Change some Standard WOK rules?

[Hannibal]

Well, if I'm going to get some new players into here, I think we better first see if we want to change any of the rules. I mean for Standard WOK, not just Duel. And I mean the "normal" rules, before GM's depart from them with their own Houserules.

Rolling your eyes?!

Well, the main one I'd propose:

No attacking any player's starting-province for the first TWO turns, not just one.

It never happened to me, but I always thought it sad when someone signs up, possibly their first game, looks forward to the game, works out how to put orders in for one turn, ... and then gets RIPped early in Turn 2 before even their second set of orders take effect

Now, we can't give newbies a free pass, but if nobody can take anybody's start-prov for TWO turns, they'll at least GET two turns, and hopefully even be able to fire off one round of missiles before the attacks on Turn 3, at least a BIT of fun.

And they might get into new diplomacy after a bad start on Turn 1, since they'll still be around at least one more turn...

I worry that half our new arrivals will have SUCH a short game that they can't see why it's ever fun. Doubling their turns from one to two (plus missiles) might help a bit? Why not?

[korexus]

We could make the headhunting turn a GM option (headhunting can be allowed after all...)

Bear in mind that HH changes can effect attacks, spies and missiles (I forgot this bit in my last duel!)

Cast your votes now!

[trewqh]

It's true that newbies often have a hard time in this 10-player game of ours. I, personally, try to protect newbies in the games I am in (I was really hoping to start nearer Kikkertje in the WoK game running currently), but amending the rules so that 'newbie protection'(but also veterans who get a poor starting position) is somehow formalized and enforced will have a positive effect on newbies.

What I particularly like about this idea (and I did see it work well in Duel already) is that it prevents eliminating a player completely without too much effort on turn 2 (a tactics I exploited a lot in the past ), that should make a game more interesting even when it involves no newbies.

Us three, being the only active GMs, can agree to make it default for GM Houserules and when at some point maybe there are more GMs we can strongly recommend it to themas well, especially when the game involves newbies.

[Kikkertje]

Aww thats sweet of you =)

Suggestion: Make starting population equal. I dont see a reason why it should be randomly different.

[korexus]

Aww thats sweet of you =)

Suggestion: Make starting population equal. I dont see a reason why it should be randomly different.

Because it makes life far more fun. Certain provinces become more attractive to players because of the higher POP, so do you take a risk and reach out for province 39 or do you play safe and grab three which border your home? - And what do your opponents think you're going to do?

[Kikkertje]

I meant the pop for your starting province...

[korexus]

Hmm, because the province POPs are set before the starting provinces are chosen. GMs have run games in the past in which the POP is evened out for players' homes, to make it fairer. However, if the POP near the homes still varies then the game isn't much fairer, and if it doesn't the game is more boring.

Tell you what, next game I open, I'll choose a map which is quite balanced. Just for you!

Chris.

[Kikkertje]

The more randomness in a game, the less strategic it becomes and the more luck based.
Neutral provs can have random pop, as long as there arent really fat spots in one site of the map and poor spots in another one. For starting provs i felt it would be fair if they had the same starting conditions.

But maybe I just am commenting on irrelevant things, I'm only around for 4 turns now. Current round I had 88 pop while someone else started with 120 pop, and i felt that wasnt fair.

Just to voice my opinion. But I guess you know what's best for the game, so... =)

[korexus]

It can be a problem in a specific game, it sounds like you got a fairly raw deal this time, maybe next game you'll be luckier.

You're right to an extent that randomness reduces strategy, but they effective use of good luck or damage reduction of bad luck gives more opportunity to use the strategy. - Stops the game being such a forgone conclusion...

BTW, don't be afraid to call out your thoughts. We're making a big effort right now to make the game more friendly to new players. I can't promise to give you everything you ask for, but the more suggestions I have to pick from, the busier I can pretend to be!


Chris.

[trewqh]

With equal amounts of POP in your starting province you'd fall in the routine of doing the same thing with those POP each time you start a game. And when you have a different amount each time you have to figure out how to use them for the best. I wouldn't like to see WoK becoming a routine rather than the brain exercise it is now.

Thanks for the input though!

[Hannibal]

I agree with kikkerje, for one key reason.

Y'see, it doesn't actually make much difference at all ... the start pop being 80 or 120 in your start-prov. By the time you have done diplomacy, and captured 2 or 3 neutrals, with a couple hundred POP to transform there, and decide whether to go for the higher-pop neutrals or the loweer-pop ones to be safer .... the difference is surely barely significant - at least compared with the luck-factor of whether you take your 3 neutrals or fail at the second or third one ...

BUT: it LOOKS unfair, to a new player. So they can start off thinking they got a raw deal, or lose out and blame it on that; or feel it's a game of luck. How are they gonna know that the difference matters very little? We're gonna explain it every time? Even when they don't ask, but just think it? And go away?

IMHO, even though it really makes little difference (compared to other things), we ought to make start-provs have equal POPs, so that new players see it as fair. Should be easy? A start-prov automatically gets 100 POP? I think we ALL agree that varied POP levels across neutrals make life more interesting and skillful, but for start-provs? Kor?

[Hannibal]

We could make the headhunting turn a GM option (headhunting can be allowed after all...)

Nice compromise, but we could say that about EVERY suggestion for a rule-change; and then we forget them as the thread grows cold, and the "default" stays as now.

After all, after your brilliant programming to allow GM's access to change almost ANY variable in the game, EVERYTHING is a GM option. I'm saying it DOES matter what we set as the default rules, which will usually apply, and THEN GM's can depart from them. Rather than GM's having to remember that they are "supposed" to depart from them on headhunting ...?

Bear in mind that HH changes can effect attacks, spies and missiles (I forgot this bit in my last duel!)

Cast your votes now!

And I'd say, my vote, that it is a PLUS that it would also mean no spying on start-provs for the whole first two turns. It becomes a bit, er, routine on turn 1 to just spy on the start-provs of people you are not napped with - you know they're there; you can even do several to knock their EFF. It would be more SKILLFUL (as in Duel) if you have to best-guess where they'll be by the end of the turn, so that your spying is rewarded if you are right, misses if you are wrong, instead of being routine and easy.

Han

[trewqh]

Nice compromise, but we could say that about EVERY suggestion for a rule-change; and then we forget them as the thread grows cold, and the "default" stays as now.

After all, after your brilliant programming to allow GM's access to change almost ANY variable in the game, EVERYTHING is a GM option. I'm saying it DOES matter what we set as the default rules, which will usually apply, and THEN GM's can depart from them. Rather than GM's having to remember that they are "supposed" to depart from them on headhunting ...?

I agree with Han. I remember when a few years back the current headhunting definition was being discussed. Oficially, the choice was left to the GM to allow or disallow headhunting (actually it works that way to this day), but in fact very little in any games have allowed headhunting since then as the community learned that this rule makes the game less luck dependent, thus fairer and more challenging.
I think the same thing would happen now, so Han's idea is an improvement that should simply replace the default. I don't mind leaving a backdoor for X-games and such by making it an option, though.

[korexus]

Ok, I think this can be done fairly easily.

Currently, when setting up a game, a GM has three (unselected) checkboxes for allowing headhunting with missiles, attacks and spies.

If I change them to text boxes, we can allow the GM to input whatever turn number he wishes for each (default can be set by putting that value in the form to start with). The houserules will then read No headhunting with missiles before turn XX etc. The turn reports will need to be similarly updated for when a player accidentally enters these orders.

Now: My question. Which is clearer, "No headhunting before" or "No headhunting until"? ie if a GM wants 2 turns of safety for all players is he going to be entering a 2 or a 3, I would guess 2 but it pays to make these things obvious...


Chris.

[trewqh]

How about:
No attacking starting provinces before (I prefer before)
No missiling starting provinces before
No spying on starting provinces before

I can't remember right now whether we have headhunting explained anywhere in the manual, but what I suggest is self-explanatory I think, so it will prevent questions more likely than saying only headhunting.

[Hannibal]

IMHO, the very clearest wording would be " ... until after the end of Turn x" Rather than "...before Turn Y", or "...until Turn Y".

e.g. "No attacking, missiling, or spying-operations on any of the 10 starting-provs until after the end of Turn 2". Very clear?

I agree that "no headhunting" is a poor phrase, unknown to most people. It certainly meant nothing to me when I arrived! Anyone know where it came from??

And ! realise that "no ...missiling... " is technically redundant. You have no missiles to fire on Turn 1 , OR on Turn 2. But it works. It connotes that you can do NOTHING against start-provs. And saves some dumb questions as to whether missiles are included or excluded from the ban!

[trewqh]

Sorry, but being a non-native English speaker, I can't say that 'until after the end of' (which contains three 'time cues') is clear at first glance, but it's defenitely more precise.

I do now see how (with 'before') a player submitting orders for turn 2 might think he is restricted since turn 2 hasn't run yet, so it's still "before turn 2".

Hmmm. How about "until after turn x has run"?

This way we can do away with that vague "end of turn" part. The running of a turn as a reference point is closer to reality. I mean, it's often confusing whether a period of time between the running of some two turns is a part of the upcoming turn or the previous one. Which turn is 'this turn' and which is the 'next turn'...? I know we usually manage to communicate intuitively (or by clearly stating we mean turn x) but it is confusing sometimes, whereas the running of a turn (a point in time) is more 'palpable'

[Hannibal]

So we've gone from a choice between:
"No xyz before Turn 3" or "No xyz until Turn 3"

to my: "No xyz until after end of Turn 2"

to trewqh's "No xyz until Turn 2 has run".

I like Trewqh's, it's better than mine.

Han