TWO-PLAYER WOK4 ?

Post by **Hannibal** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:05 pm

There's a bit of a lull at the moment for most players, including me, and maybe not enough volunteers and availables to fill a game. So my mind turned to considering a TWO-PLAYER version of WOK4........Yep, I'm sure it must have cropped up on the boards before, but not for most of us?

Once Mullog cracks the online auto-GM, the concerns of it using up a GM's willingness for the benefit only two players instead of 10 players would disappear. In the meantime, I'd be happy to GM a trial run myself (nothing better to do till someone opens a waitlist....it's this or comment on Mad One's toys-out-of-the-pram after he inserted himself as GM for the clan champs.....oops).

Obviously, a two-player version loses out on all that wonderful diplomacy element. It's not the same game at all, before anyone points that out. But it would or could have a lot of tactics in it, precisely because you can co-ordinate your orders perfectly, playing more than one player.....

The way I see it, a Two-Player WOK4 would be interesting if each "Player" controlled three players.....I'd better start saying One "Person" controls three of the of the ten of the starting "players". So, if , say, Moll were playing against Trok, each would get three starting players, let's call them Moll#1, Moll #2, Moll #3, Trok #1, Trok #2 and Trok #3....Now, to make it tactically interesting and challenging, let's say that Moll #1 is automatically napped with Trok #1, Moll #2 with Trok #2, and, you guessed, Moll #3 with Trok #3, from the start until end of turn 12, no bombing spying or attacking on your opposite "number". That should make for some tactics and attacking through, and co-ordinated plans etc.

I think it would be too much hassle for each Person to control 5 players......3 each seems about right. I'm open to suggestions as to what happens with the remaining four "players" that start a full game....delete them, leave them without orders....or put in default orders for them so that they will be active in pre-determined ways the two competitors can take into account.

At least you get lots of planning opportunities....and plenty of turn reports!! And it could be quick. Once automated, with no need for periods of diplomacy, and presumably less need for revised orders, the turn could be run as soon or as late as the auto-GM receives both sets of orders....

Anyone fancy trying it out, in this lull? Post here if you do. Hey, if 4 players fancy it, we could make it a mini-knockout tournament!!

Thoughts and comments?

~ Han

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:32 pm

I'm game, i want to fight Donut!

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:21 am

Or even more interesting, make it a WoK 5 game so I can play against TK.
I've always wanted to play him in a 1 on 1 game. I think it would be pretty interesting.

Ya, I know, he's my clanmate, but who care's, all VP's would go to TFF anyway so it's a win/win situation.

I would suggest that instead of using 3 player spots/person just double the amount of starting troops from 15-30, same starting army level, but give everyone a tech level of 7 so we'd have more starting attacks.

Otherwise, casting 9 spells every turn on someone would be quite devistating or comical.

or

Well, sorry to babble on about it.

Just wanted to throw that out there too.

Got to go to bed now, I have to work at 8:00.

Allister

Post by **Duke** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 6:05 am

Allister Fiend wrote:Or even more interesting, make it a WoK 5 game so I can play against TK.
I've always wanted to play him in a 1 on 1 game. I think it would be pretty interesting.

Allister

I'm pretty sure that this is how it sounded when Saddam told his generals that Iraq should go to war against the U.S.

Mullog · Post by **Mullog** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:06 am

Hmm... An interesting thought Han.
It would sure be a challenge to control several players in a game, and forcing some to be nap'ed would make everything even more challenging! How would it work? Would they have to agree on borders or would they just grab everything so that the other couldn't take it?

What would you do with the remaining four (?) players that nobody controlled? Would they just sit there, or would the GM control them?

In a two-player game turns could be run much more frequently, and I am sure some players would be interested in that!

Did you get any interest in this? I would be interested in playing, but not right now (dangnabbit Real Life!)...

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:42 am

How about creating a map with only 20 provinces (or just don't use the other 40 provinces). Than have both players have only one starting position and have fun.

Post by **Hannibal** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 2:24 am

Saladin wrote:How about creating a map with only 20 provinces (or just don't use the other 40 provinces). Than have both players have only one starting position and have fun.

Yes, that would be a different game again. Probably a good one, once you don't need a GM for two players.

For me, I'd prefer the extra of having to co-ordinate three players, use them together, maybe one trying to sleep for lev, the others protecting him........more options, more compexity, more tactics. Especially if your three are napped with their opposite number on the other side, so that there is the possibility of attacking-through, curtaining etc. And using the OOP to advantage..... And swapping provinces...It's still one-on-one, but with more tactics? It might or might not be more fun than the simpler 2-players-20-provinces, but it would be different.

~ Han

Post by **Hannibal** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 2:43 am

[quote="Mullog"]Hmm... An interesting thought Han.
It would sure be a challenge to control several players in a game, and forcing some to be nap'ed would make everything even more challenging! How would it work? Would they have to agree on borders or would they just grab everything so that the other couldn't take it?

quote]

In my mind, they would just be generally napped, i.e. no pre-set borders, no negotiation, just that they cannot bomb, spy on or attack any province CURRENTLY owned (at the start of the turn) by the player they are napped with. SO, Han1 could not bomb/spy/attack Mull1 and vice versa, and likewise between Han2 and Mull2, and between Han3 and Mull3. But Han1 can be bombed/spied attacked by Mull2 and Mull3, and so on. It means that tactics like attacking-through and curtaining can come into play, more tactics overall, just no diplomacy, so it's not as "good" as the original WOK4. But you get lots of action and triple the number of turn reports! And probably requires more tactical and co-ordinating skill than regular WOK4.

You also ask what the 4 non-allocated players would do. I asked for suggestions. It would be a pity to delete them or have them as neutrals, or no orders; but it should not be at the whim of the GM (especially if it's an auto-GM when you create one!). I think they'd have automatic orders that the two real players would know and could take into account. Eg, : from the last province they took, they will always make ONE attack, with all-except-2 armies, into an adjacent NEUTRAL province, if there be one, and taking the lowest-numbered if there is more than one, and write in orders to trannsform 2x48 POP-ARM in the attacked province, and 1X 48 POP-WOK in the province they came from, setting the aim there to EFF. Thus, they would leave a trail behind them of surplus POP, WOK and low defence, for the two actual players to try for.......as part of the tactical game. How would that sound?

~ Han

Mullog · Post by **Mullog** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:45 am

Hannibal wrote:I think they'd have automatic orders that the two real players would know and could take into account. Eg, : from the last province they took, they will always make ONE attack, with all-except-2 armies, into an adjacent NEUTRAL province, if there be one, and taking the lowest-numbered if there is more than one, and write in orders to trannsform 2x48 POP-ARM in the attacked province, and 1X 48 POP-WOK in the province they came from, setting the aim there to EFF. Thus, they would leave a trail behind them of surplus POP, WOK and low defence, for the two actual players to try for.......as part of the tactical game. How would that sound?

I think this could work, but possibly with some modifications. We would not want them to make provinces too easy to take and not too predictable. But the general idea is a good one IMHO.

This just gave me another idea: How about one-player WOK? Control as many players as you want and let the computer control the rest? Use it to test strategies and to practice, or just for fun.... Oh well, it would probably be interesting but too much work to be practical.

Post by **Duke** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:54 am

How about a no-player wok?

Post by **trewqh** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:39 pm

Duke wrote:How about a no-player wok?

Any GM up for it?

trewqh

Lord Fredo · Post by **Lord Fredo** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:33 pm

Sure! No hazzle with late orders or people dropping out ... that's just great stuff.