Time Travel?

Post by **Egbert** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:39 pm

Take it easy --- it's not that bad.

Here's the general idea:

After a turn is run and players see the results, the players vote on whether the turn should be done over, with everyone being allowed to submit new orders.

This could involve a bit of diplomacy, if someone wants to get people to vote to redo the turn. It could involve a bit of strategy, since you get to see what an adversary is planning to do. It could involve trickery, where you put in attack orders that you don't want to do, hoping that the turn is rerun.

The specifics: I would have to decide what happens on a tie. There would also be a bit of a longer time period between turns. There should be a limit on the number of times a turn can be redone (perhaps 2 times, and then the results are permanent).

Some questions:

Would a turn ever be rerun? In other words, do you think that since most players would be satisfied with the results, then the X-game factor would be a non-issue. Perhaps the rule can be that if at least one-third of the players vote to redo the turn, it gets redone.

This may be too complicated for WOK5. Perhaps it can only be done in WOK4.

Am I getting silly?

Or does anyone else like this idea?

Post by **korexus** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:57 pm

Could work but would be tricky to balance. I think that if you only required 1/3 of the players to want a rerun then they would be common. 1/2 would result in an almost normal game IMO.

Spies could become very powerful in a game like this. - Espeacially if it were WoK 5 with the spycodes and all. One spy could effectively be used to spy out 2 or 3 provinces or a player could try 6 spycodes in a turn...

I think this could be very fun. But needs a lot of thought about details. It could also be very difficult for players to keep track of what "actually" happens.

I've been thinking, on and off, about how to work time travel into WoK myself. I came up with a system which I think would be just about playable, but it would take a lot GM work and I'm not sure the game manager would cope very well either...

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

korexus.

Post by **Duke** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:14 am

Naaah, you two are just getting silly

Sorry Eg. but I am not a big fan of the idea. Sounds like the neverending re-run story to me.

D.

Goat Herder · Post by **Goat Herder** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:41 am

Sounds like in interesting idea.

Some drawbacks:
- a single turn may take a week or two or more to finish, thereby making a long-winded game
... 4 days for the turn to be due, 2 days for players to consider and vote on a rerun, 3 days to do the rerun, 2 days to consider another rerun, etc....
- alliances could "gang up" to control the game
- in the late game (when there are only 3-4 players) the re-run rule could make it tiresome for the GM and lesser players as the dominant group are able to manipulate the turns -->although I suspect this is the type of thing that you are encouraging

All in all, it sound like a reasonable idea, as long as turnaround times are decided beforehand to ensure the game can finish in less than 6 months.

Post by **Duke** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 8:48 am

Still say

(silly)

The reason for this is that I sense it will be more of a e-mail inferno then actual gameplay

Post by **Dameon** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:32 pm

Yeah I think this would just end up being a huge headache for the GM, and an even bigger one for the players if they had to keep submitting orders for the same turn. I have to agree with Duke that this idea is probably a little on the silly side.

Post by **gm_al** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:37 pm

How about a slight variation:

>>> "Parallel Travel" <<<

The GM does 2-3 Runs of a Turn, all with the same orders.

Players vote on which to take for good

Could be fun, and wouldnt delay games endlessly.

Post by **Duke** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:02 pm

It would still be a very long game.

<-- me at around turn 5.

How about sending things into the future.

For example moving 50 troops from prov.5 to prov.6 but they will appear two turns later. Between now and then they are nowhere.

Yes, the GM would go

but it would be fun for the players.

Flinging GCA's into orbit and make them hit ground three turns later. Would be fun if you forgot about them and signed a NAP two turns later and suddenly rememberd those 50 GCA's that is heading towards your ally faster than a speeding bullet (or?).

Post by **korexus** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:12 pm

Now we're getting closer to my idea of invading the previous turns.

It gets nasty. Very nasty, very quickly...

Still, I'm already at least halfway insane. Maybe I should become a GM and run it

Anything's better than algebra...

korexus.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Sat Jun 14, 2003 3:54 pm

Let's do the time warp again.....

Just to keep this thread alive, how about the following.

After running turn 01, the GM requests orders for both turns 02 and 03. He runs turn 02, sends the report and requests orders for turn 04. And so it goes.

This could rapidly get out of control and might lead to a long game as a player has to slow down every so often to get things under control. As an alternative, the GM runs two turns at a time. Since turn 01 is usually critical, I believe turn 01 should still be run by itself. The GM then requests orders for turns 02 and 03. The players will know the OOP for turn 02, but not 03. This game is a bit easier to keep under control, but missing a turn could be a killer since any defect in your economy would have two turns to cause damage. Only Kaomarians committed to getting orders in by the deadline need apply.

Post by **korexus** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 1:50 am

Or how about the opposite? A GM runs turn 0 and then takes orders from everyone in the first half of the OOP. Anyone in the second half is free to watch what the first group does before sending in their orders. Same goes for all the other turns with the extra player going into the first group when an odd number of people are about.

It would increase the luck factor of the OOP but (espeacially in a game where the order is predetermined) it could call for some new strategies...

OK, I really will shut up now!

korexus.

Post by **Egbert** » Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:46 pm

Bjorn wrote:Let's do the time warp again.....

Darn you, Bjorn --- you spoiled my opening quote for the map! But I guess it doesn't matter anyway, since it appears that this game would take just too long to run, as I believe Calidus pointed out. Oh well.

"It's just a jump to the left........"

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:23 am

Sorry Egbert, but I didnt post on this topic.

I DO kind of like the idea of having to do orders for more than one turn though. Granted, this will eat up some serious time with planning and diplomacy. If you REALLY wanted to give players nightmares, make them figure out there economies and strategic plans by playing three or four turns all at once. *shudders* I don't think even Nick could get that organized. *Shudders again*

Now, back to your original idea. Decide before the game starts when the turns will be re-run. (keeping it a secret, of course) (maybe like turns 3, 6, 9 etc) Players with a strong diplomatic background would still fare quite well, while those that plan less into the future would be in trouble.

It has been my experience around WOK that it is better to NOT let the players decide on a course of action for the game. With 10 players, you will have 10 opinions and someone will end up angry. It is better to set the guidelines that you as the GM want to see happen. (Much like the multitude of Xgames that Nick runs.) Nick usually has an idea of where he wants the game to go, then establishes his guidelines. (tenaria is an excellent example, I think)

I would try to play in a game like this if you were to get energetic and run it.

Duke's idea of sending troops into the future also has some nasty possibilities. Especially if you didnt have to pay them or feed them while they were away.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:40 am

The biggest problem with sending troops into the future is what happens when you are RIPed while they are away? are you REALLY gone or do you get reincarnated when your troops come roaring back and take 7 provinces for you? that could be interesting but it would make people wonder if someone was really dead or not. Send 200 Knights 4 turns into the future and see who they hit when they come back.better yet send them 10 turns into the future and see who is left when they come out of la-la land.

Al, I just noticed your message is that even possible? since the manager always puts the files in the same place it would always rewrite the data files and you would lose the early runnings of the turn wouldn't you?
I guess you would have to keep 3 copies of the manager in separate places then copy the correct files to run the next turn? nightmare for the GM I think. it would be interesting but I wouldn't run it if you paid me.

Post by **gm_al** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:33 am

The manager can do this. Just number the different versions of the Group as different Group numbers (Group#07, Group#08, Group#09 even if its not true) and save them in separate files.

Or use some different HD drive letter (if you have enough partitions).

Quite a few possibilities here.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:01 pm

I can see it now:

Dear players your GM can't seem to remember which version was which on his manager and can't find the right one so the game is officially over since all the data is now somewhere only a REAL computer geek can find it. So after running 22 turns and wasting 4 months of our time there is nothing to show for it.

Like I said: You couldn't pay me to run it.

Post by **Egbert** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 1:46 pm

Okay, how about this variation:

After each turn is run (and results are sent out), the GM flips a coin, and if it comes up tails, the turn doesn't count. The players can then submit new orders if they so choose.

This eliminates the time problem with having the players vote.

What'd'ya think?

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:02 pm

I think it would not only increase the luck factor of the game dramatically, it would also still give the GM lots of headaches. I'm staying far away from this one. BTW Eggy, what's up with you joining Mike 1? I thought you decided that WOK 5 games weren't efficient enough for you when it comes to VPs/time spent ratio?

Post by **Egbert** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:21 am

Dameon wrote:BTW Eggy, what's up with you joining Mike 1? I thought you decided that WOK 5 games weren't efficient enough for you when it comes to VPs/time spent ratio?

Yes, I know --- but it was a combination of things. TK was looking for someone to join him, and I was looking to try out a new strategy based upon the updated WOK5 engine. Until Mike's 1, I had not played in an updated WOK5 game (i.e., post-tribe changes and post-spell changes).

Unfortunately, because of my position in the game, I will not have a chance to try out my new strategy --- so you may see me in another WOK5 game down the road.

Post by **trewqh** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:20 pm

Egbert lived up to my expectations and after I posted about the VP average (I know this might not be the cause of his joining) he sent me an e-mail saying something like:

Egbert wrote:How can I resist TK, Dameon, and Massi all in 1 group?!!? Please sign me up!

trewqh