Standard Wok: 2-player "Duel" !!

[Hannibal]

Hi folks,

Well, things seem pretty slow at the moment. Well done Tyler, Duke etc. for opening games, but no game has actually started for months?

Veterans must be desperate for a game .... or else about to desert?

OK, here's an idea that doesn't have to wait for 8-10 sign-ups before it can start.

It's a two-player version of standard Wok, just to fill in the time, and to sharpen those tactical skills, till a proper game starts up. It's in no way a "rival" to the main 10-player game, which has all that diplomacy and such; it's just a filler. And the new online version makes it easy to run such a one without diverting energy away from the main form of the game. So pls don't comment whether it is good instead of the usual game, it is only an optional extra to fill in the time between real games, OK?

I'll GM it myself. I need the practice before I risk bringing in 30-40 new players to try WoK under my GM'ing (see other threasd on WoK and its future).

OK. "2-player version" and "Duel"?? Yep. The idea is that each of two players takes 3 slots each of the usual 10 available, using up 6 slots. Each player controls 3 slots/players. Eg, Cal 1, Cal 2, Cal 3 versus Duk 1, Duk 2, Duk 3 ... with slots 7,8,9,10 being "auto-players" rather than just neutrals (see later).

Essentially, Cal and Duk just play 3 positions each, against each other. But with a twist or two to make it more interesting and complex ..... Cal 1 and Duk 1 are napped!! Till end Turn 6. And Cal 2 and Duk 2 are napped till end Turn 8. And Cal 3 and Duk 3 are napped till end Turn 10. No renogotiating (no diplomacy at all), the naps just complicate your options and opportunities, and run out when the rules say ...... so you'd better use attacking-through while you can (so must your opponent), and figure out how best to gain the advantage without breaking your naps! (Breaking your nap is not an option - the GM cancels any attacks/moves/spyings that break a nap!). So it becomes very tactical and one-on-one ........

Eg: can I shield my Cal 2 with my still-napped Cal 3, so that he can't attack out to my Cal 2 ? Then can I attack through .....? Quite a challenge.

You might put one of your 3 players on sleeping/lev, while another goes for Tech, and the other is taking neutrals ...... hmm, your choice .... I'm sure there IS an optimum way of playing, but what is it? And can Eg, Cal or Duk work it out first and make it work?!!?

Oh, and a twist: All the 50 neutrals work as normal, yes, but what about the 4 "player-slots" that were left over? Hmmm. Worth experimenting. For the first game(s), I reckon they DO something rather than just sit there. Something predictable, so that the 2 players can and should take it into account ..... I reckon that each of the 4 "non-player-slots" does as follows: Each turn, it attacks ONE neutral, only one, an adjacent one, lowest prov no. if equal, with all available armies. If it succeeds, it transforms max Pop to armies, moves 5 armies back to where it attacked from, and sets aim in the captured prov to missiles. It never fires them. Next turn, it does the same, from the captured prov, or (if that had failed), does the same from the prov that previously attacked .... SO, these "neutrals-but-starting-players" are kinda active, not just neutrals ... but in ways the 2 players can easily take into account if they care to.

Sound like a game?

Just to amuse players in the interim while they wait for a real game to finally start. Or it could turn out to be a good way of enthusing and practising new players (new against new), when they arrive, impatient, but there's no game starting ....

OK. Sign up here. I only need two takers. I won't put a veteran against a newbie. Just for fun and practice and to fill in ....

Cheers,
Han

[korexus]

Sounds like a great idea Han, we talked about this way back when devolping WoK-On, but the idea fell by the wayside. A few points for you to consider;


1) I am unsure what will happen if multiple slots are taken by the same player. It may be that everything works fine, but I have a nagging feeling that players will only be able to view one turn report. If you like, the two of us can set up a 'mock' duel to see what happens and iron out any problems. Email me.

2) It's possible for your semi-neutral players to back themselves into a corner (always going for the lowest possible neighbour) this is not necessarily a problem, but you may want to bear it in mind when deciding the details of the strategy they will use.

3) Manually editting the orders is a pain. I know your keen enough to do it, but I thought I should warn you. (I had to go through each player's orders for my 10 kingdoms game and the rules governing what people could do were less complicated there.)

4) A WoK-On map does not have to have 60 provinces. Or rather, the ini file has to *think* it has 60 provinces but if 20 of them have no neighbours and don't show up on the map, the game will run as though you had a map of 40 provinces. I just thought I'd throw that in in case you'd put in the extra players so the map wasn't too empty.

5) Probably obvious, but a game like this shouldn't be for VPs...


Should be a lot of fun though, great idea!


korexus.

[Hannibal]

Sounds like a great idea Han, we talked about this way back when devolping WoK-On, but the idea fell by the wayside. A few points for you to consider;


1) I am unsure what will happen if multiple slots are taken by the same player. It may be that everything works fine, but I have a nagging feeling that players will only be able to view one turn report.

Good point. Yes, we could just TRY it and see, but if you think that will be a problem, can you see a way round it before we start? If the game engine relies on a list of acceptable players, can we not just have a second section to that list, for players of "Duel", with Duk1, Duk2,Duk3,Cal1.Cal2,Cal3 etc. all as separate players, so that the game engine will accept them? Or maybe, once again, you have a neater idea?

Han

[Hannibal]

If you like, the two of us can set up a 'mock' duel to see what happens and iron out any problems. Email me.

That could be great .... except that I think "Duel" actually needs a GM (to input the orders for the semi-neutrals, and to cancel accidental breaks of the pre-defined naps). And it would make sense for the GM to be either me (I need to get the hang of GM'ing on the new system before I invite lots of friends to play), or you (so you could see and iron out the bugs). So we need a third interested party, to play you or me in a beta-test, while you or I GM it.

The problem is that maybe there are only 3-4 of us reading the thread, to hear about it ?...... (I can't blame them - I was mostly away from reading the boards for a year myself).

So maybe you or I should email some players who don't keep up with the boards? Maybe some would fancy it enough to come back to the fold? Either because it's not the same-old-scenario, or because they like the idea that their skills would not be wasted by alliances, naps and M-3's that they have no control over .... Where is the Members List these days?!

Han

[Hannibal]

2) It's possible for your semi-neutral players to back themselves into a corner (always going for the lowest possible neighbour) this is not necessarily a problem, but you may want to bear it in mind when deciding the details of the strategy they will use.

I see what you mean. You're right. I'd prefer the neutrals not to go into a cul-de-sac.

I still like the idea of HAVING these 4 extra player-slots played by auto-players who do predictable things that you have to take into account, rather than reducing them to ordinary neutrals, or making the map smaller. Added dimension for skill and planning.

But I hadn't given all that much thought to the auto-rules governing what these semi-neutrals do each turn. (See first post for first idea for them).

So, let me throw it open to ALL our readers (!) ..... we welcome suggestions for the rules that govern what the 4 semi-neutrals do each turn (the 4 "player-slots" that are not taken by the 2 players, yet start with the start-stuff of a player). Once devised, it should be a rule that each semi-neutral HAS to follow (not the whim of the GM), so that the two players can work around what they'll be doing ..... Any ideas?

Han

[Hannibal]

3) Manually editting the orders is a pain. I know your keen enough to do it, but I thought I should warn you. (I had to go through each player's orders for my 10 kingdoms game and the rules governing what people could do were less complicated there.)

I take your warning. I can't see a way round it? I'm keen on my ingredient of standing-naps that the players have to work around, attack through etc., so that it's NOT simply a 3-on-3 fight, but has more tactics to it. Hence Cal1 and Duk1 being napped till end T6, Cal2 and Duk2 till end T8 etc.

Now, I'm sure it's theoretically possible for you to code up the engine specially for "Duel" to void any orders that break those nap rules, but I'm not sure it would be worth your time? So the GM has to police it? And be able to step in before the turn auto-runs? Or are you telling me that it would actually be easier for you to code in these rules that would void nap-breaking orders than it would be for you to code in a "pause" for the GM to check/cancel orders before the auto-GM runs the turn? Your pick ....if either is possible. But I want to keep the dimension of auotomatic naps you are not allowed to violate.

Han

[Hannibal]

5) Probably obvious, but a game like this shouldn't be for VPs...

No, I never intended it to be for VP's. I must have missed that box. It looks like you've corrected it to "not for Vp's" now, great.

I tried to go back to game-set-up to alter this, but could not find my way there! I see the panel where I can update players playing, name of game, all the first-line stuff, or where I can start a whole new game, but I cannot see my way to a screen that lets me change the parameters, or whether it's for VP's or not, once I've started the game. Nor, indeed, to cancel the game. Can you steer me right?

But, come to think of it now, why shouldn't the "Duel" game (after testing) be worth a VP? Why not? Hey, that strange offshoot "Advanced Wok" (Accountancy For Fun) gets VP's, no problem, so why shouldn't this?! (I agree the early testing should not have VP's, and don't really care whether "Duel" eventually has VP's or not).

Han

[korexus]

He he, avoiding long posts by make a load of short ones doesn't work if no one replies between them...

In order then.

1) I've checked and as things stand a player will get three links to turn reports in the Lobby but each one will point to the report for the lowest player number. I can fix that though, and I think that would be better than adding multiple player accounts (it'd look messy and players would have to log in and out to see each report)

2) If you're testing a game, there's no reason why the GM can't play.

3) I'll have a little think about viable strategies.

4) I could code in the no NAP breaking things, but I'm not going to. Not unless someone starts paying me anyway! However, you already have a pause button so that's the easiest way forwards, I was just mentioning the time investment on your part. (Something which has been pretty much eliminated since WoK-On came along)

5) a) At present there is no interface for changing the game constants after the game is set up. There's no reason why I couldn't add one, I just never thought to put it in in the first place. The current method is to drop me an email and I do it manually. If that happens often enough I'll make the interface...

5) b) This game is considerably easier to win than Standard WoK. If it works then we can bang out some system to it and add it as a third game no problem, but until then I think it's best left as no VPs.


Chris.

[trewqh]

Hey, that's one good thread to make a comeback in!

Long time no see, a couple of unanswered e-mails wait in the mailbox, but the need for a WOK game is back.

I remember when you mentioned this idea a while back, Han, and I'm interested!

Also here are some my ideas/suggestions:
1) Is it possible to create multiple accounts with one computer/one IP number? If the answer is 'Yes' then players could create additional accounts for the sake of this test game (Duk1, Duk2 and so on)

2) I will gladly help test this game!

3) How about adding a small random element to Han's algorithm? For example making the neutrals attack either the province with the lowest or the highest number (GM tosses a coin, players trust their GM ) Neutrals with such a (small) random element would be more fun to play against than neutrals with a very restricting agorithm.

4) Doesn't the GM have the option to run the turn and not 'publish' it in case something bad happens? Hmm, then again, such an option might lead to abuse, so I suppose it's not possible. Anyway this could make the GMs work easier in this game.\

5) If this game proves to work well and becomes popular then I think it would be nice to have it as a separate variant.

Looking forward to contining this discussion and to playing some WOK,
trewqh

[korexus]

Welcome back, Kermit!

It is possible to create multiple accounts, but I would far rather fix the problem than patch over it like that.

The turn is updated immediately, so no. The GM doesn't get to decide whether or not to publish a turn. This could be done I guess but there's not much to be gained by it.

Everything else looked directed at Han, so I'll let him field them.


Chris.

[Hannibal]

He he, avoiding long posts by make a load of short ones doesn't work if no one replies between them...

Haha. You saw through me. But look at my idea #3 on the General/"WOK and its future" thread .... it's not my fault if others don't post in-between; there was lots that they COULD comment on ....?

Han

[Hannibal]

1) I've checked and as things stand a player will get three links to turn reports in the Lobby but each one will point to the report for the lowest player number. I can fix that though, and I think that would be better than adding multiple player accounts (it'd look messy and players would have to log in and out to see each report)

Agreed. Fix it your way, pls.

2) If you're testing a game, there's no reason why the GM can't play.

Der ... yes there is? Motivation for the other guy?! But why compromise like that, if all it takes is a third volunteer (with the bonus of a third view on the test-learnings).

3) I'll have a little think about viable strategies.

I should hope so! Oh, you mean for the semi-neutrals rather than for yourself as tester?!

4) I could code in the no NAP breaking things, but I'm not going to. Not unless someone starts paying me anyway! However, you already have a pause button so that's the easiest way forwards, I was just mentioning the time investment on your part. (Something which has been pretty much eliminated since WoK-On came along)

Agreed. I did say myself that I didn't think it would be worth the hassle of you coding it, hence the need for the GM to police it.

5) a) At present there is no interface for changing the game constants after the game is set up. There's no reason why I couldn't add one, I just never thought to put it in in the first place. The current method is to drop me an email and I do it manually. If that happens often enough I'll make the interface...

Understood. Agreed. Pls change back to 0.005 Lev produced per turn per 4 workers, but apply my limit of 100 workers per prov, plus a limit of 100 armies per prov. That should allow valuable short-term lev-boosts but without making it such an attractive long-term strategy. - aka "sleeping"! (and boring everyone else away from playing).

5) b) This game is considerably easier to win than Standard WoK. If it works then we can bang out some system to it and add it as a third game no problem, but until then I think it's best left as no VPs.

As I said, I don't mind too much if "Duel" never gets VP's (and we might can it anyway after trying it), but ... can you explain your reasoning why, later, once tested, it would not be worth VP's?! Bear in mind that it would be ONE VP for the win, so automatically less than for Standard and Crazy WoK ....

Han

[Hannibal]

3) How about adding a small random element to Han's algorithm? For example making the neutrals attack either the province with the lowest or the highest number (GM tosses a coin, players trust their GM ) Neutrals with such a (small) random element would be more fun to play against than neutrals with a very restricting agorithm.

Hey, welcome back, Trewqh! Seems like we both took about a year off.

Hmmm. Delighted to have you make it 3 of us testing it. Really happy. But not sure about this point: nice option, but I'd prefer it to be an algorithm/rule that the 2 players can take into account if they're thoughtful enough - there's enough luck in start/OOP/missiling and combat already; this is an added dimension of "skill"? So, I don't care if the algo leads the neutral to a cul-de-sac; it is up to the two players to pre-plan for that .....

OK. looks like we have the requisite 3.

I fancy GM'ing, as it's my invemtion, and gives me GM practice for the players I could bring in to try Standard Wok. So I'll GM the beta-test of Kor v. Trewqh. Then the loser GM's me against the winner, still as beta-test. Then we open it up. OK?

So, Kor pls alter the parameters. Then tell me how to issue Turn #00 reports to each of you ......

Cheers,
Han

[trewqh]

Your algorithm does indeed eliminate the additional random element making the semi-neutrals easier to fight - can't complain about that. Still, I would find it entertaining if there was this little luck element in this aspect of the Duel game. Anyway, let's do it your way.

So I'll GM the beta-test of Kor v. Trewqh. Then the loser GM's me against the winner, still as beta-test. Then we open it up. OK?

Sounds fair and I'm up for it!

trewqh

[Hannibal]

1) I've checked and as things stand a player will get three links to turn reports in the Lobby but each one will point to the report for the lowest player number. I can fix that though, and I think that would be better than adding multiple player accounts (it'd look messy and players would have to log in and out to see each report)

Agreed. Fix it your way, pls.

Kor, just a minor tweak? However you sort it, can we end up with KorexusA, KorexusB, KorexusC, rather than Korexus1, Korexus2, Korexus3. I thought that otherwise there would just be too many numbers in the commentary, unnecessarily; and I've now written up the rules, in "Houserules", using A, B and C.

Also, to give the "semi-neutrals" names ..... I've gone for calling them, in the player-slots, Brown, Red, Dark Green and Dark Blue. Makes it easy to follow, and reserves the lighter colours for the humans, in cast they like to scribble their stats on the map. So, we need to enable these 4 as player-names? Or however else you think to sort it?

Let me know when you get that far so that I can put the game in motion? No hurry, I know you have a lot on your plate, carrying the whole of WoK on your slender shoulders ....

Cheers,
Han

[korexus]

Links to turn reports and SAOF from the top of the Lobby now work. The button on the game page doesn't yet, if we make this a game type I'll re-cdoe that bit too.

You already had WOKMax as 100, I set ARMMax to 100 and LEV/ARM as 0.00125 (not quite what you asked for as LEV is produced continuously, not in discrete chunks like missiles.)

When you add a player to the game, you select who you want from a list. This autofills the next box, which holds the name. However, you can type a different name in there should you wish - so you can do your own korexusA, trewqhB or whatever (I see you've already worked that out). I'd recommend for the purposes of playtesting that you enter the autogm as playing the 4 neutrals, currently they're set as playerid0 and I have no idea if their orders will be processed. You'll still have to enter the orders of course, but that's the easiest way of having them treated as players.

As for VPs, I don't have an objection to the idea of the game type being for VPs, but I htink this is different enough to count as a variant in its own right. So VPs from this wouldn't count towards Standard WoK HiScore. - Hey, we could even have a WoK: Duel HiScore and have the top 8 play off against each other every year, but that may be getting ahead of ourselves...

So, I say set up trewqh and me, and see what happens. Probably best to pause straight after running turn 0 as I've almost certainly forgotten something. If you like I can add a line to the engine which autopauses this game after every turn, just to make sure we don't lose track.

We should probably stick with your idea for robot players this game, I have a few ideas, but once we've seen what happens this way we can discuss changes. It might be easier to read what was going on though, each player and the robots were in blocks. - As it stands, my info is easy to read, but trewqh and the robots are mixed up together...

Also, I just looked at your houserules; type what you want in as html code so <br> for line breaks, etc. then it might look a little nicer.


Think that's everything, for now!


Chris.

[trewqh]

I don't mind playing brown, orange and red.

trewqh

[trewqh]

OK, the initial setup brought a question up right after I saw it:

Can I headhunt starting provinces of my alteregos?

trewqh

[trewqh]

One more thing:

Since there are only two players involved - I think we could allow the players to vote after turn 0 whether they like their starting provinces. That would eliminate the risk of one player having a lucky 'georaphical' advantage.

It would work like this - after turn 0 both players e-mail their GM with a message ('Yes' or 'No') regarding whether their starting position suits them. If both players say 'Yes' the game proceeds, if either says 'No' the GM reruns turn 0.

I think players will realise that voting 'No' to potentially disadvantage the opposing player is pointless since the opposing player will never agree to a disadvantaged position. So this system would not stall the game.

How do you like it?

trewqh

[Hannibal]

OK, the initial setup brought a question up right after I saw it:

Can I headhunt starting provinces of my alteregos?

trewqh

OK, yes, why not?! Mind you, I'll be amazed if it is ever worth your while on Turn #01 !! - you have no missiles or spies, so the headhunting would be an attack ..... before any transforms ..... so you'd immediately lose 20% of the Pop and workers you had there .... But, if it throws your opponent into thinking you are an unpredictable madman, it just might work to your advantage in the long run. (Trewqh, no need, you already enjoy that advantage without having to reinforce it on turn 1 of each game ......)

Han