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 » 04 Oct 2017, 15:42

Thinking about the implications of not making the new nuclear wings territories of the nuclear power. This means that an adjacent unit can be dislodged by a non-supported/ non-convoyed attack without favor loss. This seems too beneficial to the attacker.

Otherwise the combined effect of the changes addresses my earlier concerns re the ET starting position.

Re the tracker the changes are logical but I worry that this is becoming overly complex. Will think on it.

.. CA
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
 
Posts: 455
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 997
All-game rating: 1390
Timezone: GMT

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

Postby ColonelApricot » 05 Oct 2017, 11:29

Certainly there are both pros and cons for the backcountry wing. From the local pov any local nuclear adds capability to conquer adjacent neutrals. In the original geography as ET I found it particularly difficult to capture the dot in Soa. A bit like Ireland in Versailles.

You can think of nuclears as being in a descending risk-benefit gradient:
Wing - can project everywhere but are subject to remote convoys.
Fleet - can project locally only but including convoys.
Army - can't do much, local defence and support.

So changing Kal from wing to fleet reduces the risk to Poland but also reduces projectability.
Adding a wing to Dji is a big risk upgrade but provides a big step up in projectability and reduces the dependence on Egypt. A neutral occupying fleet is another option. KA may have similar considerations.

.. CA
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
 
Posts: 455
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 997
All-game rating: 1390
Timezone: GMT

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

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 05 Oct 2017, 16:21

ColonelApricot wrote:Certainly there are both pros and cons for the backcountry wing. From the local pov any local nuclear adds capability to conquer adjacent neutrals. In the original geography as ET I found it particularly difficult to capture the dot in Soa. A bit like Ireland in Versailles.

You can think of nuclears as being in a descending risk-benefit gradient:
Wing - can project everywhere but are subject to remote convoys.
Fleet - can project locally only but including convoys.
Army - can't do much, local defence and support.

So changing Kal from wing to fleet reduces the risk to Poland but also reduces projectability.
Adding a wing to Dji is a big risk upgrade but provides a big step up in projectability and reduces the dependence on Egypt. A neutral occupying fleet is another option. KA may have similar considerations.

.. CA


Notes:

Of the nuclear fleets, only the US Navy can ever give convoy orders. Other nuclear fleets are parked in land spaces. If Djibouti gets a nuclear unit, Djibouti itself will go back to being a land space.

Here's one thing you all didn't try out but could have: neutral armies can be convoyed by player/neutral fleets and wings. They're still stationary units, which means they'll bounce/sortie. However, players can use this technique to cut the support order of some other wing on the map. Or possibly even void that target's own convoy order, assuming the attack is supported locally somehow.

NATO's Army in France exists almost entirely for that purpose, and India's Army in Delhi can be used the same way.
Forum Admin & New Variant Development Assistant

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1466)
Timezone: GMT-5

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

Postby Subotai45 » 05 Oct 2017, 16:26

That's interesting. With new rules it probably has a lot more utility, but before, it was an extra DP expense when I always had units near wings
User avatar
Subotai45
 
Posts: 12449
Joined: 08 Oct 2012, 22:55
Location: Pitt
All-game rating: 4127
Timezone: GMT-9

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

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 05 Oct 2017, 19:34

WakaKafkaFlame wrote:
ColonelApricot wrote:Bloody hell, Waka will be the only one that can get his noggin round all that stuff.

.. CA


Nah, I usually try to let the dust settle on rules and whatnot before jumping in headfirst.

Edit: Nevermind, it all makes a fair amount of sense. My only suggestion would be to try to keep things as elegant as possible.



I think I had a pretty revolutionary idea yesterday for a total restructuring of the Favor system. It would look totally different than what the rules currently describe, but it would be potentially a lot more intuitive.

In short, I'm getting rid of the Engage and Advocate orders and instead converting the Favor Tracker grid into its own abstract map. During winter turns, you'll submit orders to the units on that map to move around the favor tracker. You won't be vying for SC's but rather for proximity to the Nuclear powers at the center; your distance from each power will determine your favor level.

I'm going to try to make the rules for how Favor interacts with the real map as simple as possible, eliminating special cases where I can. Things like "protected" status will go away because the simpler rules will provide nearly the same impact.
Forum Admin & New Variant Development Assistant

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1466)
Timezone: GMT-5

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

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 05 Oct 2017, 23:39

Image

Early draft of the new favor grid. The "0" section for each Nuclear power isn't shown yet.
Forum Admin & New Variant Development Assistant

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1466)
Timezone: GMT-5

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

Postby pjkon » 08 Oct 2017, 07:47

I like the idea of a 'favor map' like that. I don't know how exactly it will work yet, but the idea sounds intriguing, I'm imagining something where you build units based on DP and get favor based on tiles occupied in each power's zone thus forcing realistic choices between influencing different potentially antagonistic nuclear powers and adding a whole new element of negotiation between the players. I look forward immensely to seeing the details.

As to the map changes:

I love the new wing additions. They go a long way towards fixing the wing imbalance that we saw in the game, though Kaz and Eth still have fewer wings and now also have the advantage of not having to worry about losing favor attacking around them, so Europe still looks a little bit disadvantaged, but much much less so now than before.

The creation of what I think is czechoslovakia and the creation of vin both nerf poor Poland, never overpowered now loses another expansion route (or at least has it made more difficult) and also has a target painted on his only remaining easy expansion route in the Baltic States for Ukraine who now has an easier time going there than into Moldavia. Unfortunately I have to agree that this was necessary since as much as I hate to see Poland nerfed after the difficulty I had playing it I have to admit the position of Romania was much worse and needed to be improved and this definitely does that. Based on color I'm not sure if Bosnia and Croatia are supposed to be supporting each other or not, but if they are I think it might be a slight overnerf to a previously overpowered Yugoslavia and so a positive change. Both Yugoslavia and Poland are further nerfed by the elimination of the double centers. All in all these changes seem extremely pro-Ukraine. It's difficult to say if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm a little nervous about giving the power that already had 3 units even larger advantages. On the other hand Ukraine has both Poland and a strengthened Romania in its face at game start and both have a good reason not to attack each other so Ukraine's strength might well be illusory, and this change consequently a good one.

I'm not sure the creation of a united nation on Kazakstan's boarder matters much since there are so many neutrals around to influence to cut the support, but I like more powerful extra-player forces in general and so I like it even though I can't give a good reason. I'm also ambivalent about the Sudan issue. On one hand I think that a two unit Ethiopia with a wing in its backyard now needs it, on the other I can't help but compare it to Poland which doesn't have such an advantage, and has similar wing problems and numbers of nearby scs.

I'm glad SA has been strengthened. Central powers in general need to be stronger than their edge counterparts for the sake of balance.

To support my contention about the eastern box since it has been criticized in this thread since I last posted:
After Pakistan is dead can Kazakstan reasonably do anything other than attack Iran?
After Kazakstan is dead can Pakistan reasonably do anything other than attack Iran?
If you answered no to both of these questions then there is an eastern box. If you answered yes then what is it?

If you answered by saying Pakistan can sail to Arabia then I counter with "what is he going to do with all the armies he had to build to take Kazakstan?" If you answered by saying either Pakistan or Kazakstan would fly out with the wing I ask who he can invade moving one unit at a time through that air connection. If you said either would go through Russia then I ask how to prevent Russian units under foreign influence from blocking those moves, and the foreign influence is sure to come.

I can't remember who asked this, but someone recommended changing Pakistan's southern army into a fleet. I think that this in combination with changing Kazakstan's Akt army into a fleet would to a large degree solve this problem since Kazakstan could then choose to ignore the east and invade Europe from day one, and Pakistan could sail to Arabia before killing off Kazakstan completely making it a more viable option. Perhaps switching Ukraine's coastal army and fleet around would further facilitate this interaction and also guard against the potential for Ukraine now being too strong by delaying black sea access by one turn. It's not like anyone else has fleets to exploit that temporary weakness, and it would be another needed buff to Romania.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the map and balance. I look forward to everyone's replies and to seeing how Waka's prisoner's dilemma draw works out.
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 376
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

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

Postby Subotai45 » 08 Oct 2017, 18:24

I like Ukraines Fleet in Sev, because it gives a plausible alternative to eating Romania by letting him go for Georgia.
User avatar
Subotai45
 
Posts: 12449
Joined: 08 Oct 2012, 22:55
Location: Pitt
All-game rating: 4127
Timezone: GMT-9

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

Postby pjkon » 08 Oct 2017, 22:33

Subotai45 wrote:I like Ukraines Fleet in Sev, because it gives a plausible alternative to eating Romania by letting him go for Georgia.

True that helps Romania, but it hurts Iran. Not sure if that makes it better or worse since both of them are sort of endangered powers. On the other hand Ukraine's primary alternative to eating Romania (attacking Poland) has just been strengthened a lot so I'm not sure that encouraging a Georgian expedition is really necessary for that. Also this makes eating Romania more difficult even if it does limit the possibility of going to Georgia. In fact it limits it by exactly the same amount since both use the black sea..
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 376
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

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

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 10 Oct 2017, 16:40

pjkon wrote:I like the idea of a 'favor map' like that. I don't know how exactly it will work yet, but the idea sounds intriguing, I'm imagining something where you build units based on DP and get favor based on tiles occupied in each power's zone thus forcing realistic choices between influencing different potentially antagonistic nuclear powers and adding a whole new element of negotiation between the players. I look forward immensely to seeing the details.


Updated draft below:
Image

The rough rules, which I hope will be simpler than the current Favor rules:
  1. The Favor Map consists of five Slices.
    1. Each Slice corresponds to a Nuclear Power, and it is made up of hexes.
    2. Each player has one Diplomat on the Favor Map per Slice.
    3. The number inside the four-letter code of a hex corresponds to a Favor Level for that Nuclear power.
    4. e.g. A Yugoslavian Diplomat at i3in marks that Yugoslavia has 3 Favor with India.
    5. 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.
    6. The outermost space for each slice is the perimeter, which corresponds to a zero favor level for that Nuclear Power.
    7. While no more than one Diplomat may occupy a hex, any number of Diplomats may occupy a perimeter space.
  2. Diplomats move within their slice to represent how favorable that Nuclear Power is to the Player Power.
    1. If you anger a Nuclear Power during Spring or Fall, your Diplomat is "kicked" to a lower-numbered hex for that slice.
    2. Any Diplomat that was kicked during a prior Spring or Fall must be given a Hold order during the Winter Adjustments phase.
    3. All Diplomats may be given orders during the Winter phase, but no more than two Diplomats may be given move orders per Winter. Others must give Support or Hold orders.
    4. Diplomats can only move within their slice, but they can give support to any adjacent hexes (even outside their slice).
    5. Diplomats are only disband when a player is eliminated from the game.
    6. Players' Diplomats may dislodge one another, but Diplomats do not retreat under normal rules.
    7. Instead they are relocated to an equal-or-lower numbered space within the slice.
  3. Favor Level determines three things:
    1. Favor Level is the maximum number of DP a player may allocate to that Nuclear Power's units per Orders phase.
    2. A Nuclear Power will only support or convoy an attack by one Player's unit against another Player's unit if the attacking player is higher in Favor than the defending player.
    3. Likewise, a Nuclear Power will only support or convoy an attack by one Player's unit against another Player's unoccupied Supply Center if the attacking player is higher in Favor than the defending player.

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.
Forum Admin & New Variant Development Assistant

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1466)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Dissolution [Game 1]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests