Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Carolus Magnus» Forums » General

Subject: Adjoining always good? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Fernando Moros
South Korea
Gwangju
Gwangju
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Adjoining two regions owned it is always an automatic move, right?
I mean, you always join two or more regions as soon as you place the tower? thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk Chegigo
United States
Dingle
Idaho
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Adjoining always good?
Correct. As soon as you place a tower in a region that is adjacent to another you control you must immediately join the two regions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Shipp
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Adjoining always good?
Chegigo wrote:
Correct. As soon as you place a tower in a region that is adjacent to another you control you must immediately join the two regions.


Actually, Dirk, every rules translation I've yet seen specifically says you "may" join them together. It's not mandatory.

Randy...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fernando Moros
South Korea
Gwangju
Gwangju
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Adjoining always good?
ok, lets admit that it is optional, as is writen in the rules... what is probably mandatory is that if you do it you must do it when you place the tower and not in future rounds?..
My question intended to find if there could be a situation where adjoining regions would work as a disadvantage for the owner?
in other words.. joining is ALWAYS good, right? thanks a lot
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Hall
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Adjoining always good?
An excerpt from a post to rec.games.board back in 2000 by me on this same topic of whether it is mandatory to adjoin the regions (quick summary: yes it is---the may should be must)...

From 2000 post to r.g.b:
"I asked the kind folks at Venice Conection about joining the territories into regions and here is an excerpt of our conversation...

>>Is it necessary for a person to combine
>>adjacent regions to form a territory or can the player >>leave them separate if such joining would prove >>disadvantageous for a future move?
>>The English rules use the term "can" which tends to
>>imply that you don't have to if you don't want to.
>>I personally believe that you must join them.
>
>You are absolutely right.

So, it would seem that if you feel that joining territories into regions is a disadvantageous thing to do, don't move Charlemange onto that territory or bolster your defences in that newly created region."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
SH W
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Adjoining always good?
fmoros wrote:
ok, lets admit that it is optional, as is writen in the rules... what is probably mandatory is that if you do it you must do it when you place the tower and not in future rounds?..
My question intended to find if there could be a situation where adjoining regions would work as a disadvantage for the owner?
in other words.. joining is ALWAYS good, right? thanks a lot


Not always.

1)to prevent a big turnover. this happens when there is a dominant color in the lands that is volatile. You want to keep them separate so that the turnover is not too much, as in it might cause your opponent to win the game. (e.g. 10 reds plus 5 of your castles, when your opponent gets red dominance, he gets to turnover 5 pieces of castles, which may win him the game, but if you had kept them separate, it may only have been 1-4 pieces)

2) to prevent ending the game early. The game ends with 4 or less regions, you only want to trigger that if you are leading.

I can only think of two offhand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk Chegigo
United States
Dingle
Idaho
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Joining is manditory according to Rio Grande rules
Joining is manditory according to Rio Grande rules.

I've been silent since my original reply because I never understood the joining to be optional. If that were the case it would have the potential to extend the game even longer. It is a great game that is normally just the right amount of time.

If joining were optional though there is plenty of reason not to. Mainly because it helps mitigate a loss of an island. Certainly your paladins and castles can band together and be stronger, but if you are unsure you can hold them then keep them separate.

But that is neither here nor there because the rules as I read them make it manditory to join the territories. Here is the paragraph from the Rio Grande Rules, 3rd page:

"Merging territories

"One of the most important features of the game occurs when a player builds castles in adjacent territories. When a player builds a castle in a territory (either a new castle or a takeover) and has castles in one or both of hte adjacent territories, the adjacent territories with castles of the same color are merged into one large territory. This larger territory contains all the paladins and castles of the former territories. A newly merged territory is not checked for a change in majority."

Then two paragraphs down:

"If a player builds a castle in a territory adjacent to one of his merged territories, the territories are merged into an even larger territory."

This really looks to be the efficient game system Leo is known for. Good times.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Joining is manditory according to Rio Grande rules
I was just coming here to ask about this after having just read the online rules here. Now I have a new related question.

A newly merged territory is not checked for a change in majority.

If you did re-check majority after merging, is it even possible that it would change hands? I can't think of a case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jerry Dziuba
United States
Scurry
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re:Joining is manditory according to Rio Grande rules
ekted queried:
If you did re-check majority after merging, is it even possible that it would change hands? I can't think of a case.


Certainly. Just because you have a tower in a territory doesn't at all mean you have a majority. If you placed a tower in a terriroty that had 5 yellows and subsequently lost control of yellow you'd be at a 5-1 disadvantage but would still keep control until Mr. C stopped by for a spot of tea. If you took control of an adjacent territory where you had a 1 majority the combining would put your opponent in the majority of teh new land mass but he couldn't take control until the next drop in visit.

BTW - joining is indeed mandatory. I asked Leo that exact question shortly after the game was released and he confirmed that it was not optional.

- Nick
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls