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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 26 Jul 2015, 9:27 am

Post 02 Aug 2015, 10:58 pm

Your idea promotes large coalitions though, and you again run the risk that people just form alliances at the start of the game which are never broken..

I think it'd be better to take the numbers per power I mentioned and adding 6-8 for a solo requirement, another 2-4 in a 2-country coalition, and after that simply accumulate the numbers per power.

Sure, an E-power would only need 20 to 22 votes, but if he can accumulate those, he deserves the win and everyone else would have had enough time to see it coming and stop it.

If anything, I think the solo numbers might be too high this way..

Also, not sure about only allowing votes for yourself, then they would effectively just be regular victory points..

I think it should be possible to bribe and extort with the voting aspect. If people can't vote for themselves if they vote for someone else, they should think twice.

People who decided they can't win might still vote for someone else in a popularity-contest way, but I'm not sure that's a problem.
It'd be a bit like people throwing the game in regular dip I suppose. If you know you're defeated, it's sort of as good as any strategy.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm

Post 02 Aug 2015, 11:47 pm

steephie22 wrote:Your idea promotes large coalitions though, and you again run the risk that people just form alliances at the start of the game which are never broken..


Reread the part where I show how the previous 7 player alliance might decide to ditch one of their allies in order to get an easier win. Allowing larger win coalition produces more friction, not less, because more people will want in, and get upset if they're not included. It also keeps more people invested in the game, and that also creates more friction.

steephie22 wrote:Also, not sure about only allowing votes for yourself, then they would effectively just be regular victory points..

I think it should be possible to bribe and extort with the voting aspect. If people can't vote for themselves if they vote for someone else, they should think twice.


Bribe them with what though? The only thing the players should be going for is victory. Offering them payment of anything else (favours in the next match? less angry emails?) is just metagaming.

steephie22 wrote:People who decided they can't win might still vote for someone else in a popularity-contest way, but I'm not sure that's a problem.
It'd be a bit like people throwing the game in regular dip I suppose. If you know you're defeated, it's sort of as good as any strategy.


It's worse. It's like just giving other people your SCs. That's not possible in regular Dip.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 26 Jul 2015, 9:27 am

Post 03 Aug 2015, 12:24 am

Offer someone your votes for much-needed help against an enemy so you can get a shot at victory again, or even just more territory.

Remember that giving someone votes is harmless as long as he can't get enough. You can gamble on that to gain trust, support, technology or peace, effectively for free since past votes don't matter the next round. Then you can always go for the win yourself again, possibly in a coalition you managed to talk yourself into with new-gained strength.
Voting for someone else is also crucial if you are nothing and you can only win with the backing of a strong power in your neighbourhood, constantly nuking a vote if nothing else.

Remember that at least 20 votes for E powers and even more for the rest aren't easy to come by, so there can be some safe gambles voting for others. Victory in the first voting round should be much less likely.

We might want to establish a code of conduct that you must keep your own interests at heart, even if you don't think a win is possible, though. Don't vote for others simply because you think they 'deserve' it?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Aug 2015, 5:58 am

I actually liked reading how the game runs exactly as I had planned and the players were forced to play that way. So how is it they are "forced" to play if they wish to win?
Start off strong ...check
maintain varying political and military alliances throughout the game ...check
and in the end be "forced" to play a political game of rounding up votes ....check

That is how I envisioned having to win and it plays out that way every time. I can't see needing or even wanting another way. I can see these other ways working but it would take a long while of balancing the map and the powers as well as fine tuning the numbers, this would need to be run several times to get to where you would like it to be. But sure, it can be done!
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 26 Jul 2015, 9:27 am

Post 03 Aug 2015, 6:47 am

GMTom wrote:I actually liked reading how the game runs exactly as I had planned and the players were forced to play that way. So how is it they are "forced" to play if they wish to win?
Start off strong ...check
maintain varying political and military alliances throughout the game ...check
and in the end be "forced" to play a political game of rounding up votes ....check

That is how I envisioned having to win and it plays out that way every time. I can't see needing or even wanting another way. I can see these other ways working but it would take a long while of balancing the map and the powers as well as fine tuning the numbers, this would need to be run several times to get to where you would like it to be. But sure, it can be done!


You're listing three things and.. well, that's it. There's a severe lack of anything else, like stopping a threat together. In fact, that's allying the 'threat' here, a self-reinforcing system; the more threatening you are, the more allies you get and because you get more allies, you're even more threatening.
It's all very linear and I just think a lot of dynamics have been patched out, so to speak.

We're probably going to differ on opinion, but at least you know what I think and why.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Aug 2015, 8:12 am

ahh, we disagree a lot
You are right to a point of course
but in any game where you need to vote for someone you simply can not threaten them into being your buddy. And if you wish to add even more players to your alliance, you make it even easier to simply carry them all to a victory ...kumbaya!

The way it is now, you have a few big guys with nukes
Usually the larger players are those with them early, they know full well it is an uphill task to take part in an end game coalition (maybe two? but absolutely not three) that puts them at an immediate enemy situation (unlike what you want us to believe). So we have some large powers who threaten some, but get all nice-nice with others, those who think all is cool will want to take part in the end game group, when they find they are not wanted, they band together to fight the big guy. But in your example they simply band together more and more of them so we avoid all confrontation, we all simply decide to join hands and sing around the camp fire together as we all win and nobody loses?

Like I said, the base game absolutely works exactly as planned. The game grew and morphed over many plays to get where it was. Then we had changes to rules, changes to the number of players, etc and you want to lump those games with changes into the base game end game situation?
The game grew in popularity because of the way it was imbalanced yet any could win
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm

Post 03 Aug 2015, 8:52 am

GMTom wrote:ahh, we disagree a lot
You are right to a point of course
but in any game where you need to vote for someone you simply can not threaten them into being your buddy. And if you wish to add even more players to your alliance, you make it even easier to simply carry them all to a victory ...kumbaya!


But 3-way coalitions breaking up is the worst and should never happen, right? ;) But 4 people, oh that's kumbaya! lol. But not 2! That would be chaos!

Keep in mind what actually does happen at the end of the current system: people actually sticking together to vote in their allies even when they aren't included in the win. So I'd say it's even more kumbaya than insisting you share in victory. Demanding a share of victory is greed, not kumbaya; voting for others is pure kumbaya, and is what actually happened.

I think you're blithely ignoring the math; you can't simply "add more allies". Did you notice in my example how *shedding* allies was beneficial?

GMTom wrote:The way it is now, you have a few big guys with nukes
Usually the larger players are those with them early, they know full well it is an uphill task to take part in an end game coalition (maybe two? but absolutely not three) that puts them at an immediate enemy situation (unlike what you want us to believe). So we have some large powers who threaten some, but get all nice-nice with others, those who think all is cool will want to take part in the end game group, when they find they are not wanted, they band together to fight the big guy.


Did not witness that at all... I saw a large alliance stick together and crown a few of their members, the max 3 allowed. In was in effect a 7-coalition victory, just not formally recognized as such. It either should have been, or should have continued.

GMTom wrote:But in your example they simply band together more and more of them so we avoid all confrontation, we all simply decide to join hands and sing around the camp fire together as we all win and nobody loses?


Actually, my example, as I said, showed the exact opposite: dropping 1 or 2 allies so 4 or 5 could take the win. And they will have to be dropped, not simply told "oh you know there's a cap of 3 anyways so it's all good, nothing we can do".

And if they really want to include everyone... then it's more war. It doesn't just suddenly end at the first vote. Hardly Kumbaya. And it gives their opponents a chance to try to stop them, or maybe win over one of the members.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Aug 2015, 9:09 am

People vote for alliances they are not a part of is a problem?
What game were you playing?

You want to tell us threatening players gain more votes, yet in the current system if someone threatens you, you can vote for another to win. This is called revenge and it works quite well!
If you are the big evil USA power and I am a small one center Cuba, It is unlikely I can win (unless I play my political hand very well and that is certainly possible) so I look to the next best thing and I vote for alliances that do not include the big mean USA. He in turn will no doubt try to eliminate me next year if I do not vote for him. But wait, we have that game within the game where some players seek sanctuary. maybe I convoy over to Brazil and assure that player I will vote for HIM and I continue to vote against big nasty USA. Gee, politics versus military might, it can and does work after all!?

But if we require players can only vote for groups they are part of, then WHY would we give a crap about small players? Hey, if one managed to do real well and grow large, he makes perfect sense but the odds of that happening are slim as can be and playing a small power is damn near a waste of time and that game in turns kinda sucks to the overwhelming majority of players. Now you also tell them they can not vote against the evil powers? I'm a one center Cuba, I have no votes unless I am a party to the win??? Hey I have one vote in New York State, can I vote for the President if It's not me? Of course everyone votes, it's the premise of the game and balances the imbalance. If you did away with that I would take back what I said about this idea of yours being possible, if that happened the game simply would not work. Sure, you might end up with a wild win but the game for 3/4 of the players would have absolutely stunk, not a good taste in their mouth at all. You can't look at the end game ONLY, the game must be enjoyed by all and they need to feel they had a real chance at winning, even against steep odds but not nearly insurmountable ones!
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 26 Jul 2015, 9:27 am

Post 03 Aug 2015, 9:56 am

Tom, please take care to distinguish my idea from zurn's idea.

You replied trying to refute my arguments with arguments against zurn's idea, which doesn't do much against my idea of course.

My idea is allowing smaller wins, and people are still allowed to vote for whoever they want to vote for, although I am considering allowing them to only cast one vote, which is more realistic in a way I think and also makes it less about popularity and more about politics: evil USA could threaten to nuke you if you don't vote for him, you could threaten to vote for someone else if evil USA nukes you, but you can't simply vote for everyone but USA, because if everyone starts doing stuff like that we're back to a popularity contest.

If you want, you could react to my previous post with my idea in mind, rather than zurn's.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Aug 2015, 1:12 pm

I tried one vote and found it worked better allowing many. It allows for a lot more strategy and need to work the political angle. Picture yourself a large power, what keeps you from trying to simply blow everyone up? Their votes! If they can not vote for you then why keep them around? Having only one vote would lead to a big pus for the larger powers.

as far as who's idea is who's, they go back and forth so Who said What is all lumped together in my mind (sorry)

Smaller wins is maybe a better idea than larger wins but still you face a similar problem. The idea was to try and make it possible for all sizes to win and I envisioned a large, middle and big size power to win together. By allowing two you really hammer the middle sized power. The huge guys have lots of advantages in military power, the little guys have an advantage in having a lower vote requirement, with only two, the middle player is at a big disadvantage...not impossible, but far more difficult.

as far as a popularity contest...
honestly, so what?
That's the nature of politics and voting. This allows for some very real and very possible wild outcomes to develop and they usually do. You can claim this person did not deserve to win but how can you say that when he worked his emails like crazy getting enough votes? The game is not one of pure military might nor can it be if you like the haves vs have nots aspect and frankly that IS what this game is all about or you should simply play WW4 and maybe add nukes?

I have never seen anyone win because they were well known (popular) as a person but rather they would win by being a popular nation in that game. They got popular for various reasons and hey, maybe they were popular players outside the game? But that sort of person usually does a good job of politics as well. This most certainly is about politics and simply MUST be/

Seriously, for those with these other ideas, what about a more balanced WW4 game with added nukes? then you have a better jumping off point and need not worry about this class ize nonsense only brought to NWO to keep everyone in the game.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Aug 2015, 1:16 pm

for those who have forgotten
NWO was based on WW4

http://www.freewebs.com/tomahaha/ww4.htm

I can see this game working for most of the stuff stated here (except for class size charts, but who needs that when all start equal?)

maybe have some sort of nuclear arms race to start the game, passing on builds gets you in that "club" and after X number have the secret, it can only be gained by sharing with another. This would make leaking the secret less likely than it currently is and make for some added intrigue as well?
Just spitballing some ideas...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm

Post 03 Aug 2015, 11:15 pm

GMTom wrote:People vote for alliances they are not a part of is a problem?
What game were you playing?

You want to tell us threatening players gain more votes, yet in the current system if someone threatens you, you can vote for another to win. This is called revenge and it works quite well!


It's called kingmaking, and is something you try to eliminate from a good design.

GMTom wrote:Sure, you might end up with a wild win but the game for 3/4 of the players would have absolutely stunk, not a good taste in their mouth at all. You can't look at the end game ONLY, the game must be enjoyed by all and they need to feel they had a real chance at winning, even against steep odds but not nearly insurmountable ones!


Again, your system is less inclusive than mine, not more. And I thought you hated inclusiveness? Kumbaya and all that?

Small powers in my system make it easier to win, so that is an incentive to win them over. And I prefer to incentivize it with shared *victory*, not subservience.

But I think the problem is you think it's fun and even an achievement to be a kingmaking pawn in the end that loses while enabling others' victory. Whereas I see it for what it is: losing. And there's nothing wrong with there being winners and losers in a competitive game. The 3-coalition-win limit is at odds with the way the players really think of the game; why not have a victory system that actually reflects the state of the game?
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 26 Jul 2015, 9:27 am

Post 04 Aug 2015, 2:14 am

I suppose starting with WW4 is a consideration..

Thoughts from zurn or others?

Maybe we can just add nukes and remove voting altogether, for the classic experience except with nukes :-)

Incidentally, how do you guys make these maps? I'm designing my own board game and I've got the feeling I can do things much easier.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 04 Aug 2015, 5:07 am

in the WW4 game you could certainly remove voting, no doubt. That's really not an option in NWO.
Zurn, The more you talk, the more it becomes apparent your idea will not work as desired. Go ahead and dismiss what I have said and learn for yourself. My statements are based on a lot of history and tweaking of the game well over a decade now, yours are based on "feeling" only. Nothing wrong with that, this is how change is begun! But if you refuse to learn from history, then you have a lot more trial and error to work through. Have at it, host your game with your rules but do me a favor and call it something else. If you want a totally different game, then please distance yourself from the original and put your own stamp on it.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 04 Aug 2015, 5:16 am

Steephie,
I'm not sure what you mean by how do we make these maps?
Do you mean the actual nuts and bolts as what program do we use? Or a more esoteric question of how do we go about it?

If it's a matter of putting this "on paper" then all you need is a computer and a paint program (your smart phone or tablet will not do). I can send you a copy of my paint program (If I can find it) if that's all you require. Write me with your home address (too big to email)
explorediplomacy (at) gmail (dot) com
I use a very old program that is pretty simple to learn by just goofing around with it (I use only the most basic portions myself). You can also use it for all sorts of effects on your photos as well. If you have a paint program already then that's all you need, you can start by saving a base map you like then sort of ripping it apart by adding/deleting what you like/don't like, soon enough it becomes your own!