Hello compatriots -

Here is a link to a google doc for a game I'm thinking of running. I don't think it could be done via a forum, but I would appreciate feedback from our gaming crew.

Cheers

LTD

{Edit: Here is v1.2 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dgf3yVODyuoWFWGR067ywZ8VbI86x2JWiQhc_6AxoDg/edit?usp=sharing }

{v1.1 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AorU_rMnncYoMsjr2mGqbgzzSS3S1EVcjHvEysQrbEo/edit?usp=sharing }

I’m all for this, looks like a lot of fun and different from anything we’ve done before!

A 15 player minimum seems high, though; are you recruiting only from the forums?

I really don't think it would work as a forum game - the need to trade cards between Chancellors alone would make it painful to play by post.

And as a Forum game you would not need the multiple players per team - one person could be Noble, General, and Chancellor.

We could try a simplified version - but I am basically seeking feedback from various sources on the rules - are there obvious problems, things that are not clear, etc.

I'm thinking there may be too many resource cards for a side - too much cash - maybe one card per city, and one for every two villages or provinces...

Trading Companies – One player Each (two or three) – organises trading expeditions to foreign lands – buy and sell shares – goal is to amass the most wealth by games’ end

I know this isn't developed yet, but would trading companies only be competing with each other, or also with the great houses? It would seem odd if they were competing with the great houses but with different goals.

Barbarian Nations – Two or Three Players Each (2 to 3 Nations) – cannot speak to other players – must only say “bar bar bar” etc. Various Goals?

This would annoy me if I was a player (especially if I had to be the Barbarians).

At the start of the Spring phase each Chancellors is dealt Resource Cards from the deck (standard playing cards, including 2 Jokers). Each player is dealt a minimum of two cards, plus a card for each territory and village they control, and two for each city. Cards are dealt face up – if a side is dealt a Joker, deal an additional card – this card determines the random event that occurs for that side. Retrieve the Joker. {Come up with a Random Events table}

Why the jokers? It seems to me you'd have the same result if you just eliminated the jokers from the deck.

Also, it may be worth writing down, what kind of agreement is binding or non-binding. For example, Alfred trades his king of diamonds with Bruce's seven of hearts, with the agreement that if Bruce receives a queen next Spring phase, he'll give it (or trade) to Alfred only. But when Spring phase comes, Bruce gets a queen and trades it to the treasury for one coin. Legal?

I haven't gotten past Chancellor rules yet, but I'll have to stop there for now. I'll read more later.

It looks pretty good! And fun. But there are a few things:

Quote

Green uses their final reroll to force Red to reroll one of their d6s, hoping to stop the double. Green rerolls and gets a 6. 6+2=8, so now Green isn’t even scoring a hit!
But Green has a final reroll and uses it to roll their 6 into a 5. Phew! Both sides score a hit.
A second round of combat follows unless one side decides to retreat.

I think you mean Red where Green has been bolded above.

What sort of deception is allowed? Can somebody attempt to remove models from an enemy army when they are not being watched? Bertie already asked about deal-breaking.

If the goal of the game is to sit on the chair, isn't being elected in the Csar's place the ultimate victory, since it means you succeeded by diplomacy without warfare?

13 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Trading Companies – One player Each (two or three) – organises trading expeditions to foreign lands – buy and sell shares – goal is to amass the most wealth by games’ end

I know this isn't developed yet, but would trading companies only be competing with each other, or also with the great houses? It would seem odd if they were competing with the great houses but with different goals.

The Companies would have victory conditions for between themselves - have the most cash, most contracts, most X Y Z... One could potentially become Czar, but this would be unlikely.

13 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Barbarian Nations – Two or Three Players Each (2 to 3 Nations) – cannot speak to other players – must only say “bar bar bar” etc. Various Goals?

This would annoy me if I was a player (especially if I had to be the Barbarians).

Many of these games have an "outside" force with limitations - aliens, cultists, psylons, etc. This is just a note for me to think about.

13 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

At the start of the Spring phase each Chancellors is dealt Resource Cards from the deck (standard playing cards, including 2 Jokers). Each player is dealt a minimum of two cards, plus a card for each territory and village they control, and two for each city. Cards are dealt face up – if a side is dealt a Joker, deal an additional card – this card determines the random event that occurs for that side. Retrieve the Joker. {Come up with a Random Events table}

Why the jokers? It seems to me you'd have the same result if you just eliminated the jokers from the deck.

Jokers is just a way to have random events come up organically, rather than adding an additional step (roll a die, or draw a name from a hat). This is kind of based on the old "Civilisation" board game (now called Mega Empires, or Western Empires. See:

)

13 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Also, it may be worth writing down, what kind of agreement is binding or non-binding. For example, Alfred trades his king of diamonds with Bruce's seven of hearts, with the agreement that if Bruce receives a queen next Spring phase, he'll give it (or trade) to Alfred only. But when Spring phase comes, Bruce gets a queen and trades it to the treasury for one coin. Legal?

Any agreement made between players that is not a formal Alliance would not be enforceable. The consequence of duplicity would be a damaged reputation going forwards.

13 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

I haven't gotten past Chancellor rules yet, but I'll have to stop there for now. I'll read more later.

Thanks for your feedback - this is very helpful.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

It looks pretty good! And fun. But there are a few things:

I think you mean Red where Green has been bolded above.

Fixed - thank you.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

What sort of deception is allowed? Can somebody attempt to remove models from an enemy army when they are not being watched? Bertie already asked about deal-breaking.

Taking models from the table would not be permitted. Deception would be limited to politics, lying, exaggerating, etc. Stealing cards or models would need to happen through an action card via the Control players.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

If the goal of the game is to sit on the chair, isn't being elected in the Csar's place the ultimate victory, since it means you succeeded by diplomacy without warfare?

Yes, if a Merchant or Independent Lord could become Czar that would be impressive indeed.

I've made some changes, here is a v1.2

* Changed Resource Card generation and cash values
* Changed Taxation System
* Removed some excess sections

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dgf3yVODyuoWFWGR067ywZ8VbI86x2JWiQhc_6AxoDg/edit?usp=sharing

It does seem better, now, for the most part. While I think Barbarians and Merchants would be cool additions, I think they have to have some reason for competing with the Nobles, otherwise they are playing a separate game. Barbarians, at least, make sense (although they definitely should have the ability to communicate with the Houses, no 'barbarian' nation was ever unable to communicate in some way), but the Merchants need some incentive. If the point is to become Csar, obviously they can't easily do that. . . maybe Merchants can somehow buy their way into power/attain a status similar to Houses? I.e. instead of a 'Noble' House a 'Merchant' House. It operates the same as a Noble House, but doesn't start out as one. Once the Merchant attains a certain amount of wealth the title of 'House'/'Noble' can be bought or granted - mercenaries hired to guard trade caravans are transformed into armies? They would need land, though. Maybe they can be granted a city/province by Noble Houses, or when they attain a certain amount of power they 'steal' one and declare themselves a House?

Quote

The Council must either vote for or against. A power that abstains is assumed to vote against.

You might want to clarify whether this counts as spending a vote, or simply is for determining the success of a law.

E.g., if there are 5 nobles, each with 4 votes, and for a given law 4 of them abstain and one votes for it, the law fails 4:1, and now either one noble has 3 votes and the other 4 (who abstained) each have 4, or all the nobles have 3. Which is it? I assume the former.

18 hours ago, LTD said:

Yes, if a Merchant or Independent Lord could become Czar that would be impressive indeed.

I made the comment with reference to the following rule:

Quote

Imperial Election

At some point the Czar will succumb to illness and need to be replaced. The High Council will need to elect someone (any player is eligible) to be Czar. To be elected Czar the High Council will need a majority of total votes cast to approve a candidate. Should no one be elected on the first round of voting, the candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated and another round held. This will continue until a candidate has more than half the votes cast.

Doesn't that count toward victory? If so, what determines the death of the Csar? Is the game a fixed length, or is it a random event (which means it could happen on Turn 1)?

How do battles containing 3 or more sides (i.e. where one or both sides have allies present) conducted? I imagine the allies' individual army strengths are added and the armies treated as one army? How are casualties determined, agreement between the players over which ally takes the hit?

Why are units placed at the end of Autumn? They will be useless all Winter and be costing their owners coins. Traditionally (or so I gather) most armies are encamped/disbanded for winter and new units raised in the spring. Why not do the same here?

Lastly, there will be more to the rules, right? You haven't explained the importance of the traits the Houses choose, and what the impact is of the weaknesses.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

You might want to clarify whether this counts as spending a vote, or simply is for determining the success of a law.

E.g., if there are 5 nobles, each with 4 votes, and for a given law 4 of them abstain and one votes for it, the law fails 4:1, and now either one noble has 3 votes and the other 4 (who abstained) each have 4, or all the nobles have 3. Which is it? I assume the former.

Ah - there's a gamer assumption here based on playing Twilight Imperium (and similar games). Votes aren't spent like coin - instead, the Noble house has that many votes on every issue for that year.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

What determines the death of the Csar? Is the game a fixed length, or is it a random event (which means it could happen on Turn 1)?

The death of the Czar would be fairly random and determined by the Control players. Unless someone tries to assassinate them earlier.

These sorts of games generally run for 8 hours - in my mind the Czar would either die in the middle so that the houses can fight a civil war, or right at the end so that whoever is elected Czar is simply the winner.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

How do battles containing 3 or more sides (i.e. where one or both sides have allies present) conducted? I imagine the allies' individual army strengths are added and the armies treated as one army? How are casualties determined, agreement between the players over which ally takes the hit?

Ok good questions. The Allied armies would count as a single army - so you would have the two largest combined armies fight, and the other armies obliged to retreat.

A good question about casualties. I think the players would choose, or maybe it should be 50/50. Or a random roll? I would prefer not to have additional steps.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Why are units placed at the end of Autumn? They will be useless all Winter and be costing their owners coins. Traditionally (or so I gather) most armies are encamped/disbanded for winter and new units raised in the spring. Why not do the same here?

Just because. I suppose they could be placed at the beginning of Spring. That might make more sense.

The Armies don't pay maintenance during Winter - only in the combat / movement seasons. In Winter they are assumed to be in quarters and living off the land.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Lastly, there will be more to the rules, right? You haven't explained the importance of the traits the Houses choose, and what the impact is of the weaknesses.

There will be some more rules that would be for the control players to know. The traits would be unknown until the game starts - I wouldn't want people "gaming" it too much. Cunning might get some more spies, Military would have a higher MDL, size would just mean that the side might start with an extra province or two.

Thanks for the feedback - very helpful!

I'm now having thoughts about the bidding process for units, and I'm concerned it is open to manipulation.

If two players teamed up, one could bid "1" to set the minimum price, and the other could bid "16" and take all the units before anyone else gets a choice.

Perhaps there needs to be a cap on the most units a player can take in one go - maybe 3?

Would people be interested in playing a simplified version of this as a star wars game on the forum? Mostly using the combat and trade sections, and ignoring the politics? Just to see if those bits work?

(the trade section wouldn't include the card trading bits)

(we can use the old Pazaak Palace to roll dice for combat)

5 hours ago, LTD said:

Would people be interested in playing a simplified version of this as a star wars game on the forum? Mostly using the combat and trade sections, and ignoring the politics? Just to see if those bits work?

(the trade section wouldn't include the card trading bits)

(we can use the old Pazaak Palace to roll dice for combat)

Yeah I'd be willing to be a playtester.

I actually wouldn't mind doing the card trading part, unless it would take too much time (I think that's the big worry with doing this type of game over the forum).

23 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Yeah I'd be willing to be a playtester.

I actually wouldn't mind doing the card trading part, unless it would take too much time (I think that's the big worry with doing this type of game over the forum).

Same here.

6 hours ago, LTD said:

I'm now having thoughts about the bidding process for units, and I'm concerned it is open to manipulation.

If two players teamed up, one could bid "1" to set the minimum price, and the other could bid "16" and take all the units before anyone else gets a choice.

Perhaps there needs to be a cap on the most units a player can take in one go - maybe 3?

I think that would just be unfair to the person who bids the highest. It may be better to instead have a minimum bid of 2 or 3.

2 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

I think that would just be unfair to the person who bids the highest. It may be better to instead have a minimum bid of 2 or 3.

Note: The above might preclude somebody bidding 0 (the only way to abstain in the current rules), so I think I should clarify that in the above if somebody doesn't want to bid they can abstain by not bidding, rather than by bidding 0. So have only those who want to participate make a bid, and make the minimum bid 2 or 3.

I've made this amendment to the rules:

The lowest bid amount is the “base price.” The base price will always be “two” or higher (a bid of zero or one does not set a base price).

I’m still not happy with it - I think it can be manipulated.

But I guess the risk of manipulation is that others can out bid you and take all the units as well.

51 minutes ago, LTD said:

I’m still not happy with it - I think it can be manipulated.

But I guess the risk of manipulation is that others can out bid you and take all the units as well.

I don't think there is a way to have both bidding and no manipulation.

Yes, but it could be limited to a maximum of manipulation. So you could pick one artillery, one cavalry, and up to two Infantry. But no more than four units total. And remember - if there are still units available when it gets back around you can pick more units.

8 hours ago, LTD said:

Yes, but it could be limited to a maximum of manipulation. So you could pick one artillery, one cavalry, and up to two Infantry. But no more than four units total. And remember - if there are still units available when it gets back around you can pick more units.

Yeah but then you get diminishing returns the higher you bid. You're gonna end up having a grouping of bids between 8 and 10, with an occasional outlier of 12.

There has to be a tangible reward for bidding the most. First choice is OK, but if you outbid everybody and up leaving with the same number of units, you are going to feel a tad cheated.

Maybe you could do away with division, and have 'tiers'. So, the person who bid the most gets 5, everybody who bid the next highest gets 4, the next highest 3, next 2, and everybody else 1 except those who bid 0. Alternatively you could only have 5 tiers and anybody who bid 6th highest or less gets nothing, but that might be too harsh.

1 hour ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

There has to be a tangible reward for bidding the most. First choice is OK, but if you outbid everybody and up leaving with the same number of units, you are going to feel a tad cheated.

Another way to look at it is, if you outbid everyone by a significant margin, you've made an unwise bid. The ideal bid under LTD's system is just slightly larger than the next guy's. So there's guesswork to it, in which you're trying to outsmart your opponents as you bid.

Under your system, it sounds less like bidding and more like buying. Pay more, get more. Which might lead to a snowball effect, unless players agree not to make deals with the player in the lead.

3 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Another way to look at it is, if you outbid everyone by a significant margin, you've made an unwise bid. The ideal bid under LTD's system is just slightly larger than the next guy's. So there's guesswork to it, in which you're trying to outsmart your opponents as you bid.

Under your system, it sounds less like bidding and more like buying. Pay more, get more. Which might lead to a snowball effect, unless players agree not to make deals with the player in the lead.

Yes, there is a problem with it, I was simply throwing it out for consideration. I prefer the idea of bidding, but am concerned that attempting to reduce the ability to rig it risks making it stagnant. Enforcing a maximum to the units you can win effectively creates a maximum to the amount you would bid, and then the bidding becomes predictable. And it can still be rigged, by 2 players arranging to bid 7 on a turn they know their opponents to need forces, ensuring that instead of 4 everybody gets 1.

It seems to me that the benefit of the cap is preventing one player from snagging an overwhelming number of units, at the cost of losing a large amount of coins. The detriment is that with the cap everybody will end up spending roughly the same and get roughly the same, with the person who bids the most as short on credits as he would have been with significantly less to show for it.

A slightly updated version 1.2, with a changed order of presentation...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dgf3yVODyuoWFWGR067ywZ8VbI86x2JWiQhc_6AxoDg/edit?usp=sharing

I would like to test the combat aspect of this game at least via the forum.

Please let me know if you are interested in helping.

I've asked Jabba to work on making a pretty map, but here is a basic scratch: https://imgur.com/7Y6PVFc

The "mountains" represent tough areas that cannot have a village, etc.

{If you insist on having a "star wars" theme, then the Infantry are ground forces, the Artillery are capital ships, and the Cavalry are fighter squadrons.}

I would be interested. Would culture ratings still apply?