[Sir_Dr_D]

This is a scenario map, and unfortunatly the research level and indepdant level are fixed and cannot be changed.

I brought up the ten turn truce as a suggestion, but I am fine either way. I do favor the ten turn truce more though. Without the rule I am quite certain at least 3 or 4 nations will be wiped out within the first 10 turns. But without the tuce I would just design my nation in being able to handle rushes.

This is a non serious, unbalancaed map, as is. No rule will change that much. Caleum starts off with only two adjacent provinces, because they are up in the mountains and this makes sense role playing wise. But it puts Caleum at a disadvantage strategy wise.The same appies to Marverni being surrounded by only forest,etc .Nations don't start off balanced. I signed up for this map because I think it would be fun role playing wise. But it isn't the best map strategy wise.

If we use the ten turn truce rule (small map = ten provinces per player) I would see it as extending the scenario. When the wars start, they would start when these nations are already empires.And looking at the map it looks like the nations should start off as empires (i.e Marverni occupying the area called Marverni woods, and Agartha owning the complete underground, etc.)

I think the ten turn rule is the best way to balance things. It would give the nations whose main advantage is high magic a chance to catch up, and would prevent someone from using a dominion 10 dragon to take out a neigboring nation within 2 turns. Plus it adds in interesting scenario aspects.

My second choice would be to limit people to only using awake pretenders (which could be an intersting scenario aspect as well.) But I don't like that as much, because pretender creation is fun, and I don't want to limit it. But either option for me is fine.