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 17 Feb 2016, 5:39 am

Greetings all,

Many of you probably saw my email last week. Dave S and I are considering getting a new NWO game up and running, using the base rules. After Guardians of the Walking Dead, I updated the rules to (I think) be a little easier to read. You can see them here:

http://www.sendric.com/diplomacy/?page_id=197

Ignore the optional rules at the bottom. They will not be used this time around.

For those new to NWO, it is a massive variant that requires 40 or more people to play. There are three winners, who are voted on by surviving players starting around year 10 or so. Some nations begin with the ability to hit other nations with nuke strikes, while others gain it through technology sharing. There are many other fun things as well. If you are interested, you can post here or email me (sendric [at] gmail [dot] com)
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 17 Feb 2016, 9:16 am

:grin:

I'm in of course.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 17 Feb 2016, 12:54 pm

I may be interested as well. But please explain the difference from your rules and the base rules. I gave them a quick look-see and the only thing I noticed is wings do not have a restricted range limitation (not a bad idea and a heckuva lot easier to adjudicate)

are there any other rules changes?
my original rules:
http://www.freewebs.com/tomahaha/nwosimplified.htm

but for those interested USE THE GM'S RULES
My link is simply asking the differences, the GM is the boss and there may be other changes!
maybe you can view some example maps and such and it may help but my rules are not the rules being used!!!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 17 Feb 2016, 1:53 pm

In the last game there were experimental terrorist/pirate rules which didn't really work that well. They're being abandoned for this game. I think that's what he means.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 18 Feb 2016, 6:12 am

GMTom wrote:are there any other rules changes?


Actually, I don't think we've used wing range restrictions in some time. In any case, there is no difference in the rules. I didn't change the rules. I merely attempted to make them more clear. I received a lot of questions about the rules while GM'ing GotWD, so I thought I would try to make the rules more concise and easier to understand. I don't mind getting the questions of course, but I wanted to try and clear some things up for everyone so that fewer questions needed to be asked. I never did get around to adding in the part about nuclear submarines, but I will someday. Probably. :)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Feb 2016, 11:22 am

Nice! Count me in then.

To be honest, I think we have all gotten so engrossed in making fun changes that maybe we ignored how things worked pretty well as they were. It's great to see such interest and enthusiasm and I have all sorts of optional rules myself, I am just as guilty! But the game is "odd" enough and just quirky enough to be fun and still work, I don't doubt a whole host of changes could be made that could work just fine but that base game is pretty damned fun and we have not found those changes that work well just yet. Taking a step back, exposing a new group of players to that base game may be what is needed? Then try a new idea or three (like the subs?)

and as far as the new rules posting, it looks real nice and clean, well done!
My mind gets sidetracked and wanders aimlessly, yours do look more concise and to the point!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 18 Feb 2016, 12:05 pm

I presume we're keeping the longer period before voting season begins ? That at least worked well.

Oh, and as I said to you before on the email Sendric, I do think one or two of the suggested map changes ought to be looked at. Wouldn't need wholesale change but I definitely think the balance in Asia is wrong and that Brazil starts out with too much of a disadvantage.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Feb 2016, 12:28 pm

I assumed the map was going back to the original as well? (No China in Africa for example)
Brazil was in no way in any trouble in the original
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 18 Feb 2016, 12:34 pm

Sassenach wrote:I presume we're keeping the longer period before voting season begins ? That at least worked well.

Oh, and as I said to you before on the email Sendric, I do think one or two of the suggested map changes ought to be looked at. Wouldn't need wholesale change but I definitely think the balance in Asia is wrong and that Brazil starts out with too much of a disadvantage.


Yes, we are looking at some changes. Changes will be made in South America, but to what extent is not yet known as it depends on how many players we get. Not sure about China yet.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 18 Feb 2016, 12:37 pm

GMTom wrote:I assumed the map was going back to the original as well? (No China in Africa for example)
Brazil was in no way in any trouble in the original


The map will be very similar to the last game, including the Chinese colony in Africa. There will be a few minor tweaks made, but nothing too significant. Brazil isn't too bad off, but without Chile to counter Argentina, there is some imbalance there that would need to be addressed if we do not reach enough players to include Chile.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 18 Feb 2016, 12:56 pm

The Chinese colony in Africa is a broadly positive thing. I tend to think that it does upset the balance in Asia a little though. China suddenly has all kinds of additional options but her neighbours don't, which is a little problematic. Dunno how easy it would be to fix that, but maybe a slight buff to NK and/or Japan would offset things a little ? It needn't be too much, just a tweaking of the starting positions of some of the units to make it slightly harder for China to roll over those nations in the beginning. I think much the same about Brazil really. They don't need to be made stronger per se, just to change things up a little to give greater range of options in the early game.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 19 Feb 2016, 7:09 am

For anybody unfamiliar with the game, please check out the previous run (it hasn't been archived yet):

Guardians of the Walking Dead
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 Feb 2016, 6:37 pm

Almost forgot - there's another NWO in the archives:

Fire and Blood
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Feb 2016, 2:30 pm

Count me in.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 23 Feb 2016, 3:47 pm

:eek:

You still play Dip games ?