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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11277
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 19 Nov 2014, 8:54 am

I am not too clear on terrorist units. They have two moves?
I am assuming they may actually "move" only one space per turn?

Allowing two spaces to be "moved" is just full of obscure problems in adjudication. Do you possibly mean he has two "actions" one being a possible move or hold as well as one additional action to plant bombs, etc?

lastly
Once a bomb is planted, is the terrorist unit removed?
If not, I can see him running along and planting a string of bombs that make this unit FAR too powerful.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 19 Nov 2014, 9:07 am

GMTom wrote:I am not too clear on terrorist units. They have two moves?
I am assuming they may actually "move" only one space per turn?

Allowing two spaces to be "moved" is just full of obscure problems in adjudication. Do you possibly mean he has two "actions" one being a possible move or hold as well as one additional action to plant bombs, etc?


They can only move one space at a time. The two moves is for a given year, not a season. Instead of moving, it can either plant a bomb or IED's. It takes two full seasons to plant a bomb, but only one to plant an IED. They also have to avoid being spotted by wings or CTU's in the process.

lastly
Once a bomb is planted, is the terrorist unit removed?
If not, I can see him running along and planting a string of bombs that make this unit FAR too powerful.


The unit is not removed, no. It should be extremely difficult to run amok with wings and CTU's chasing after them.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11277
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 19 Nov 2014, 10:24 am

I don't know about that. Think about it, the idea of the game is to expand but to do so, you need to leave your interior undefended. Suddenly you open up this interior to any who want to move ANYWHERE. Now this player needs to "waste" units in his interior to fight them off, expansion is crushed and possible losses follow. Get two or three players doing the same thing and they kill a power who should never be crushed like that. Not fan of being able to get behind enemy lines like this, it's way too counter to the basic game play. As it is we have nukes that get crazy, now you add this and things are out of hand.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 18 Nov 2014, 3:36 pm

Post 19 Nov 2014, 12:07 pm

GMTom wrote:I don't know about that. Think about it, the idea of the game is to expand but to do so, you need to leave your interior undefended. Suddenly you open up this interior to any who want to move ANYWHERE. Now this player needs to "waste" units in his interior to fight them off, expansion is crushed and possible losses follow. Get two or three players doing the same thing and they kill a power who should never be crushed like that. Not fan of being able to get behind enemy lines like this, it's way too counter to the basic game play. As it is we have nukes that get crazy, now you add this and things are out of hand.


Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with this.

I think the big impact is that the defending power has spend units to patrol and defend against this, but the power with the terrorist is essentially just getting that unit for free, and will just get to rebuild it when it's destroyed. Also, I can use my terrorist against another "E" country, who is prevented from building CTUs at all. (I'm a little curious why that's a rule BTW)

It's hard to know how it will play out in practice, but I'm inclined to think my diplomatic approach if I'm a non-E power early on is to simply work with the other nearby non-E powers to eliminate the E's because of the potential for having these secret units.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 19 Nov 2014, 12:12 pm

We'll have to wait and see. I can imagine circumstances where these units could add to the game as well, it all depends on how they're used and how the other players choose to respond. I prefer this to the pirate factions in the last game with their neverending free units every year. Let's give it a playtest and then if we don't enjoy it we can always ditch the idea for next time. I share some of the concerns but it's no biggie to run with it for one game and see how it goes.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 18 Nov 2014, 3:36 pm

Post 19 Nov 2014, 12:13 pm

On the other hand, maybe the thing to do if you have a terrorist is just be up front about the fact that you own it, and use it defensively. Go around placing IEDs near your own territory to make attacking you too much of a pain. Interesting.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 19 Nov 2014, 1:23 pm

mshields wrote:I think the big impact is that the defending power has spend units to patrol and defend against this, but the power with the terrorist is essentially just getting that unit for free, and will just get to rebuild it when it's destroyed. Also, I can use my terrorist against another "E" country, who is prevented from building CTUs at all. (I'm a little curious why that's a rule BTW)


I will tell you! The reason is that I don't want the rules to allow other nations to determine who the controlling nations are without the use of CTU's. When a CTU is built, it is announced that the nation has built it, but not where. By allowing all other E-nations to build CTU's, they could artificially prove they are not controlling nations by building a CTU and then immediately disbanding it the following winter. In addition, if a bunch of E-nations got together, they could likewise artificially out the controlling nations through a process of elimination. I'm not saying this is likely, but I want to avoid the possibility altogether.

Additionally, E nations are not unprotected. Wings are actually more powerful in protecting against Hidden Units, especially on land. The two main benefits to CTUs are the ability to simply remove it from play during a winter phase, and the ability to determine ownership of a Hidden Unit.

It's hard to know how it will play out in practice, but I'm inclined to think my diplomatic approach if I'm a non-E power early on is to simply work with the other nearby non-E powers to eliminate the E's because of the potential for having these secret units.


I agree. We can tweak the rules more, but unless we actually play with them we'll have no idea how they will work. Are they perfect? Probably not. But I'd like to at least see how they work before scrapping the idea altogether.

That strategy of ganging up on E nations is certainly plausible, but to be honest it happens anyway. E nations rarely survive with or without these Hidden Units.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 19 Nov 2014, 1:25 pm

mshields wrote:On the other hand, maybe the thing to do if you have a terrorist is just be up front about the fact that you own it, and use it defensively. Go around placing IEDs near your own territory to make attacking you too much of a pain. Interesting.


A viable strategy, though it should be noted that your own troops can be killed by IED's your terrorist places. Obviously, you know where they are, but it would restrict your movement. Of course, you could use wings to airlift units over territories with IED's in them.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: 15 Sep 2001, 10:27 am

Post 20 Nov 2014, 10:38 am

I think there should be a stronger penalty of getting 'caught' for the terrorists. There should be an incentive to be selective in where and when they plant their bombs and to try and evade capture. Maybe a 1 year delay before they can rebuild?

or a bonus for the nation that captures the terrorist...a free CTU maybe?


I'm trying to think what I'd most likely do here.

As an A/B power I'd probably avoid investing too much in defence until I got hit by an attack, then I'd need to get a wing over there sharpish and scout out the little fugger..

So, you essentially get a double hit. You lose the SC and you have to sacrifice a unit to go on recon. Its certainly on the harsh side isn't it.

Maybe ALL units should have scouting capabilities within their own territory, but wings have the added ability to see into neighbouring zones. You could then set up some lines of defence where you at least know a T hasn't passed through. More Ts would get caught and there would be an element of guessing where units were/weren't going to move to try and avoid capture. It would probably make the whole Terrorist game a little more interesting, and balanced?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 18 Nov 2014, 3:36 pm

Post 20 Nov 2014, 10:49 am

Lingfish wrote:As an A/B power I'd probably avoid investing too much in defence until I got hit by an attack, then I'd need to get a wing over there sharpish and scout out the little fugger..


This seems like the right strategy. Without knowing who controls the units, the odds of you being the initial target for a terrorist are fairly low, so spending effort on defense is probably a losing proposition.

Edit: Question though - Is there any reason I can't have multiple placed but undetonated bombs at once? Or can I only have one bomb "in play" at a time.

If I can spend 4 or 5 years placing 4 or 5 bombs without revealing myself, and the detonate them all at once, you could absolutely decimate a medium sized power.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 Nov 2014, 11:03 am

In truth I think the pirates are a greater potential problem than the terrorists. The fact that they can share spaces with other units and also attack at a strength of 2 without even leaving the fleet in question with the opportunity of a retreat could seriously disrupt naval operations, and pirates are harder to isolate and remove. Terrorists are less of a big deal because they're time restricted to some degree. Unless they're situated in a region that's thick with SCs then the amount of damage they can do relative to the time it takes them to move from one location to the next is limited.

On a more positive note, I can see how these units may add a really fun new element to negotiations and allow for more creative strategies. I'd imagine that any conversation with a small power from now on is going to include a demand to know whether they have any terrorists or pirates and/or negotiations on how they will be used. Players will be sharing intel with each other as well. It's an extra level of intrigue that could be a lot of fun for the more committed players who can be bothered to put in the legwork.

I say we just run with this and see how it plays in practice. Most of us had an opportunity to feed back to Tom when he first floated this idea (I know that a few of my suggestions have been included). It's a bit late now to be demanding a fundamental overhaul. This may turn out to be a terrible new idea but we can't know until we play it.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: 15 Sep 2001, 10:27 am

Post 20 Nov 2014, 2:52 pm

lets be clear. This game is heavily weighted in the favour of the larger powers. The game is there for the A/Bs to lose so giving a few of the smaller guys a leg up works for me.

I think you should think about allowing ALL armies to be able to spot a terrorist in their own territory though. And if/when a unit is destroyed it doesn't have to restart in the same place.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 7:07 am

mshields wrote:
Lingfish wrote:As an A/B power I'd probably avoid investing too much in defence until I got hit by an attack, then I'd need to get a wing over there sharpish and scout out the little fugger..


This seems like the right strategy. Without knowing who controls the units, the odds of you being the initial target for a terrorist are fairly low, so spending effort on defense is probably a losing proposition.

Edit: Question though - Is there any reason I can't have multiple placed but undetonated bombs at once? Or can I only have one bomb "in play" at a time.

If I can spend 4 or 5 years placing 4 or 5 bombs without revealing myself, and the detonate them all at once, you could absolutely decimate a medium sized power.


Yes, bombs do not need to be detonated right away. However, it would take a minimum of 4 years to plant 3 bombs. Remember that the unit still has to move.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11277
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 7:09 am

I think these extra powers are too strong and favor the little guys WAAAY too much. Yes the game favors the larger powers but it is balanced out in the end game vote. This is proven by the history of winning nations, smaller powers are part of every game, so while many little guys will get the boot, if they manage to hang in there, they have a very good shot at the win! Now you further harm the bigger powers and the game may no longer be balanced. The new units sound like fun (the pirates did last game as well) but I already see the problems.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 21 Nov 2014, 7:15 am

Lingfish wrote:lets be clear. This game is heavily weighted in the favour of the larger powers. The game is there for the A/Bs to lose so giving a few of the smaller guys a leg up works for me.

I think you should think about allowing ALL armies to be able to spot a terrorist in their own territory though. And if/when a unit is destroyed it doesn't have to restart in the same place.


I think that would make it all but impossible to use terrorists. Also, having them start in the same place is there because I want the decision of the spawn point to be important. That decision needs to serve both the short-term and long-term strategy you are trying to employ. At least, that's the intention.

I'm trying to avoid bringing up any strategies that I would employ. I want to see how the players use these rules without my interference. That said, I am making a note of everything being said here. Thanks all for your feedback. I do appreciate it.