphics. It's more of an evolution than a revolution to the map, but I always liked it how it was, anyway.

could you add a scenario for the old version?

Added to my to-do list.