DoIaF AAR

GMd by presser84. Winner: Tagaryen (shockj)

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby presser84 » 03 May 2013, 04:25

letram13 wrote:Is this in the rules? I was thinking having control of Kings Landing being a requirement for victory might be an interesting idea.


Much like the 18 center VC in regular dip, the theory is that once a player reaches a majority they should be able to eventually conquer the whole board. So even if a power gets to 17 in this game without KL they, theoretically would be able to eventually get to and take down the capital.

Now that is of course theory. In practicality there are 18/16 stalemate lines in the regular game (there might also be higher ones too) so the conquest theory isn't 100% but that's the general idea behind it.
Westeros Diplomacy - GM/creator
Diplomacy of Ice and Fire 2 - GM
Keirador wrote:Stop being a dickasaurus rex.
User avatar
presser84
 
Posts: 4327
Joined: 21 Dec 2010, 23:05
Location: New Jersey, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1460)
All-game rating: (1678)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby shockj » 03 May 2013, 04:39

As the person who held King's landing the longest, I must say I enjoyed the King's Landing rules a great deal. It might just be because it was something new and different and I enjoyed making my strategy stretch to accommodate the wrinkle. But I also thought that it gave King's landing the respect it deserved as far as it's significance to the GoT lore. To really have a firm grasp on the territory, you either need excellent diplomacy, and/or 3 units to truly defend it. I feel like that is true to "real life" (the books) as well as just something different. I also think it makes sense for a certain bonus (having King's landing count for 2 centers) instead of just a penalty (having to hold it for 2 years, if I understand what you're saying correctly). So I personally enjoyed this more.

I don't mind the rivers, but I also think that's why there should be more interior SCs, to justify their use.

I definitely want to defend my crown for a third round. As far as which map to use, I'd be fine with either, as I enjoy aspects of both. I think the original Westeros map was a bit more strategically complex as both versions stand now, so I'd either vote for that or a revamped version of this map along the lines of what we've discussed so far. Whatever works for everyone else.
Slay classy.

Washington wrote:Shockj has been known to go rouge on occasion
User avatar
shockj
 
Posts: 833
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 09:13
Location: New Orleans, LA
Class: Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby presser84 » 03 May 2013, 04:49

shockj wrote:As the person who held King's landing the longest, I must say I enjoyed the King's Landing rules a great deal. It might just be because it was something new and different and I enjoyed making my strategy stretch to accommodate the wrinkle. But I also thought that it gave King's landing the respect it deserved as far as it's significance to the GoT lore. To really have a firm grasp on the territory, you either need excellent diplomacy, and/or 3 units to truly defend it. I feel like that is true to "real life" (the books) as well as just something different. I also think it makes sense for a certain bonus (having King's landing count for 2 centers) instead of just a penalty (having to hold it for 2 years, if I understand what you're saying correctly). So I personally enjoyed this more.

The way I understood it there could only ever be 1 unit on the space but it controlled the supply for 2 units. If you start the year (as Baratheon and Lannister do) you get a unit. If a player other than the one of whom currently controls KL enters KL and holds it through the Fall retreat, they would, in the Winter choose a side to remove the supply from and gain that in their supply center count. If they then held the center through the following Fall retreat the following year (it could be with a different unit) they could gain the build the other half of KL. This creates some interesting strategy and a sort of a "King of the Mountain" mini-game with potentially many players looking to have basically one unit supply them with 2 more elsewhere. I would likely allow a unit to sit in KL and not take over a supply center it might provide (when I rewrite the rules I will mention this).

I don't mind the rivers, but I also think that's why there should be more interior SCs, to justify their use.

agreed. I feel they don't change the outcome much but add a nice wrinkle that's worth keeping not of. An extra bit of strategy.

I definitely want to defend my crown for a third round. As far as which map to use, I'd be fine with either, as I enjoy aspects of both. I think the original Westeros map was a bit more strategically complex as both versions stand now, so I'd either vote for that or a revamped version of this map along the lines of what we've discussed so far. Whatever works for everyone else.

I think I'll put up a vote
Westeros Diplomacy - GM/creator
Diplomacy of Ice and Fire 2 - GM
Keirador wrote:Stop being a dickasaurus rex.
User avatar
presser84
 
Posts: 4327
Joined: 21 Dec 2010, 23:05
Location: New Jersey, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1460)
All-game rating: (1678)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby presser84 » 03 May 2013, 04:57

poll for the next game is up
viewtopic.php?f=253&t=37787
Westeros Diplomacy - GM/creator
Diplomacy of Ice and Fire 2 - GM
Keirador wrote:Stop being a dickasaurus rex.
User avatar
presser84
 
Posts: 4327
Joined: 21 Dec 2010, 23:05
Location: New Jersey, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1460)
All-game rating: (1678)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby presser84 » 03 May 2013, 06:56

I'll give you guys this sneak peak

added more texture, and changed the coloring and the units themselves so they would stand out better against the background. I also removed the mountains in the south. I think this looks pretty good and honestly, just removing those mountains looks like it balances the center and the south more.

Starting-Map.gif
Starting-Map.gif (101.41 KiB) Viewed 1696 times
Westeros Diplomacy - GM/creator
Diplomacy of Ice and Fire 2 - GM
Keirador wrote:Stop being a dickasaurus rex.
User avatar
presser84
 
Posts: 4327
Joined: 21 Dec 2010, 23:05
Location: New Jersey, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1460)
All-game rating: (1678)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby Blackfish » 03 May 2013, 07:17

presser84 wrote:I'll give you guys this sneak peak

added more texture, and changed the coloring and the units themselves so they would stand out better against the background. I also removed the mountains in the south. I think this looks pretty good and honestly, just removing those mountains looks like it balances the center and the south more.

Starting-Map.gif


Break up Blackmont, I think. If a Martell unit gets in there, Tyrell will have serious issues, and, seeing how it is so close to the Martell/Tyrell conflict line, it isn't a good idea.


How would one break it up, though?

Maybe Blackmont could border Horn Hill, Highgarden, Starfall and Oldtown, whereas Red Mountains could border Highgarden, Ashford, Princes Pass and Sandstone.
"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war." - Plutarch

Game History
User avatar
Blackfish
 
Posts: 1592
Joined: 28 Oct 2012, 05:46
Class: Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby presser84 » 03 May 2013, 07:22

Blackfish wrote:Break up Blackmont, I think. If a Martell unit gets in there, Tyrell will have serious issues, and, seeing how it is so close to the Martell/Tyrell conflict line, it isn't a good idea.


I think that's the point. That more diplomacy will be required to create that "invisible wall" between them rather than a mountain range that makes the NAP essential.
Westeros Diplomacy - GM/creator
Diplomacy of Ice and Fire 2 - GM
Keirador wrote:Stop being a dickasaurus rex.
User avatar
presser84
 
Posts: 4327
Joined: 21 Dec 2010, 23:05
Location: New Jersey, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1460)
All-game rating: (1678)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby presser84 » 03 May 2013, 07:24

also I realized I need to edit the acronym for Storms end or Stormlands
Westeros Diplomacy - GM/creator
Diplomacy of Ice and Fire 2 - GM
Keirador wrote:Stop being a dickasaurus rex.
User avatar
presser84
 
Posts: 4327
Joined: 21 Dec 2010, 23:05
Location: New Jersey, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1460)
All-game rating: (1678)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby Blackfish » 03 May 2013, 07:59

presser84 wrote:
Blackfish wrote:Break up Blackmont, I think. If a Martell unit gets in there, Tyrell will have serious issues, and, seeing how it is so close to the Martell/Tyrell conflict line, it isn't a good idea.


I think that's the point. That more diplomacy will be required to create that "invisible wall" between them rather than a mountain range that makes the NAP essential.


It's too heavily skewed in favour of Martell. My propose solution causes diplomacy to still be necessary, as Red Mountains still borders Highgarden, but allows Tyrell to still have a chance in open conflict. A simple change, but important, IMO.
"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war." - Plutarch

Game History
User avatar
Blackfish
 
Posts: 1592
Joined: 28 Oct 2012, 05:46
Class: Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: DoIaF AAR

Postby stalin813 » 03 May 2013, 08:06

What about cutting SOD in half. It borders all three of martells SCs and made it essential that i move there and fight with Baratheon. Make it border only two and Martell will stand a chance to diplomacy with Baratheon.
Best to get me at night (8pm to 12pm EDT)
User avatar
stalin813
 
Posts: 912
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 10:42
Location: Georgia, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (982)
All-game rating: (1279)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Game 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest