Распад: 2004.08 Autumn (Game Over & AAR's)

Created and GM'ed by Nopunin10did. A 10 player variant set in Europe and the Mid-East just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Optional rules available for currying the favor of Nuclear States (nuclear weapons however remain unavailable).
Winner: WakaKafkaFlame (Kazakhstan)

Moderator: Morg

Re: Распад: 2004.08 Autumn (Game Over & AAR's)

Postby ColonelApricot » 11 Oct 2017, 01:21

NoPunIn10Did wrote:The rough rules, which I hope will be simpler than the current Favor rules:

Ingenious, certainly. More intuitive. More difficult. A game within a game.

NoPunIn10Did wrote:The Favor Map consists of five Slices.

The lack of a sixth nuclear produces a symmetry issue. It means that the edge advantage does not apply to one side of Russia and one side of NATO. Possible solution: add France as the sixth nuclear power. Could have some complications I admit.

NoPunIn10Did wrote:The innermost hex of each slice contains a unit belonging to the Nuclear Power; this unit is used for aesthetics only, and that hex is not actually part of the playable area of the Favor Map.

The effect is to confer "protected status" on a maximum of 2 players. Suggestion: allow DPs to be used to order the nuclear in the innermost hex (together with the disruption penalty being applicable). Corollary: nuclears could influence adjacent nuclears.
Also: allow the nuclear to be mobile within its slice, again by being DP-orderable.

NoPunIn10Did wrote:Instead they are relocated to an equal-or-lower numbered space within the slice.

How about "they are relocated to the nearest lower numbered space within the slice." so that there is always favor loss.

NoPunIn10Did wrote:The initial setup of the Favor Map is semi-random. The starting Favor Levels of each player are predetermined per slice, but the exact position of each player's Diplomats within that slice and Favor Level will be randomly determined.

As randomness seems an inferior approach how about players bid for positions within the level?
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1010
All-game rating: 1400
Timezone: GMT

Re: Распад: 2004.08 Autumn (Game Over & AAR's)

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 11 Oct 2017, 17:46

ColonelApricot wrote:The lack of a sixth nuclear produces a symmetry issue. It means that the edge advantage does not apply to one side of Russia and one side of NATO. Possible solution: add France as the sixth nuclear power. Could have some complications I admit.

The symmetry bothers me a slight amount, but adding a sixth Nuclear would be a pretty drastic shift. I'm okay with Russia & NATO losing the "edge advantage" on one side each since those two Nuclear Powers have the most significant presence on the board.

ColonelApricot wrote:The effect is to confer "protected status" on a maximum of 2 players. Suggestion: allow DPs to be used to order the nuclear in the innermost hex (together with the disruption penalty being applicable). Corollary: nuclears could influence adjacent nuclears.
Also: allow the nuclear to be mobile within its slice, again by being DP-orderable.

Note that there won't be a literal "protected status," just a similar de facto effect. This is an interesting suggestion, but I'd rather keep the DP votes specifically set aside for the geographic map. I want to make sure that Winter Adjustments phases are still relatively straightforward to adjudicate.

ColonelApricot wrote:How about "they are relocated to the nearest lower numbered space within the slice." so that there is always favor loss.

Suppose you lose favor because of your own actions: dislodging near borders, disabling a nuclear unit, or having too many units in the nuclear's territory (a new one). Those actions will always cause your Diplomat to be kicked to a lower numbered space. However, in the case that your fellow players are simply trying to crowd you out, you didn't anger the nuclear. I don't want it to always be the case that you lose favor. It will occur anyway automatically as players ascend the diplomatic slices since vacant spaces will be in short supply. In the lower ranks being dislodged will send you to the closest vacant equal-or-lower-numbered space instead.


ColonelApricot wrote:As randomness seems an inferior approach how about players bid for positions within the level?

I disagree that randomness is an inferior approach. Sometimes one of the best things you can do for an otherwise deterministic game is to vary the setup ever-so-slightly. The board game Puerto Rico is a great example of this: the plantations of various crops are revealed from a randomly shuffled set of stacks, and while this adds variety to the game setup, it rarely causes a drastic shift in strategy.

Regardless, I don't see much benefit in creating a lengthy bidding/draft phase for placing those units. That level of micromanagement is something I'm trying to eliminate from what's an already overly-detailed rulebook. However, I do see some merit in making sure that the random setup of the Favor Map occurs before players bid on or draft their power selections. That way, those players that are overly concerned with the marginal impact of the units' arrangement can take it into account when picking powers.
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Распад: 2004.08 Autumn (Game Over & AAR's)

Postby WarSmith » 16 Oct 2017, 22:23

WakaKafkaFlame wrote:
ColonelApricot wrote:1. Much discussion about how it is tough for the eastern powers to break out. Not so. Need to think about the southern ocean. It's a major threat to Ethiopia and somewhat to SA. A successful IR/PA alliance would easily make inroads to Africa/Yemen. A neutral in Dji would put Ethiopia near the bottom of the list for me.


This is definitely true, and it took me a long time to walk my emergent build down to the sea on that side. One of the primary reasons that I went back and forth about stabbing Pakistan was because his navy was in large part keeping Ethiopia at bay. Had Calavera continued to lead Pakistan, I seriously doubt I would have stabbed when I did. Thinking back on it, the only reason I went after WarSmith when I did was because ColonelApricot said, "Who let WarSmith in? That guy's brutal," or something as such. I decided that having a fresh and unknown commander at my flank was probably not in my long term interests.

Anyhow, had Pakistan or Iran won out in the early game, I think that Ethiopia would have had a much more difficult time of things. My one serious regret in terms of builds was never having two fleets in the Indian Ocean (clearly, that became an issue later). Also, I can imagine SA having a significant naval presence in a future match.


Hey I'm not sure whether to take this as a compliment, or to investigate you for metagaming ;)
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even has a chance to put its pants on”
User avatar
WarSmith
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 22:12
Location: Scandinavia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1725
All-game rating: 1712
Timezone: GMT+2

Re: Распад: 2004.08 Autumn (Game Over & AAR's)

Postby ColonelApricot » 17 Oct 2017, 12:49

Only reason I said Warsmith was brutal was that then when I crushed him I would be therefore even more brutal. :twisted:

.. CA
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1010
All-game rating: 1400
Timezone: GMT

Re: Распад: 2004.08 Autumn (Game Over & AAR's)

Postby WarSmith » 17 Oct 2017, 20:45

It was a fine thing to say.
If I could frame it I would.
Maybe my new signature!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even has a chance to put its pants on”
User avatar
WarSmith
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 22:12
Location: Scandinavia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1725
All-game rating: 1712
Timezone: GMT+2

Previous

Return to Dissolution [Game 1]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest