Escalation for Versailles

[super_dipsy]

This has been a requirement for ages. I recently said I might give it a try and I am now starting to actually think about it (yes I know it is taking ages). I have been looking at the code and I think it should be doable without enormous effort, but this then leads me to the next step - we have to decide on what we are trying to do

There have been a number of threads over the last few years about thoughts on this, but giving some serious thought to implementation I think there are some basic assumptions that need to be made to make it work.

My current proposal is that it would work as follows:

1. V escalation would be limited to 7 players maximum, unlike other maps. This is because I can't get my head around what happens to the anonymous minors - if you had more than 7 players, you would need more than 7 anonymous minors, and the code would be hard to adjust for this (not to mention the map).

2. The map would start with the minor units already on the board and NSCs already set as the normal position, but the number of minors would match the number of players

3. Players now assign their units for their majors as normal for escalation

4. Once done, the minors are randomly assigned to the majors (anonymously, as in normal V)

5. Unit counts: I think CorporalApricot had a sliding scale somewhere he posted in a previous discussion but I can't remember it. Perhaps something like
7p - Maj=3, Min=1
6p - Maj=4, Min=1
5p - Maj=5, Min=1
4p - Maj=6, Min=2
3p - Maj=8, Min=2
2p - I'm not sure this makes sense for Versailles since each player would immediately know the identity of the other player's minor.

How does that sound? Make sense?

I guess the other question is does it feel like it would still be fun having escalation if you are limited to 7 players? I know one attraction of escalation is you can play with a lot more people so I'm not sure if this restriction renders it a bit useless?


-

[Woolgie]

I was worried when you said minors are already on the board, although I can see why as you would be able to see what appeared on someone’s turn. Having minor powers assigned after escalation though makes it work.

As for 8+ players you could easily get to 9 by removing minors and using those SCs. One SC wouldn’t be used and becomes an extra neutral. Does this defeat the point of Versailles? Maybe but at least you get the map.

An option for 10 players would also be to use the neutral SCs. There are 42 in total so 2 would remain vacant.

Not sure if this is easy but something I would like to see is 14 players - 2 minors each with 1 SC. This uses the 28 starting SCs. Or 2 unit major, 1 unit minor uses all 42 SCs.

[Custer]

How bout doing it with WITA? Make major/minor powers there. Plenty of SC's/countries/powers to play with.



Custer

[ColonelApricot]

SD's proposal seems very workable. Setting minors first and allocating after is a nice way to preserve the spirit of the game. If it is the path of least resistance as far as the code is concernned then that would be a good initial target for trislling.

Just to be clear, are you proposing that the minors are exactly the same as they are now? Then the player centers are picked up from all of the remaining centers but stopping when all players have reached their maximum allowance?

You could trial a couple of test games with different player numbers. Then use the feedback to decide if/how to extend it to a greater number.

2 players would be rather simplistic but as Woolgie said if someone just wants to use the map that way then why not. Variety is the spice of life .

. CA

[super_dipsy]

I thought about the request we had once to be able to use the map just as a map. That would be fine I think, but we would have to call it something different or the code will go crazy trying to switch people to their (non-existent) minor. We could call it 'fourteen' or something.

One other thing came into my head in addition to my initial assumptions. If you play with < 7 players, I said the number of minors would match the number of players. Would that mean we just leave the remaining minors empty? Or should we (a bit like Italy in a 2-player shorthanded game) leave the units there to require them to be conquered?

And yes, it might be possible to have Versailles-style pairs on the WiTA map, but it would be quite a bit more work.

[Custer]

Thanks Dipsy. Just stick the WitA idea in your back pocket. Might be fun to play one day.

Thanks again,

Custer

[ColonelApricot]

2. The map would start with the minor units already on the board and NSCs already set as the normal position, but the number of minors would match the number of players
-

NSC = national supy centers?
There are ofher options worth considering.

The minors could be allocated randomly from any sc's on the board to maximise the variety of game layouts. This could produce some interesting game challenges as players attempt to game the minor layouts during escalation.

The escalation selections could include any sc not already allocated to a minor power.

My gut feel is that allocating dummy units to neutrals might cause the game to become unduly extended.

Once again, getting a first cut out there quickly fof a trial run will provide better answers.

.. CA

[Math Dad]

If the code allowed it, it would be interesting to have everyone chose all of their centers and then designate one as a minor, but then the selection would have to be fog of war style.