Layout 1:
My first layout has the two players starting from the top in the best positions and the two players starting from the sides in a minimally worse position. The player starting from the bottom is in a really bad spot, though.
Layout 2:
The second layout is better balanced, but it's still slightly more advantageous for the players starting from the sides than for the players starting from the top. As in the first layout, the player starting from the bottom has the worst starting position (though it's not _that_ bad).
Layout 3:
For me this is the most interesting layout since it's not symmetrical, so every start position is different. It's a bit weird, though, since either the player starting from the top or the player starting from the left has to attach one of his small tiles to a big tile of the player starting from the bottom.
I'd also like to note that I'd rotate the two big tiles in from of the left player to grant him a shorter route to the small tile below his start area since it's treasure would otherwise basically be uncontested for the player starting from the bottom.
I've been wondering if for such imbalanced layouts it would make sense to apply handicaps to players with a better starting position, e.g. reduce their starting morale or number of order cards while granting the player(s) with bad starting positions a bonus.
What do you think would be reasonable to compensate for a good starting position?
I'd also love to hear if anyone managed to create a layout for five players that was perfectly balanced!
The player at the bottom has the biggest disadvantage: starting further from their treasure than anyone else, and closer to the middle-right player than anyone else.
Each player starts 4 large tiles away from everyone else except the player at the bottom and the one on the middle-right who are only three away from each other.
This is the most balanced five-player layout I have found. (Do excuse my foot. :P)
The player at the bottom has the biggest disadvantage: starting further from their treasure than anyone else, and closer to the middle-right player than anyone else.
Thanks for the photo!
This seems to be identical to my layout 2, right?
None of these look like mine. I started with 4 small tiles in the middle and built ourword from there. I don't have a picture to share, but I'd like to say thanks for all the alternatives. ;)
Ah, I think I know what you're describing there!
Someone over at BGG basically had the same idea but described it differently. Here's what it looks like:
All you'd have to do to arrive at your layout would be to close the gap in the middle by turning the large tiles atop and below the gap by 180 degrees.
And this is indeed almost a perfectly balanced layout!
Each player has to cross three large tiles to arrive at his neighbours' start area and five large tiles to arrive at the remaining two players' start area. So, distances to opponents are equal for everyone. The only minor imbalance is created by the two players starting from the bottom competing for the nearest small tile with a treasure while the player starting from the top has two small tiles with treasure nearby.
But if you just count the distance in tiles, they are still equally distant for each player.
Edit: I think you can further improve the layout by rotating the top left and the bottom left large tiles by 90 degrees clockwise. Then every start area is adjacent to one small tile with treasure (except for the bottom left player who has a starting area adjacent to two small tiles with treasure).
You could let players bid their moral in order to gain bet starting positions. If no one bids any moral, you could then let them roll dice or randomly draw order cards. Whoever has the highest level order cards choosing their starting possition first. And if you choose your starting possition first then you go last.
Bidding for the start position was something I'd thought about as well.
Having the player with the best start position go last is a good idea. That might help to balance it a bit.
This is the most balanced five-player layout I have found. (Do excuse my foot. :P)
The player at the bottom has the biggest disadvantage: starting further from their treasure than anyone else, and closer to the middle-right player than anyone else.
Thanks for the photo!
This seems to be identical to my layout 2, right?
You're right: they are the same. I didn't notice.
But that new find is great: it is perfectly balanced: since all people are three large tiles away from each other, their first move onto a large tile is safe, but then to move to a second large tile (and thus onto the non-start small tile) they risk encountering opponents. Take another look at the two-player board: it is the same. Players are three large tiles from each other, and two large tiles from the non-start smaller tiles. Though aesthetically I would agree with you and turn the two tiles you mentioned. But that's just personal taste.
By perfect symmetry, I mean that everyone should have an equal amount of distance to an equal amount of opponents.
Say player A had distance to these players B (2), C (2), D (4), E (4). Player B should have two players of distance 2 and 2 players of distance 4. If it ends up being 2 players of distance 2, 1 player of distance 4, and 1 player of distance 5, it can be argued that said player has advantage/disadvantage (depending on the situation). I will think about this and see if I can come up with a diagram.
By perfect symmetry, I mean that everyone should have an equal amount of distance to an equal amount of opponents.
Have another look at the layout in post #6. It has the perfect symmetry you're looking for!
Here's two more images to demonstrate it:
This shows how far each of the large tiles are from _any_ start tile:
And this shows how far each of the tiles are away from one of the players (in this case the bottom right player):
If you start counting tiles from a different start tile you'll end up with the exact same distances: two players are three tiles away and two are five tiles away!
I could also see players constructing the 5 player layout by taking turns putting down the large and small tiles, choosing their options from a common pool. The tiles obviously have to go in a specific layout and orientation but there is room within that layout for some choice.
You could do a snake draft where you go through players 1-2-3-4-5 and then reverse it for choosing starting location 5-4-3-2-1. Players could bid morale to choose where they end up in the snake draft, or you could just roll randomly (or draw order cards).