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

[ColonelApricot]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[NoPunIn10Did]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[WarSmith]

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

[ColonelApricot]

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

.. CA

[WarSmith]

It was a fine thing to say.
If I could frame it I would.
Maybe my new signature!