Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 7:26 am

Oh, one other thing. I think there's a misconception that there is going to be like 20 terrorists running around the map. That isn't the case at all. I certainly agree that if every E nation had one, it would be ridiculous. One of the things that keeps these Hidden Units from having a more major impact is the low number of them.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 8:42 am

what is preventing 20 terrorist units? Yeah, doubtful but possible!
I like the 2 year time to build them, but once built they are too powerful and the very nature of a terrorist tells us they should wreak havoc but not be powerful. What about they are built, placed anywhere (still not too happy about that) they are SEEN but move first and when they use their "dirty bomb"? then the units is gone (sort of like a dirty bomb only it acts like a bombardment and not like a nuke...maybe a two year bombardment???) This makes them difficult to keep building and this two year bombardment can be a neat twist without forcing a large power to NEED to spend units patrolling his interior, that is just a bad bad idea that stalls all growth and makes these small guys way too powerful.

Now on to the other new units...
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 8:55 am

what is preventing 20 terrorist units? Yeah, doubtful but possible!


As I understand the rules, the player controlling the terrorist or pirate doesn't get to keep building new ones. They get a replacement if their original unit is destroyed but otherwise they're stuck with just the one. Tom also said that the number of players controlling either a terrorist or pirate is somewhere between 4 and 8, so that's a maximum of 8 units in play.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 9:02 am

edit...regarding the above statement made at the time I posted this,
OK, so we don't have 20. But you could easily have say three all targeting the same player behind enemy lines, that's a recipe for disaster! Not to mention them each laying multiple bombs, not good, not balanced at all!

My Pirate suggestion:

I like the 2 turns to build
But limit his placement to say 3 sea spaces away from a controlled land space (based on last to occupy a non-sc space or owned sc)
No plus 2 offense (waaay too strong! and being hidden is pretty valuable already)
But speaking of his hidden ability, how about slightly changing to having him exposed when bombarding a center and also when he shares a sea space with an opponents unit (including coastal land spaces) he can also support other unit attacks at full strength but he is also seen when supporting, where he moves off to is not known if the space is vacant of others. Now for the twist, so far he's just not worth being built, what if we made him unbeatable? No matter the support, he can move where he wants as he wishes. Whoa, now he is too strong again? Nope, he now has a limited life span! Tossing out an idea, maybe two full years? (No more than 3)

Moving uncontested wherever you like, sometimes being hidden, extended and unknown build site, ability to support other units are all benefits
Long build time, Limited life span and only bombard capabilities are the negatives that reign this unit back in. This now seems a better balance?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 9:07 am

Lastly, CTU's
if the suggested changes are made, do we need these units in play at all?
With their (now) limited/reduced abilities, we do not need to see extra units that can thwart them and since the damage is again dropped, would they be built anyways?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 9:42 am

Please understand that some of the rules are the way they are for a reason. For example, I specifically avoided allowing pirates to support other units and vice versa. Pirates are independent vessels roaming the seas, and pillaging where they can. There already face some disadvantages, including their ability to raid cities being thwarted just by having a unit located in that city. On top of that, if a CTU is hiding in one of those cities, the pirate unit would be captured and destroyed. In addition, both of their special abilities have the side effect of giving away their location within a small radius. If they have to spend time running away after a kill, then that's time not being spent wreaking havoc.

I believe there are something like 15 or 16 Wings already on the board when the game starts. Clearly, there was a need to stall growth at the start to some degree, or there wouldn't be any wings at all on the starting map. There's no reason nations can't use these units already in place against Hidden Units. Since wings can see in their zone and a 1-zone radius all around while on land, its going to be quite difficult for terrorists to remain hidden. If they are clustered in one area, they are even more likely to get caught. Even if there are three terrorist units in one place, which there's no guarantee there will even be three terrorists on the entire board, and even if they successfully take down a medium-sized power, what then? Everyone would know they are in the area, and could divert the already existing resources to that area, and take them out. Since they have to respawn in the place they started, they are likely to reappear in the same area two years later, which is already crawling with wings.
Last edited by Sendric on 22 Nov 2014, 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 18 Nov 2014, 3:36 pm

Post 21 Nov 2014, 10:07 am

I have to say, the more I think about this, the less worried I really am.

A lot of the E powers are going to get eliminated quickly, so the odds of there being more than a handful of terrorists/pirates running around the board by the later part of the game is pretty low. Even if we start with the max 8 terrorists/pirates, half of those players will probably get eliminated by year 6 or 8, right?

Since we're all picking the spawn locations independently (and I assume pre-negotiations) at the beginning of the game, this means that it's very unlikely that those units remaining late in the game will be operating in the same theater. There simply won't be 3 terrorists running around North American 10 years in, unless the guy playing Thailand decided to start his terrorist in Montana for some reason. Yeah, it's possible, but super unlikely. If I have one I'll want it starting pretty close to my start location to help me not get eliminated immediately.

Also if I do manage to work my 1 center power up to 10 centers, for a lot of countries this may mean my spawn location is somewhat behind my lines now, so whenever the unit gets destroyed, I'll be re-spawning in a pretty inconvenient location and may spend 2 years just marching somewhere useful. I can't convoy/airlift them, so getting them half way around the world really isn't an option.

I think these units have the ability to absolutely wreck someone's momentum early on, or totally tip the balance in a fight, but I think most of the time I'd still rather just have a couple extra supply centers and do things the old fashioned way.

If you felt the need to moderate the pirates, I think letting units they attack actually retreat instead of being disbanded would be an option. But pirates have to have a strength of two because they can't be supported. (And even if you made it legal for another unit to support them, you wouldn't want to because the whole point is that nobody knows where they are or who's controlling them.)

I think at this point I say just roll with it they way it's written. If something is unbalanced you'll find out quick enough and know for next time.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 10:27 am

Forgive me for giving ideas, Forgive me for being "uncivil" ??? as well.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 10:59 am

It's all good Tom, I think he just wants to close this down now since this is supposed to be a recruitment thread and we could be putting people off. Besides, we had our chance to contribute a few weeks ago when he first circulated the proposal. I assume you'd have been in on that group email that was sent since it went out to everyone who was in the last game. The new rules were readable then. I read them and fed back a number of suggestions for changes, some of which have been made. It's far too late to go changing things now, the game is starting after Christmas.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: 15 Sep 2001, 10:27 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 11:34 am

oh sorry - I thought we were still ironing out the rules as well.

If they're locked in then honestly, I'd suggest deleting all the posts in this thread and just keeping it for recruitment.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 1:19 pm

agreed with Lingfishy! This wil now look off-putting, I was only giving some ideas.
...and I never saw that earlier discussion email.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 2:11 pm

Give me the word Sendric and I'll move non-relevant posts to the Variant Lab forums. Alternatively, I could create your game forum and put them there (although they may be inappropriate there too).

Btw, how many players do you have so far?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 3:32 pm

Go ahead and move them. I have no issues with the discussion. I just prefer they not be in the recruitment thread.

Sorry if you didn't see the email thread, Tom. I had a few email addresses bounce back. Perhaps I mistyped yours.

We are currently at about 15 or so. I don't have the list in front me, but I think that's right.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 Nov 2014, 9:19 am

Just one more word of caution, the last game (using Pirates) was a failure in several ways but one thing that was clear and should be learned from here...

In other past games the end game coalition had always included at least one large power and one small power. Most included a mid sized power as well. Total balance in the end result over and over. Yet the pirate rules resulted in having zero large powers among the winners. As I pointed out earlier, I don't see any middle size powers having any chance to win. The very nature of the game favoring bigger powers may keep a large power in the running but no way do we see mid sized guys and my bet is we again see only small powers winning.

Balance is the word, the voting structure alone gives small powers a shot, give them additional power and balance is removed.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 24 Nov 2014, 11:11 am

GMTom wrote:Just one more word of caution, the last game (using Pirates) was a failure in several ways but one thing that was clear and should be learned from here...

In other past games the end game coalition had always included at least one large power and one small power. Most included a mid sized power as well. Total balance in the end result over and over. Yet the pirate rules resulted in having zero large powers among the winners. As I pointed out earlier, I don't see any middle size powers having any chance to win. The very nature of the game favoring bigger powers may keep a large power in the running but no way do we see mid sized guys and my bet is we again see only small powers winning.

Balance is the word, the voting structure alone gives small powers a shot, give them additional power and balance is removed.


So even though I worked with all three pirates, do I get to use this as an excuse as to why I didn't win?

???

:grin: