The RULES of DUEL

Talk about the two player Standard WoK variant

Moderators: trewqh, korexus, Hannibal

Post Reply
User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

The RULES of DUEL

Post by Hannibal » Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:57 pm

I'd better update/edit this, as at 26/10/07.

Duel is a two-player variant of the main, Standard WOK 10-player game. There are two versions of Duel: Full Duel, where each of the two players controls 3 slots/colours, and Duel-Lite, where each of the two players controls 2 slots/colours.

Duels use all the units and rules of Standard WoK, but with extra rules overlaying them as well.

So, you have to already know, or read, the rules for Standard WOK first (click on Standard WoK Rules in the top-left menu box),and then see how DUEL overlays extra stuff on those rules, by clicking on WoK Duel Rules in the same menu box top left.

Those WOK Duel Rules contain the Rules for Full Duel, then the Rules for Duel-Lite, then tips for GM's of Duels.

For any players new to WOK, I'd suggest you probably need to play a normal game of 10-player Standard WOK before you try Duel. That way, you get the hang of the rules whilst only playing one slot/colour, before you can tackle playing 2 or 3 colours at once in a Duel. But, if two newbies want to both try a Duel at the same time, both learning as they go, then OK.

Hannibal
Last edited by Hannibal on Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

Hryllantre
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Le Bas Coreil

Post by Hryllantre » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:35 pm

Having read all the rules to the Duel games I need clarification on one point as I cannot find it anywhere.

Orders Form - Does 1 form have to have all 3 of your provinces orders on it as I have submitted mine for HryA. When I click on the second (look below) line it sends me back to HryA...

GM_Chris's - Duel #05 Suburbia. Turn #0, next turn due in 50 hours and 43 minutes
Submit orders (Orders Received!) ---- (I click on here and it shows me HryA)...
View Turn Report

GM_Chris's - Duel #05 Suburbia. Turn #0, next turn due in 50 hours and 43 minutes
Submit orders (Orders Received!) ---- (I click on here and again HryA)...
View Turn Report

GM_Chris's - Duel #05 Suburbia. Turn #0, next turn due in 50 hours and 43 minutes
Submit orders (Orders Received!) ---- (Same again)...
View Turn Report

-----

I cannot see what I have available in my provinces for HryB and HryC as it always shows me HryA no matter what I press...

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:40 pm

dangnabbit, I thought I'd fixed that bug. Certainly people managed to input orders up until recently.

When I get home, (about 6:30) I'll hijack your place and see if I can fix it. One thing which may work while you're waiting is to manually change the player number in the link. (Don't bother trying to peek at Han's stuff that way, I already thought of that! :P )


Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

Hryllantre
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Le Bas Coreil

Post by Hryllantre » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:48 pm

Although it does say that Orders have been submitted for all 3 provinces even though only 1 set has been inputted, I can now input my orders for my 2nd and 3rd provinces...

My mistake

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:41 am

Not entirely. The links are useless and the text misleading. I'm sure they used to work... (Han, trewqh, care to back me up here, or am I going mad?)

Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:57 pm

Ok, it's not as bad as I was thinking. The links *do* work, so there's nothing wrong with the coding.

Can you confirm that the message said orders received for all three spots, even when you'd only entered one set? - If so, that'll need fixing...


Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

Hryllantre
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Le Bas Coreil

Post by Hryllantre » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:29 pm

My post above confirms the position of events after only HryA's orders we're sent in. That was why I queried whether or not it was only one set for all three players.

Hryllantre
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Le Bas Coreil

Post by Hryllantre » Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:06 pm

Any news on when the next turn will be!

Christmas is approaching and my present to Han was a 50% record...

Sorry to spoil your surprise...

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:31 pm

Fixed the bit about orders. You can now see for each player if orders have been sent or not.

Also, I think the game will now run automatically, - provided both players indicate on the game page that they are ready.

The game should therefore run as soon as Han is finished doing orders.


Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:40 am

korexus wrote:Not entirely. The links are useless and the text misleading. I'm sure they used to work... (Han, trewqh, care to back me up here, or am I going mad?)
I remember such a thing did happen to me at some point as well, but you did fix it for me then.

Automatic Duel? Neat! :2thumbs:

User avatar
Egbert
Commander
Commander
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Scholars' Library (dusty section)
Contact:

Post by Egbert » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:34 pm

I just finished playing my first game of WOK Duel, and it is a great game. Nice job, Mr. Roscow. No diplomacy, pure strategy, and controlling more than 1 army is a lot of fun.

I do have some comments, which you may want to consider:

1. If you want the robots to simulate other players, then I think it would be more realistic to have the robots attack a random province rather than a preset number. That way, players neighboring them will have to defend themselves better, and cannot just "scoot" around them. You can still have the robot rules regarding which provinces it will prefer to attack first (neutrals and live players).

2. I am not sure why there is a rule that you can win if you knock your opponent down to 1 color --- why don't you have to RIP him? Is it just to save time?

The first comment would also apply to duel-lite, but I have not played that one yet.

Also, since these games are 1-on-1, this is a perfect setup for an elimination tournament (I think you tried to set one up in Duel-Lite, but I am not sure if you did that). We can take a bunch of players, randomly assign them into games, and have a fun tournament. :)

I also think WOK Duel or Duel-lite may be more appealing to new players, since you can get started right away and don't have to wait for 8 more players to sign up.

Big thumbs up! :thumbsup:
"Fairy tales can come true,
They can happen to you,
If you're young at heart."

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:53 pm

Agreed on points 1 and 2. I think the arguements against them went something along the lines of Robos being mobile terrain features, with more strategy in the game if they're predictable and players feeling that they had to play on when they knew they'd lost. (Never did understand the logic in that one, doubt I ever will...)

Point 3 is already in effect.

As for point 4, it's a great introduction, especially while waiting for a game to open, but it's worth remembering that Duel (especially the full version) takes a lot more effort, which could be difficult for someone who doesn't yet know the game engine.


korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:36 pm

My response to no. 2 is that having to target only 2 out of 3 colours combined with the forced NAPs adds another level of strategical depth.
trewqh
the gleefully aggressive Vulking

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:04 am

Egbert wrote:I just finished playing my first game of WOK Duel, and it is a great game. Nice job, Mr. Roscow. No diplomacy, pure strategy, and controlling more than 1 army is a lot of fun.

I do have some comments, which you may want to consider:

2. I am not sure why there is a rule that you can win if you knock your opponent down to 1 color --- why don't you have to RIP him? Is it just to save time?

Big thumbs up! :thumbsup:
I'm glad you enjoyed it, Eg, and thanks for the thumbs up.

I've been meaning to reply to this, sorry, both for you and others who wonder why the VC is "Reduce him to one colour". Time flies. But a case has just come up that helps me illustrate my answer.

No, it is not to save time. It's all about excitement and fun and still-a-chance, over what I call "inevitableness" ...

As a game designer, I'm very aware that any two-player game tends to suffer from "inevitableness": once someone has built up a lead, it's very difficult for the other to make a comeback ... his chances are very slim, if the two players are fairly well matched. With only two players, he can't turn to diplomacy with others to get redress. Think of chess when you go a piece down?

The obvious VC would have been: rip the other human's 3 colours, be the last man standing. But: that "inevitableness" thing: once one player has the upper hand, the odds just increase in his favour as the end nears. It might all be effectively over too quickly. With neither side enjoying playing out the inevitable.

Some game designers tackle this by, effectively, finding a way to near- equalise chances for the endgame, regardless of who did well early on. You just give good play early on a scaled-down effect, and give achievements later in the game a scaled-up effect. I've always hated that approach, since it leans towards making what you do in the first half of the game irrelevant. eg multi-player game Die Macher. And others "hide" how well you are doing till a count-up, eg multi-player game Brass or Hamburgum ...

I digress. Anyway, my VC of "You win if he's reduced to one colour", is to avoid that "inevitableness", the slow attrition when one player gains the upper hand. The player doing well has to watch out for the sneak win by the underdog, has to preserve at least two colours, not just max his strength. And the player doing less well can look for "angles": he may be losing in strength overall, but he only has to rip TWO of the other guy's colours, so he could ignore his enemy's main strong colour and win anyway, ie he has hope! ie it is worth playing on, not just a play-out for both winner and loser.

A great example just from today (which prompted this reply) is the Full Duel I am fighting with Aussie Gaz right now, GM Yon. Last turn, the situation was that I had ripped one of his 3 colours; he had two colours of medium strength, I had a very powerful colour and two weakling colours. I was stronger over all, but AG had (has) still a hope, a chance, a plan. Worth playing on, thanks to the VC. I have the overall superiority (and would gradually win if it were "kill 'em all"), but I have to make that superiority count, and AG can see ways that he could win through, not needing to defeat my strongest colour...just rip the other two ...

See the commentary-area on the gamepage: it captures how I was forced to protect my two weaklings, not just max my power with the strong one that could easily get stronger. I have to make my superiority count, against ways for him to win (he still might!).

Early in Duel's history, Trewqh performed a brilliant example of it. On Monster Island (Or Skull Islands?), against Hryllantre. Trewqh's colours were strung across the middle, while Hryll had two in the south and one in the north. Trewqh brilliantly, in my view, chose a strategy to fit the VC. He ignored the north, and let Hryll's northern colour take neutrals at will and become super-powerful. While Trewqh sent 3 against two to the south. By the time Hryll's norther super-power was gobbling up any of Trewqh's three he chose, Trewqh was finishing off the second of Hryll's two in the south, using whichever two of them were not being killed by Hryll's superpower coming down from the north. Total armies etc, Hryll was winning; but Trewqh had the better strategy and it worked. 'Course, you have to get the timing right!

Duke did a similar thing against somebody, and came very close to doing the same against me - my strong colour had to spend all its energies going back the "wrong" way to defend my second colour, because if I had continued with its attack-options, Duke would have nicked the victory.

I think that's what Trewqh meant by it adding strategic depth. You have to be a bit smarter than just going for overall superiority ...

And I add that it makes it worth playing on, and still interesting, because both players still have (asymmetric) hopes, options and possibilities.

So, ironically, the VC of "kill two" instead of "kill all three" makes the game LONGER, or at least keeps the game interesting and alive for longer.

Hannibal
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:02 pm

I guess I have two issues with this,

One is the idea that one strong player will "innevitably" beat 2 medium strength spots. The armies will be better head on, but the player with two slots has more room to manouvre with attacks, more missile orders and can do serious damage with spies. This is actually perfectly illustrated by Han's example: "think of Chess when you go one piece down". To the casual observer, the player with fewer pieces might look weaker, but it is common for good players to trade pieces for positional advantage. (This, by the way is the best way to beat most chess computers, up to and including the first version of Deep Blue.)

The second is that a game which is down to attrition is no fun. I don't accept that and, having just read through Han and Hryll's Duel lite, I think he might have a little bit of that feeling too. Really deep down. :wink:

Please note, I am not saying that the kill two spots option doesn't add strategic choices. Clearly it does as it introduces a new win condition. However it also removes strategic options; it is not viable to sacrifice two player spots to build up the third, no matter how much you may like to. I feel that this makes it yet harder for the GM to find a balanced set up as 2 weak, 1 strong may look fair, but in fact isn't. (Case in point, my recent duel vs dragonette where I could completely ignore her greys giving me a 3 on 2 from the start.)

My final reason is purely emotional. It may be annoying to play on in a game which you have already won (although it might be fun). It may be that the other player refuses to quit when they have no chance (although I haven't seen this happen too much). I know *I* would be far more annoyed at being forced to quit a game which I knew I could win.


korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Egbert
Commander
Commander
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Scholars' Library (dusty section)
Contact:

Post by Egbert » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:23 pm

To further bolster my point that all 3 opponent's colors should be RIPped:

In a duel game which I am playing with Trewqh, he has gone all out to kill 2 colors of mine (which he has done very successfully!), while my 3rd color is the score leader.

My 3rd color could have actually become much stronger over these past couple of turns if I thought Trewqh would have to RIP it, but he doesn't, so I have been trying to get over to help my other colors. However, Trewqh has blocked my way by placing his 3rd color (the one with which my 3rd color is NAPped) right in the path which I want to use. So, it now appears to be a foregone conclusion (after only 3 turns) that there is no way for me to get my 3rd color into the game.

So, I think that if all 3 colors would have to be RIPped, it would certainly add to the strategy. However, I do think it would make it a much longer game, which may not be good.
"Fairy tales can come true,
They can happen to you,
If you're young at heart."

User avatar
Duke
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1699
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Sweden, Valn Ohtar

Post by Duke » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:52 pm

I actually disagree with you here Egbert. I see your point and I have lost games due to this fact but it is adding an element of strategy into the game that would have been missing if we simply went all out to kill em all.

We could play it like that as well but that would be Duel - Havoc style or something like that, not Duel as it was intended.
First one here, last one to leave.

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:58 pm

No one's saying it doesn't add strategy options. The question is whether the positives from the changes out way the negatives.

A 'capture the flag' style game would also add strategic options - A player might have to own province 12 for 2 full turns to win the game. That would certainly be interesting to play, but I wouldn't suggest it as the standard win condition for duels.

I see Duel as a spin off from Standard WoK and as such clear supremacy on the map is the only satisfying win condition for me. I'm fully aware that this is a personal response and that some people like the kill 2 and win condition. In the same way that I don't like the 8-city rule in Advanced WoK but know that some people do. My bug-bear is that, while 8-city is an option in Advanced WoK. 2 kills is the default (in fact only) choice within duels. After time constaints, I have to say, that this is my main reason for not playing many duels. Wargames just aren't as much fun if they're not to the death...


korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

Post Reply