Rule Change in Duel (Set-up)
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:03 pm
Now that Duke is close to pressing "go" on a group stage involving 40 or 24 Duels, there's a rule-change that I want to make before it kicks off.
Don't worry, it's only to the set-up rules and engine, not to the playing-rules. And should happen behind-the-scenes and automatically, not something you have to remember at all, either as player or as GM.
I need to persuade Kor, and get him to give his valuable time to coding it ... and then de-bugging it P). So do join in and say you think it's a good idea, to persuade Kor!
It's this:
When the engine runs Turn 1 (only Turn 1, the first attacks in the game), it will check that: if any human went maximally for at least two sequential neutrals, and those neutrals were still neutral when the attack took place, then he must win two of them, though he may or may not win a third neutral; otherwise the engine cancels that run and re-runs until the rule is satisfied.
Why?
Well, I want to place Duels towards the skill-end of the luck-skill spectrum. Not in order to leave out the Fortunes of War that make it exciting, and possible for a long-shot to come off; but to remove the worst cases at the extremes.
Eg just the way that, in Duels, (maybe some didn't know this), the engine aborts any OOP that has all of YOUR colours going before all of your opponents, or vice versa, at least until one human colour is ripped.
It's bad, especially in Duels, to have an extremely unlucky Turn 1. You can't get out of it by diplomacy! And it can spoil the game for the rest of the turns. Eg. when a colour goes for his "standard" 3-neutrals-in-a-row, but bounces off the second neutral by very bad luck; it not only loses all his strong start-armies, but probably also screws up his transforms and moves. Disaster. By sheer freak luck.
You might say: if it's that freakish, it's rare, so why bother Kor with coding it? It's not that rare. It happened to Egbert in his first Duel, and to Hryll in his last Duel. Ie. in 2 of the last 5 or so Duels.
In one of them, the GM went to the pain of re-running Turn 1, for a fairer start for a better game. Not ideal. It's never great when a restart gives players two sets of spying results, not to mention worse battle results than they saw on the first run... Better if it were automated to void the run BEFORE it goes out to players, and the engine automatically rerun it in seconds?
Note that I'm not making it EASIER to take neutrals, eg by reducing their A or Def or Eff; that would change far too much for the rest of the game. I'm just cancelling any Turn 1's with extremely bad results, and re-running them.
Note also that it doesn't guarantee you THREE neutrals; you can still bounce off the third. It just voids you taking one and unluckily bouncing off the SECOND.
Nor does it interfere (mostly) with clever attack-orders on Turn 1 to take and hold a neutral for when the other guy attacks it; nor to retake a neutral prov that the other guy took. Note the wording. The rule does NOT apply if any of the provs you attack are no longer neutral at the time. Nor does it guarantee that you will END UP with those neutrals, if a player retakes them from you. Nor does it help if you choose to take just ONE neutral and stick.
It ONLY dodges the bad luck of a player going for two or three neutrals, uncontested, and getting severe bad luck at the second one. It's just re-run behind the scenes, so won't happen.
It needs careful coding. For example, I don't want it to be open to abuse, eg by sending 4A in 3 different directions, knowing that the engine will guarantee you at least 2 victories. Nor attacking your second and third neutrals with only ONE army, knowing that the engine will keep re-running until your ONE army took its second neutral!.. Hence the wording of SEQUENTIAL and MAXIMALLY. It is to cater for the standard situation of going 12A-each-attack at 3-neutrals-in-a-row. Of course, half the coding will be to avoid it applying inappropriately to other cases, right, Kor?! Tough to code? Tricky as to whether only 11A, or 5A, attacking on would count ... I'll leave you that. (I think the easiest is if you say: it applies if 12+ armies are ORDERED to a first neutral, and it is still neutral when attacked, then you cannot bounce off; AND, more relevantly, if 12+ armies are then ORDERED on from there, to a second neutral, which is still neutral when attacked, then you cannot bounce off; the turn is re-run. No coding needed re third attack.
Quite a conundrum and hassle to code, I'd think! But worth it. Removes some extreme luck from Turn 1, saves the GM from intervening to re-run, saves players thinking they were doomed after bad luck on Turn 1, and keeps Duels higher on the luck-skill spectrum, just obviating the worst cases of luck.
I definitely want, request, that it apply to all Full Duels, Duel-Lites, and Trinity. Fortunately, being only about Turn 1, instigating it will have zero effect on Duels and Trinities already running.
Phew. Any comments? Did I overlook a problem? Feel free ...
Cheers,
Han
Don't worry, it's only to the set-up rules and engine, not to the playing-rules. And should happen behind-the-scenes and automatically, not something you have to remember at all, either as player or as GM.
I need to persuade Kor, and get him to give his valuable time to coding it ... and then de-bugging it P). So do join in and say you think it's a good idea, to persuade Kor!
It's this:
When the engine runs Turn 1 (only Turn 1, the first attacks in the game), it will check that: if any human went maximally for at least two sequential neutrals, and those neutrals were still neutral when the attack took place, then he must win two of them, though he may or may not win a third neutral; otherwise the engine cancels that run and re-runs until the rule is satisfied.
Why?
Well, I want to place Duels towards the skill-end of the luck-skill spectrum. Not in order to leave out the Fortunes of War that make it exciting, and possible for a long-shot to come off; but to remove the worst cases at the extremes.
Eg just the way that, in Duels, (maybe some didn't know this), the engine aborts any OOP that has all of YOUR colours going before all of your opponents, or vice versa, at least until one human colour is ripped.
It's bad, especially in Duels, to have an extremely unlucky Turn 1. You can't get out of it by diplomacy! And it can spoil the game for the rest of the turns. Eg. when a colour goes for his "standard" 3-neutrals-in-a-row, but bounces off the second neutral by very bad luck; it not only loses all his strong start-armies, but probably also screws up his transforms and moves. Disaster. By sheer freak luck.
You might say: if it's that freakish, it's rare, so why bother Kor with coding it? It's not that rare. It happened to Egbert in his first Duel, and to Hryll in his last Duel. Ie. in 2 of the last 5 or so Duels.
In one of them, the GM went to the pain of re-running Turn 1, for a fairer start for a better game. Not ideal. It's never great when a restart gives players two sets of spying results, not to mention worse battle results than they saw on the first run... Better if it were automated to void the run BEFORE it goes out to players, and the engine automatically rerun it in seconds?
Note that I'm not making it EASIER to take neutrals, eg by reducing their A or Def or Eff; that would change far too much for the rest of the game. I'm just cancelling any Turn 1's with extremely bad results, and re-running them.
Note also that it doesn't guarantee you THREE neutrals; you can still bounce off the third. It just voids you taking one and unluckily bouncing off the SECOND.
Nor does it interfere (mostly) with clever attack-orders on Turn 1 to take and hold a neutral for when the other guy attacks it; nor to retake a neutral prov that the other guy took. Note the wording. The rule does NOT apply if any of the provs you attack are no longer neutral at the time. Nor does it guarantee that you will END UP with those neutrals, if a player retakes them from you. Nor does it help if you choose to take just ONE neutral and stick.
It ONLY dodges the bad luck of a player going for two or three neutrals, uncontested, and getting severe bad luck at the second one. It's just re-run behind the scenes, so won't happen.
It needs careful coding. For example, I don't want it to be open to abuse, eg by sending 4A in 3 different directions, knowing that the engine will guarantee you at least 2 victories. Nor attacking your second and third neutrals with only ONE army, knowing that the engine will keep re-running until your ONE army took its second neutral!.. Hence the wording of SEQUENTIAL and MAXIMALLY. It is to cater for the standard situation of going 12A-each-attack at 3-neutrals-in-a-row. Of course, half the coding will be to avoid it applying inappropriately to other cases, right, Kor?! Tough to code? Tricky as to whether only 11A, or 5A, attacking on would count ... I'll leave you that. (I think the easiest is if you say: it applies if 12+ armies are ORDERED to a first neutral, and it is still neutral when attacked, then you cannot bounce off; AND, more relevantly, if 12+ armies are then ORDERED on from there, to a second neutral, which is still neutral when attacked, then you cannot bounce off; the turn is re-run. No coding needed re third attack.
Quite a conundrum and hassle to code, I'd think! But worth it. Removes some extreme luck from Turn 1, saves the GM from intervening to re-run, saves players thinking they were doomed after bad luck on Turn 1, and keeps Duels higher on the luck-skill spectrum, just obviating the worst cases of luck.
I definitely want, request, that it apply to all Full Duels, Duel-Lites, and Trinity. Fortunately, being only about Turn 1, instigating it will have zero effect on Duels and Trinities already running.
Phew. Any comments? Did I overlook a problem? Feel free ...
Cheers,
Han