The Worlds of Kaomaris

Here is something to chew on.........

This issue came up in a recent game in which I am involved. Should a player be allowed to submit 2 alternative sets of orders --- 1 to be used if a fellow player submits a set of orders, and 1 to be used if a fellow player does not submit a set of orders.

As always, I have a predisposed opinion on this, but I do not feel strongly about it. I would like to hear what other people think.

I would think that its up to you, if you don't mind doing it.

Personally, I wouldn't. Too much hassle and if I used the wrong set, forget it.

I think that it is more a question of if the GM wants to bother with it.

I might have if it were in the mid or end game and around 5-6 players or less but not from the get go with 10 players. The risk of a re-run is obvious unless you are really sharp as a GM.

Dont remind me of all the crap I went through when I screwed up the re-run in my group 03. Dont want to be in that spot again.

D.

No way, Jose. It is probably due to my "Diplomacy" background, but I would be opposed to this. Part of writing orders is guessing what your opponents may or may not do. Allowing a player to submit a set of orders only to be used if an opponent misses the deadline confers an unfair advantage to that player. To me, there is little difference between saying "Use these orders if so-and-so submits no orders" or "Use these orders if so-and-so does NOT attack such-and-such province."

Yeah, I have to go along with Bjorn here. I you can actually plan a set of orders knowing it will only be used in case the opponent doesn't send in orders things would be very easy indeed and you would get a most unfair advantage.

Bjorn wrote:
No way, Jose. It is probably due to my "Diplomacy" background, but I would be opposed to this. Part of writing orders is guessing what your opponents may or may not do. Allowing a player to submit a set of orders only to be used if an opponent misses the deadline confers an unfair advantage to that player. To me, there is little difference between saying "Use these orders if so-and-so submits no orders" or "Use these orders if so-and-so does NOT attack such-and-such province."

You're right Bjorn, but Egbert did write about fellow players. So, I guess that if it's between clan mates or confirmed allies than it's ok. A GM can always ask the other player if he's ok with that. This gives you some kind of an advantage, but just to protect you if your ally is not very reliable. And on the other hand it's not that big of an advantage because any player can do it, since there are usually a lot of alliances throughout the game. I mean that when a GM agrees to something like that, he'll have to agree to accept any other player's double orders.

As said Duke,(if it concerns fellow players) it's up to the GM.

trewqh

As a GM I've never actually had a player try and do this. In any case, I don't think I would allow it. From a player's standpoint, I wouldn't write my orders depending on anybody to send in their own unless I trusted them implicitly and they have proved themselves in the past. For orders to be dependent on each other indicates a fairly high degree of cooperation, and if a player chooses to put that much trust in somebody then they are going to have the accept the consequences if that player doesn't send in orders. 99% of the time that happens the player who didn't send orders in is probably at fault, because at the very least if he is having problems meeting the deadline he can take a minute to get an extension.

I think it's a no-no. Like Bjorn said, half of the game is predicting what other players will do, allies included. I think it gives a player an unfair advantage if they send in two sets of orders.

My vote is NO!

Some player use missing a turn here and there as a stratagy (Spelling?) to fool players on their plans.

My thoughts at least.

-Raw

I want to underline that I'm arguing about double orders when it concerns clan-mates or confirmed allies!

So, how about a situation like this:

There are two clan-mates in a game (lets call them players: A & B) and they've discussed a plan for an upcoming turn.
It's about (lets say) 48 hours until the deadline when player A sends in orders that follow the plan.
Suddenly , player A notices that player B stopped responding to e-mails and statrs worring that the plan might not work out if player B misses the deadline.
So, he cross-posts to both the GM and player B to ask if player be sent in his orders.

I ask: What's wrong with the GM telling player A if player B (his clan-mate) sent in his orders?

If the GM tells player A that player B didn't send in orders then A will send in a new set of orders (which I think most GM's wouldn't have a problem with, thanks BR for reminding this one).
And if the GM says B has sent in orders then nothing happens and everyone's happy.

Some might say that it's different from sending in two sets of orders but actually A could attach the new set of orders to the mail with the question and add:'If the answer is No then please use these new orders'. Also he could send the question with the new orders 5 minutes before the dealine...

trewqh

Raw wrote:My thoughts at least.

I just wanted to point out that everyone might want to duck & cover. Raw is having ... thoughts.

This hasn't been seen before, so we're just not sure what to expect ...

-Bryk

Brykovian wrote:I just wanted to point out that everyone might want to duck & cover. Raw is having ... thoughts.

This hasn't been seen before, so we're just not sure what to expect ...

-Bryk

That's right Brykovian, you Scholars should better duck & cover because the plan that allowed the Clan Champs to be as they are (3:0 for the BoV after turn 6 ) was greatly influenced by Raw's thoughts.

trewqh

trewqh wrote: That's right Brykovian, you Scholars should better duck & cover because the plan that allowed the Clan Champs to be as they are (3:0 for the BoV after turn 6 ) was greatly influenced by Raw's thoughts.

trewqh

Don't we know it.

Raw was a thorn in my side from turn 1.

I've never seen anyone do so well by doing _nothing_ for so long, not in WOK or any other game I've played!


korexus.

Korexus,

You should see me at work then !

-Raw

OK you 2 one of you needs to change your avatar because I have to look too closely to tell which is which. I usually just see the avatar out of the corner of my eye while reading so I know who is saying what now I have to actual;ly read the names.

.... I had it first .

-Raw

Raw wrote:I had it first

So it's my turn now.


Right?

korexus. (Signed espeacially for Underdog, so he doesn't have to look at the side!)

Raw wrote:You should see me at work then !
-Raw

dangnabbit -- he beat me to it!! (I *have* seen him at work and all I can say is that he's learned that technique from the best!! )

BTW, Trewq ... Raw is a pal of mine -- so my comment was more of taking advantage of an opportunity to pick on him than any comment on how he plays the game. He already knows that I recognize him as a far superior WOKer than I ...

-Bryk

Brykovian wrote:Trewq ... Raw is a pal of mine -- so my comment was more of taking advantage of an opportunity to pick on him than any comment on how he plays the game.

That's what I thought but I used the opportunity to draw everybodies attention to the clan champs where the Brotherhood kicks the (hmmm...) excrements ( ) out of you, Scholars. (Actually, I haven't issued a single attacking order against anyone excluding neutrals but it still might happen some time soon )

trewqh