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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 10:34 am

I was re-reading Randy's lies and spotted yet another. he mentions the base NWO game was near impossible for the larger powers to win yet the facts simply are not on his side. In every game I ran I can think of none off hand (hey, maybe ONE was an aberration I am not recalling?) Either the USA, France or UK took part in the win. China and Russia did well in most as well. Now he can claim this is not true but it's just not correct. You can argue that "other" powers have a hard time certainly! But to claim the big powers had no chance is simply wrong.

The games with rule changes were flawed and hell, the entire game concept is flawed! But it seems to work more often than not with the old rules. Again, have new ideas...test them out, have fun doing so. Simply remember they seldom work as expected in the first run. I am against the pirates but the idea could possibly work if re-tooled and if one wants to do so, I am not going to say it should not be done nor am I EVER going to say the game should never be modified. Knock yourselves out and have fun with changes, that is and always has been my position! (but again, I have every right to disagree with any suggestion I don't like, Randy can agree with the change as well, that is his right. Because I am "against" a particular change does not mean I am against all changes now does it?)
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 11:27 am

Sassenach wrote:What I think we should be doing is representing terrorism in a different way, one which would potentially be a lot more fun for all of the players. I like the idea of terrorist factions emerging from players who have been defeated. The way I see it working is that if you get eliminated you can approach a player who is still playing and ask him to sponsor you as a terrorist. By keeping a BB in the bank and not spending it (effectively dedicating the productive power of one of your SCs) you get to act as sponsor to a terrorist in secret, allowing them to control a terrorist unit which would then function in the same way as they did under the current rules. We could potentially allow a terrorist to be sponsored by more than one player (subject to limits of course), giving him control over more than one unit. I think this would be lot of fun. It obviously offers the chance for eliminated players to stay in the game and keep having fun, which for a game like NWO with such a high cull rate would be a great way to retain new players, but it would also be fun for the rest of the players too. You could attack a rival in secret by sponsoring one of the players he just took out to come back as a terrorist. It wouldn't be all that easy to identify who was responsible for this since most players like to keep some BBs in reserve. The potential would also exist for Al-Qaeda style terrorist networks to spring up, with multiple eliminated players pooling their resources. There would also be the potential for blowback of course, with terrorist players turning against their sponsor...


I love this idea. Also, it solves Diplomacy's major flaw: with this rule is no longer an elimination game.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm

Post 23 Jul 2015, 11:37 am

Can the terrorist factions win? How? Do they still have a vote?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 11:47 am

That actually does sound like fun. Thinking about unforeseen consequences, I can picture situations where players may even ASK for their elimination? If you have no realistic shot at a win (with votes nobody can ever really say they are out of it though) then why not have more fun as a terrorist player than one with a useless unit? That could work for or against the spirit of the game, I'm not sure until it played out though.

But what about further variations?
Terrorists can maybe be limited in some ways while given advantages in others, making them a neat twist and not just another unit.
Ideas: Limit to X number of spaces where they are spawned (and no need for a SC to control them) but allow them maybe some sort of special damage like a dirty bomb? Maybe they can land in an empty SC and blow up a dirty bomb resulting in what a win bombardment does for one turn only? Then they are dependent on their master power giving up a BB to spawn his new unit again? Or if that's cool, maybe when they are able to force a unit to retreat, they can blow up the dirty bomb forcing disbandment vs retreat? Just some ideas not fully thought out in the least...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 11:49 am

can they win?
My suggestion would be no.

and that could actually play out fun as well. Think about it, this player has no real reason to play the game out other than revenge, him having no real reason and no chance at winning or even voting for the winner, he is more likely to miss his orders and isn't that just like a terrorist unit? Being somewhat undependable is kinda fun isn't it?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm

Post 23 Jul 2015, 11:52 am

I don't think it's a good idea to have a player stick around that has no stake in the game, no defined goals or incentives. That's just asking for trolling.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 11:53 am

GMTom wrote:can they win?
My suggestion would be no.

and that could actually play out fun as well. Think about it, this player has no real reason to play the game out other than revenge, him having no real reason and no chance at winning or even voting for the winner, he is more likely to miss his orders and isn't that just like a terrorist unit? Being somewhat undependable is kinda fun isn't it?


And, politically, how could we ever let the terrorists win? ;-)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 12:09 pm

I generally like the idea, but I'd like to see it fleshed out more. I suppose we could simply transfer the rules I put in place for such units in the last game, but instead of granting them to specific nations at the start, you only get them if you are eliminated and gain a sponsorship. The idea is intriguing but I would also be concerned about how much of an impact they could ultimately have since it wouldn't have the built in restrictions on how many units could exist on the board at one time.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 12:31 pm

and there you have what I said before, even slight tweaks can make for giant game changers. Some for the good yet more often than not, for the bad! But it's fun to discuss (contrary to what someone wants you think I feel)

Again, not really thinking this all the way through and only throwing out ideas.
It was mentioned earlier how I discussed with someone else an idea where we had two different groups playing on the same map for different goals and different ways to win a game within the game. Could something like that work here as well? Eliminated players now get into that terrorist pool and while they can not win the base game, they can become "king of the terrorists" and win that game within the game. That winner would be determined not by vote or by supply centers held but rather by something else I am unsure of right now, but something that determined how well a terrorist they were.
Then again, with one small class power eliminated early and being a terrorist for a long while, how can a n A,B,C class who is eliminated much later compete on an even footing? It's simply a fun idea to throw around for now.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 23 Jul 2015, 1:08 pm

Am I the only one who'd rather just see all these new rules thrown out?

It's been fun to have some new rules the last few games, but I'd be happy to see things just go back to the way they were -- no pirates, terrorists, or hidden units of any kind.

I'm really not convinced any of them have helped to further balance the game. If anything, they only make the game more complicated than it already is, which seems to benefit the players who read the rules close enough and are clever enough to discover the ins and outs and potential loopholes of whatever the new clauses and concepts are. This seems to further increase the chances that the NWO vets who are often around the winners' circle get there again.

I could be way off-base here, but just my $.02
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 26 Jul 2015, 9:27 am

Post 26 Jul 2015, 12:38 pm

I haven't read through the entire thread so forgive me, but I think North Korea getting two centers would solve the incorrect non-influence of North Korea as well as create a more interesting environment around China. It would make northeast Asia as interesting as it could be, since now it seems sort of the same each time to me.

As Japan in my first game, I had to resort to unpopular tactics to be more than just an annoyance for the big countries around, without selling out. If North Korea gets a second center, that problem is solved in a way because both Japan and North Korea can help eachother out possibly.
Japan went out fast in this game and in my game, I did a lot to make sure I wasn't forced to pray no one bothered to attack me, and even that wasn't nearly enough.

A second center for NK might be a bit too much, but a second unit is vital for NK to be as interesting as it should be in this game.
An army in SEO? Can the game start with a scenario where NK is already marching for SEO?

Another thing I think must be brought up is a metagaming aspect: I'm pretty confident I was a couple of steps behind because of how I played my first game of NWO. I was "dangerous" then so apparently I'm a danger before I even send a message a year later.

I also know some alliances were made very easily with phrases like 'I know him very well and we're going to work together because that's bound to go well'. That might not be pre-agreed upon, but it's still against the spirit of the game in my mind to look at the names of the countries surrounding you and picking your first allies and enemies based on that.

I don't know what to do about it, but I wonder if people agree with me that it is sort of against the spirit of the game? Maybe set up e-mail accounts in advance to keep anonymity?

Are there programs to anonymise mailing groups while still being able to tell who's what power at the beginning of the game?

Edit: Cleared up ambiguous language.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm

Post 26 Jul 2015, 1:13 pm

I think the metagaming aspect is strong in this variant as is partly because the best odds seem to come from forming unbreakable teams right at the beginning. There's not a lot of room for shifting alliances when you have to make the kind of unit/BB trade-off commitments demanded to be able to project nuclear power later on. The decreasing number of cities from the nuclear wars also tends to freeze things up. Plus the metagaming alliance teamwork reputation, so you can maximize your chances of getting onto a good early team in the next game...

If there was more incentive for personal glory, or seizing a greater share of glory, it would be more possible for alliances to break down. That would involve some changes in the coalition rules though, and possibly more, such as maybe toning down the effect of nukes. Then, since the board is so large, you'd probably have to play the game for more turns to see the effects of those changes.

But of course with such a large variant, popular mostly in one forum, there's going to be issue of seeing the same players over and over again anyways.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 26 Jul 2015, 3:11 pm

I generally like the idea, but I'd like to see it fleshed out more. I suppose we could simply transfer the rules I put in place for such units in the last game, but instead of granting them to specific nations at the start, you only get them if you are eliminated and gain a sponsorship. The idea is intriguing but I would also be concerned about how much of an impact they could ultimately have since it wouldn't have the built in restrictions on how many units could exist on the board at one time.


Thinking about it some more, I'm not sure that the way I set things out would actually work. The idea I had in mind was that the sponsoring nations would be able to do it in secret by keeping a BB in the bank, meaning that they'd have plausible deniability for their actions. I don't think this would work though. The problem is that it's too powerful. Let's say you're sitting at +3. You build one unit and bank 2 BBs, one of which is dedicated to sponsoring a terrorist . At this point you're at +2 with a friendly terrorist. Next turn even if you don't manage to take any further centres you're still at +2 with the same friendly terrorist in tow, so you can bank 2 BBs to add to the two you banked last year. At this point you have 4 BBs. Granted, you can only spend 3 of them, but you're not really much worse off than you would have been if you'd never sponsored the terrorist at all and with every turn that goes by the cost of sponsoring the terrorist diminishes in relative importance. It would still be a lot of fun, but it starts to look a little unfair.

The idea probably needs more work.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 26 Jul 2015, 9:27 am

Post 27 Jul 2015, 12:50 am

zurn wrote:I think the metagaming aspect is strong in this variant as is partly because the best odds seem to come from forming unbreakable teams right at the beginning. There's not a lot of room for shifting alliances when you have to make the kind of unit/BB trade-off commitments demanded to be able to project nuclear power later on. The decreasing number of cities from the nuclear wars also tends to freeze things up. Plus the metagaming alliance teamwork reputation, so you can maximize your chances of getting onto a good early team in the next game...

If there was more incentive for personal glory, or seizing a greater share of glory, it would be more possible for alliances to break down. That would involve some changes in the coalition rules though, and possibly more, such as maybe toning down the effect of nukes. Then, since the board is so large, you'd probably have to play the game for more turns to see the effects of those changes.

But of course with such a large variant, popular mostly in one forum, there's going to be issue of seeing the same players over and over again anyways.


Well, first of all, you can make things more anonymous.

Another point you raised is something I wanted to raise as well: in my mind, if you don't win, you lose, right? So when I explain to someone that they might survive the way they're headed now but they will win under no circumstances, how come no one seems to care about that? If you don't win, you lose, so you should risk everything in order to maximize your chance at winning. It is all or nothing.

I play with this all-or-nothing attitude, but when I look at the map, no one else seems to. Everyone is satisfied with a boring 'solid' play that should get them in 6th place or so, completely satisfied that from the start, they set their goals to something called losing.

Even worse, trying to win as opposed to lose seems almost frowned upon.

If I lose every single center in an attempt to set myself up for a win, I think I did a much better job than someone who simply grows his nation, so to speak.

I think this attitude, which is in my mind faulty but prevalent, is the reason why the meta-gaming aspect is so bad.
Let me explain. In a normal game of Diplomacy where you know your opponents and, I dunno, try to win, you see awesome players and you TAKE THEM OUT. They are the most serious threats to your victory, after all! You ally with the weak players because they pose little threat even if they gain some centers from their alliance with you.

In this game, people see awesome players in their neighborhood and auto-ally. I think you solve the metagaming problem and actually make the game as competitive as it should be, also making it much more dynamic, reactive and deceitful as it should be, if you discourage this attitude somehow.

Presumably, people (often wrongly) assume that because of the coalition aspect, they can ally with strong players and those will being them along to victory.

I think this is wrong, and I think the one true way to fix this is to make sure there is only one winner. No second places, so if you want to win, you'll have to beat the #1, NOT ally with him.

I know it's a little radical, but because of the serious metagame problem, I think it must be given serious thought. No more coalitions, come voting season you can choose whether you cast your vote for every particular country still alive.

Minimum votes needed should probably be less, but not a third of 'normal' amounts. Maybe half, roughly.

The coalition-aspect is ruining an awesome game for me and I've tried it twice, but it corrupts every aspect of the game so much that it may be a dealbreaker for me. Negotiating seems almost fake often, since I know many of the people I'm talking have decided I have to go before negotiation starts.

One winner or the game is all about who climbs higher in the establishment, I fear. Oh, and nukes.

I hope everyone agrees with me that something needs to be done about that attitude.

No need for gimmicks, just don't perpetuate a corrupt attitude.

I'd love to hear arguments against this, because I personally can't think of a good one and I've tried :-)

Edit: If, for some reason, this isn't introduced, I think more anonymity is essential.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 27 Jul 2015, 8:22 am

Stephan, it wasn't really metagaming that was your downfall as such. Yes, you came into it with a reputation for being very aggressive, which will have coloured the opinion of some players who came across you in the previous game, but it's not like people were out to get you from the start. It's more that you overplayed your hand. UK is a powerful nation at the game start but not to the extent that you can try and bully all of your neighbours like you did. Having strong alliances is critical to success in this variant (as it is in all Dip games of course). It's possible to overlook the importance of it when you're sat in control of a nuclear power, but it's perilous to do that, as you found out. The terms you were demanding of the weaker players around you just made it attractive for them to ally with one of your rivals and screw you over the first chance they got. If you'd been a little less aggressive at the start you'd have had plenty of opportunity to be much more aggressive later on, and your global position would have made you an especially attractive ally to most of the board once the reality of the big continental alliances had set in.