WOK TRINITY - a new variant of Standard WOK

[Hannibal]

It's occurred to me that WOK DUEL is, well, to be honest, a bit tough, a lot of options, tactics, and strategy, and skill, AND TIME, when you are devising orders for 3 colours, meshing their plans together, and countering your opponent's likely plans for HIS three colours, against a shifting background of 4 Roboplayers plodding onwards...

So I've devised another variant, to run alongside, not replace, the ultimate tough challenge of WOK DUEL.

It's a two-player version of WOK (standard), but only half as complex and time-consuming as DUEL.

In this new variant, also for two players, each player starts with TWO colours, two "players" that are his (instead of 3 colours each in DUEL).

E.g., there will be HanA, Han B, KorA and KorB ...... plus 6 Roboplayers!

The 6 Roboplayers will have automatic orders exactly as the 4 Roboplayers do in DUEL, now tested and shown to be OK. That is, they will each attack kust one prov, the adjacent prov with the lowest prov-number, will turn its aim to missiles, will try to transform 48 POP into 12 Armies there, TWICE, and will send 5 armies on move back to defend the prov they last came from. So, just as in DUEL, they are strong, but plodding and predictable; you can dodge them or exploit them, as kinda moving terrain features.

Also from DUEL, there will be complicating naps to make strategy interesting .... HanA and KorA are napped till start of Turn 6, and HanB and KorB till start of Turn 8. So you have to work around that, or use it to run shields or whatever. The naps are automatic, not-violable, and expire on the said turns, not renewable.

It should be half as tough as DUEL, (combinations of two positions being at least half as difficult as combinations of THREE positions each), and plans and orders take half or less of the time. Think of it as Duel-Lite. But it still has masses of tactics, with two colours each, 2 naps, and 6 Robos ... It'll have more development taking neutrals, much easier to plan and order, till the clashes come.

The trickiest decision was on the Victory Condition. I think I'll make it, just like in DUEL, that you win as soon as your opponent is reduced to just one colour. This adds a huge strategic dimension to the game, versus "Wipe him out" .... because it means you can still win if he has a a really strong colour, but you nick it by taking out his other colour ... so HIS strategy has to involve keeping two colours alive, not just one colour supreme. (We may revisit the V-C after a few tries).

BTW, it uses standard WOK rules. Only overlaid by the above rules about starting with two colours each, with 6 Roboplayers, and some temporary naps. It has all the skills (tactical, not diplomatic) of Standard 10-player WOK. using the same rules, but with some extra rules on top.

Since losing a colour of your 3 is so important, DUEL has a rule that no human or Robo player can attack, missile or spy on, anyone's START prov until Turn 3. For the new game here, I extend that to no attack, missile or spying a START-prov until start of Turn 4. So you have a full 3 turns to expand and make yourself still survive if they take your start-prov on Turn 4.

Net: it uses standard WOK rules; it has lots of strategic and tactical angles; it has no diplomacy; it is twice as tactically-difficult as Standard WOK, but only half as difficult as DUEL. Even newbies could play it.

LAST: Naming of the Games. I called the two-player-3-colours-each variant "DUEL", because it was between two players, good. But now I have this "Duel-lite". Which has two players and TWO colours ....

Look, I can't call the three-colour-each version "DUEL", as now, and the two-colour-each version "TRINITY". Luckily there are only 3 of us watching at the moment. So I can change names for the future. "DUEL" becomes the name for the new 2-player, TWO-colours-each variant (Duel, right?). And TRINITY becomes the name for the new-ish 2-player. THREE-colour-each variant. Makes sense. I'll live with the confusion amongst 3 or 4 or 5 of us now, in favour of the names matching the variants for the rest of Kaomaris's life.

We'll go back and change references so that what we've started before now becomes TRINITY, the ultimate, rather than being called DUEL any more. DUEL becomes the name for the lighter version, 2-players and 2-colours-each, introduced above. I'm happy to take stick for confusion for a while, but ultimately TRINITY and DUEL will make more sense that way round. If we grow from 5 to 50. Best tackle it now.

SO, anyone (any TWO) want to try DUEL (I mean the simpler version of two colours each). I'd better open a game for it ...

[trewqh]

That's defenitely worth a try. And I don't mind the temporary confusion that could be caused by switching names, which does make sense in the long run.

But, I think it needs at least some implementation first (ie. new NAPs) before you can just open a group, Han. Still, I am ready and willing to join that game once korexus gives us a green light.

[Hannibal]

But, I think it needs at least some implementation first (ie. new NAPs) before you can just open a group, Han. Still, I am ready and willing to join that game once korexus gives us a green light.

Yes, definitely. And also making SIX colours act as Robos, not just 4.

In any case, it won't happen unless Kor decides it should happen. He's the boss AND Keeper of the "keys". I'm hoping he'll say yes. Just in case he holds himself to his sig about doing nuthing unless 3 people want it, it wd be nice for someone else to say yes? Hryll? You might be the only other one around just now!? You're murdering me in Suburbia, so you might be looking forward to what you play after I'm defeated?!

And Kor may not have time till January. But games are taking a while to fill ! So I thought I'd put it out there so that 2 might volunteer by about the time the little fixes get done?!

I just had a thought: for 2-colour Duel, let's make the 4 Human players #1,2,4,5, not #1,2,3,4. That way Kor has no need to change the a/A and B/B naps, just cancel the C/C one for Duel-lite. And I won't get confused that #3 Lt Blue is MINE when it's Duel, but HIS when it's Trinity ... Just a thought.

I still don't know whether Duel-lite will be over too quickly (just rip one of his two colours on T4 ... nearly always a 4-turn game??). Anyone any good ideas for the Victory Condition? Old Duel ran till Turn 9 or so Han v Trewqh, but may or may not end on T3 in Han v Hryll. Again, anyone suggest a better Victory condition for the 3-colour-each version, Trinity?

[trewqh]

Did we use that 1-colour-left victory condition in our Duel, Han? Or did we just decide at some point that I didn't have any chances of winning once I was left with only one colour?

I don't remember planning to take out 2 colours completely for a win and that is probably the cause of our Duel lasting longer than yours with Hryll (although I'm not following that one, so please correct me if I'm worng).

I think that 3 or 4 turns is a bit too short for a Duel, but, are you saying that 9 is too long? It seemingly equals 27 regular game turns, but towards the end at least one of the players (I mean real people ) has some player-spots/colours severely reduced and not needing as much attention.

I think that in a game called Duel the "wiping out your enemy" condition seems totally in place.

As for other ideas, maybe the players could choose some number of provinces (6-10?) that need to be taken to win. They could agree on those provinces once they know what map is going to be used but before starting provinces are asigned. A rather typical boardgame victory condition that I know some people liked to use in WOK 5.

[korexus]

Hmm, lots to reply to...

Firstly, Duel and Trinity are basically the same game, so why give them different names? Why not just have Duel games where people play 3 spots and Duel games where people play 2. If I set it up that way, we could also extend in both directions, with players taking 1, 4 or 5 spots each!

Secondly, we do have the reduce to one player to win rule, but I'm not a huge fan. Fighting to the death (or at least the unconditional surrender) of the other player seems far more satisfying. If you're only starting with 2 spots that will become more of an issue.

Thirdly, the NAPs. With the 2 provinces each, it'd probably be easier just to declare a general NAP for X (3?) turns. That gives both players chance to build up and gain a strategic advantage before general carnage begins.

Next, the Robo players. What I'm going to do is update the game engine, so it checks to see if a player is a robot when running orders. That'll make things far more flexible, a GM can just add an automated player into any slot. Shouldn't be too hard to update.

I won't be able to upload any code till January sometime, but you can always play it with the GM doing things like enforcing NAPs and running the Robo orders, so you can iron out the bugs before then...

Think that's about it. Oh yes. Merry Christmas!


Chris.

[trewqh]

Firstly, Duel and Trinity are basically the same game, so why give them different names? Why not just have Duel games where people play 3 spots and Duel games where people play 2. If I set it up that way, we could also extend in both directions, with players taking 1, 4 or 5 spots each!

I agree. Making this an option of a Duel variant makes the naming problem obsolete and does not create any confusion.

Secondly, we do have the reduce to one player to win rule, but I'm not a huge fan. Fighting to the death (or at least the unconditional surrender) of the other player seems far more satisfying. If you're only starting with 2 spots that will become more of an issue.

Thirdly, the NAPs. With the 2 provinces each, it'd probably be easier just to declare a general NAP for X (3?) turns. That gives both players chance to build up and gain a strategic advantage before general carnage begins.

As for the NAPs, I suppose Han would argue that a general NAP prevents shielding and, elegantly executed, attacking-through, which he mastered, and, I have to say, I did enjoy these gradually ending NAPs in the 2 Duels I played.

[korexus]

Ok, I'll bow to trewqh's superior experience on the NAPs front, considering that he agreed with me on the name issue.


Chris.

[Hannibal]

Hmmm, lots to reply to ...

Did we use that 1-colour-left victory condition in our Duel, Han? Or did we just decide at some point that I didn't have any chances of winning once I was left with only one colour?

Yep, that WAS the victory-condition in our Duel, trewqh. I'm sure you were working to it at the time. It added a strategic dimension to the game rather than just "wipe the other guy out". You took out my Yellows on Turn 2 or 3, so you only had to wipe one more of my two remaining colours. I spent huge effort trying to SAVE my Light Blues, rather than just doing what helped "my" side most, ie it added some interesting complexity ...

And the victory-condition is what kept my hopes alive ... I didn't have to turn the whole tide; if I managed to nick your two weakest colours, I'd win. As it turned out, you lost your armies and conceded. So:
a) Quite right. It takes an hour or two to plan and put orders in, so it would only be a pain to "play it out". That's why I stress that there is no blame attached to conceding .... and no kudos to fighting to the last man. That's fine in some games, but not where each turn takes so much effort. Much more interesting to start a new game than to play out one that's all-but-lost. You'll know I've stressed this since the start. Kor mistook it then for me wanting to concede in our game!! No, no, it's a realistic convention to add to Duel - better to concede and start again than take hours to play out a lost game.

b) You conceded because you had lost all your attacking forces, so were going to (99%) lose, WHICHEVER the victory-condition was. You remember it as having nothing left to fight with, as if the victory-condition was irrelevant; but I strongly suggest that the victory-condition DOES matter a lot - it affected my tactics (to save my second colour from you), and I think it affected your tactics (just needed to kill off those Light Blues ....).

I think that 3 or 4 turns is a bit too short for a Duel, but, are you saying that 9 is too long? It seemingly equals 27 regular game turns, but towards the end at least one of the players (I mean real people ) has some player-spots/colours severely reduced and not needing as much attention.

I agree with you. I'm not at all saying 9 turns is too long. I think 9 or 10 turns is ideal, just like in our game, ie. part-way through the naps ending during turns 7-11, so that they matter and their ending also matters. And feels about the right length, 8-12 turns.

I think that in a game called Duel the "wiping out your enemy" condition seems totally in place.

Here I have to disagree a bit. You're just going on the name; or your own bloodthirsty preferences! As a game-designer, I have to say that I try to do better than the simple "wipe-'em-all-out" victory-condition. Y'see, all games lie somewhere on a spectrum between "Once you're ahead, you really should go on to win" (Chess?) and "No point getting ahead, the game will then equalise your chances in order to keep all players in with a chance for the end". Both have their pluses, different types of games. Now, WOK is a game of high skill, mixed with probabilities, mixed with luck. So I'd hate it to be "equalising", but also hate it to be "remorseless once you are ahead, just play it out". SO, my design element that the V-C is to kill 2 of the other guy's 3 colours, is very key for me. It means the guy losing still has a chance ... if he is skilful ... and the guy in the lead has to worry about leaving the door open for the other guy to nick a victory, not just plough on killing the other guy with his strongest host .... I really like those aspects: LUCK won't save if you are losing, but clever play just might!! (By contrast, just try approaching decent-level chess with the attitude of ""I'm behind, but outthinking him might get me a win ....".

I'm lucky that the WOK-design allows me my favourite mix: If you play skilfully when you are currently losing, you CAN turn the tide. that is much more true of my Duel VC's than a VC of "To the death". Quite apart from the sheer waste of playing out a game to the death.... Phew.

As for other ideas, maybe the players could choose some number of provinces (6-10?) that need to be taken to win. They could agree on those provinces once they know what map is going to be used but before starting provinces are asigned. A rather typical boardgame victory condition that I know some people liked to use in WOK 5.

Brilliant idea!! It just might be the solution for the VC for Duel 2-player-2 colour (not sure on that), but it's a GREAT idea for a 4 or 5 player game of Standard WOK! Imagine there are 4 players; the other 6 slots are taken by Robo-players, acting as in Duel. Now, the problem with 4 or 5 players is that you can't really allow the WOK-normal of 2 players sharing victory. So you are pushed towards one player having to go for a solo win by all others being vanquished, own the whole map (eg. original Risk). But YOUR idea fits here much better. There are 4 of us. There are 60 provs. The winner will be the one who first owns any FOUR of the 6 provs 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 .... Just imagine how that would alter the diplomacy .... not "We can wipe out X", but "We have to set aside our differences or X will grab two more of those six key provs".. And I LOVE the idea that 6 provs are extra-special (for victory), so that your look at the board is bent and shaped beyond just populations, with some provs more vital than others.... Hmm, sounds like mega-fun to me! Skill bent towards new meta-scenario. And I think that all diplomacy to be PUBLISHED IN OPEN FORUM would add a dimension too, for players and for any watchers .... Hey, I'd go for playing in that game if 3 or 4 others wanted to? Note: it's not as hard as Duel, because you are thinking out, and putting in orders for, only ONE colour, dead easy; except you have different angles to consider than you do in Standard WOK ....

Any takers?!

Enough.

Han

[trewqh]

I'm not at all saying 9 turns is too long. I think 9 or 10 turns is ideal, just like in our game[...]

Somehow I got the impression that you asked for ideas for a different VCond because 9 is too long. All clear now.

You're just going on the name; or your own bloodthirsty preferences!

trewqh's outside ->

trewqh's inside ->

Even though "kill 2 out of 3" potentially shortens the game to 3-4 turns, lenghtening it only by forcing the winning player to finish off the remaining player lenghtens the game but not necessarily the fun, right?

Brilliant idea!! [new WOK variant description] Hey, I'd go for playing in that game if 3 or 4 others wanted to? [...]
Any takers?!

I'm willing to play it just as much as the two-colours variant of Duel. We'll have to ask nicely and see which one korexus likes enough to be willing to implement it (if at all).

trewqh

[korexus]

The Duel engine will now run as many automated players as you like. Simply enter the autogm into any slot you like. This should allow Han to come up with plenty of game varients. Also, the WoK Practice game can run turns in Standard or Duel mode, so he can test them too.


Chris.

[trewqh]

[Hannibal]

The Duel engine will now run as many automated players as you like. Simply enter the autogm into any slot you like. This should allow Han to come up with plenty of game varients. Also, the WoK Practice game can run turns in Standard or Duel mode, so he can test them too.


Chris.

Fantastic! Many thanks. Er, you didn't feel the need to enable this for GM'ing standard WOK games, as an alternative to empty slots just lying there dead? Hey, you could even have a rule that if a player goes M-1 on Turn 1 (it happened a lot), it defaults into my roboplayer algorithm rather than just sit there ..... ? Maybe the player who went M-1 can re-possess the Robo on Turn 2, or maybe not ... I'm just thinking it would add spice when a game starts with three M-1's, as happens .....

[Hannibal]

Ok, I'll bow to trewqh's superior experience on the NAPs front, considering that he agreed with me on the name issue.


Chris.

OK, I said I'd yield on something, and the pair of you seem combined against my naming idea. OK, I yield, They are both called DUEL.

Mind you, I'm not sure I agree with you on how identical they are. DUEL might well have different victory-conditions from DUEL. Indeed, Duel SHOULD have different victory-conditions from DUEL. Because DUEL allows you time and space to knock out one of your opponent's 3 colours, or have that done to you, and yet the game goes on. That is far less true of DUEL. In DUEL, if you kill off one of the other player's colours, it is not a stage in the game, it is the end. Unless we change the victory-conditions. In my view, DUEL ought to have very different victory-conditions from DUEL. Otherwise DUEL will be much less strategic than DUEL. And usually DUEL would be much shorter than DUEL.

But if DUEL is designed with different parameters, so that it can last as long as DUEL, and be as satisfying as DUEL.

The key thing is that DUEL be a bit, well, EASIER than DUEL. After all, DUEL takes a whole bunch of planning, while DUEL requires only half as much. DUEL should be the easy entry to DUEL. DUEL has most of the aspects of DUEL, but DUEL is slightly less daunting than DUEL.

DUEL is for experts at this great game, whilst DUEL is more for intermediates. Hey, DUEL could even be for practice-play before trying DUEL!



Han

[korexus]

DUEL is for experts at this great game, whilst DUEL is more for intermediates. Hey, DUEL could even be for practice-play before trying DUEL!

Do you think he's trying to make a point? - It's lost on me if he is...

How about we keep the victory condition. If one player eliminates two of his opponent's colours, he wins. - Thus satisfying trewqh's bloodlust as well as removing a complication.

Chris.

[Hannibal]

DUEL is for experts at this great game, whilst DUEL is more for intermediates. Hey, DUEL could even be for practice-play before trying DUEL!

Do you think he's trying to make a point? - It's lost on me if he is...

How about we keep the victory condition. If one player eliminates two of his opponent's colours, he wins. - Thus satisfying trewqh's bloodlust as well as removing a complication.

Chris.

If the point was lost on you, you must be pf stupid. That doesn't mean I'm right, it's a comment on you not getting the point.

If you're 'playing to the audience', there ARE only about 3 of us as the audience -- me, you and one other. So who is this "Do you think he's .... " aimed at? You use the third person ... who to?!!

And nope on making the VC for DUEL completely wiping out ALL the other player's colours and provs. You still haven't realised 2 key points about that, that I've said before. And won't say again, or you'll roll your eyes!


Hanibabble

(PS, no problem with being called that - it's often true - and I was the first to use it on myself .... but not getting my point? )

[korexus]

Just prodding you, Han. I got the point you were trying to make

(And last night there were 7 registered players online, not including you, so I might be getting a bit of an audience, I can dream can't I?!)

But more seriously I have read your points about the reducing to 1 player win condition. I'm just not convinced by them. I'm not entirely sure you are either (your early posts do say that we might need to revisit the victory conditions). I'm biased as I'm not fond of the 1 player win condition in the current duel set up - I'm at least as bloodthirsty as trewqh there, but objectively I think that losing the game as soon as one player dies pushes the luck factor too high, but I could be wrong. Say - now that we can have as many robo players as we like, how about we play test it?


Also, I think the Victory Condition argument against keeping the name the same is a bit flawed to begin with. - My way both games have the same victory condition: Wipe out two of your opponent's players. Your way they both have the same victory condition: reduce your opponent to one player. I can see either version working for a 4-spot duel too.

Chris.

PS, I'm aware that that wasn't the most coherent post. I was just trying to get all my deas down before I forgot them...

[Hannibal]

Just prodding you, Han. I got the point you were trying to make

(And last night there were 7 registered players online, not including you, so I might be getting a bit of an audience, I can dream can't I?!)

Hey, we must pretend-fight more often! Word must have gotten around and everyone came to watch!

But more seriously I have read your points about the reducing to 1 player win condition. I'm just not convinced by them. I'm not entirely sure you are either (your early posts do say that we might need to revisit the victory conditions). I'm biased as I'm not fond of the 1 player win condition in the current duel set up - I'm at least as bloodthirsty as trewqh there, but objectively I think that losing the game as soon as one player dies pushes the luck factor too high, but I could be wrong. Say - now that we can have as many robo players as we like, how about we play test it?

Er, I think you were mixing up Duel and Duel there? I've never wanted the 2-player-version to be decided by "reduce opponent to one colour", that would be too short and too much luck, I competely agree with you. But I'm a big fan of it for the 3-colours-each Duel, as I've said, because it seriously affects your strategy (gotta protect one of your failing colours), and seriously saves time playing a game out to the bitter end. Ask Hryll whether he'd like to "play out" Duel of Skulls till his third colour is ripped??

I'm liking trewqh's suggestion of PROVS to get control of (I mean for Duel .... er the two-colour-each-version-of-Duel, called, er, well, Duel ). First player to "own" any five of #01, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60. That would affect your strategy a lot? Wiping the other guy out is passe !

Also, I think the Victory Condition argument against keeping the name the same is a bit flawed to begin with. - My way both games have the same victory condition: Wipe out two of your opponent's players. Your way they both have the same victory condition: reduce your opponent to one player. I can see either version working for a 4-spot duel too.

A FOUR-spot-each version of Duel !!! And I thought it was me that was the crazy masochist!

Oh, and as I'm sure you appreciated, the argument for having two different names was NEVER "really" based on victory-conditions in my above post: I just chatted about victory-conditions (anything else would have done); in order to show the difficulty of talking about them, on ANY subject, if they share the same name! ... it could get confusing? At least when discussing Duel? - No, not THAT Duel, the OTHER one. I think it's what "names" were invented for

Chris.

PS, I'm aware that that wasn't the most coherent post. I was just trying to get all my deas down before I forgot them...

Well it was more coherent than most of mine, I'd be the first to admit!

[korexus]

I don't think Hryll should be forced to play on. But players can always surrender, no? Maybe Hryll does want to, but can't because the rules say once he's down to one player he's out. Anyway, that's another argument for another thread.

My reasoning for wanting to keep the name the same is that the game is essentially the same (2 players, fixed NAPs, robot players with a set algorithm) We can easily refer to setting up a 2-spot duel game or a 4-spot duel game. But most changes would be likely to be for all duel games.

Something like trewqh's suggestion can be implemented without too much hassle. WoK V used to have the '8 city rule' as a GM option. Check the box and the a player wins if he owns any 8 of the 10 cities. Alternative win conditions are easy can can be put in the houserules/commentary so people know about them.


Chris.

[trewqh]

Double-Duel, Triple-Duel? 2-spot-Duel, 3-spot-Duel?

If we agreed on one of these, we wouldn't have trouble with naming potential, future 4-spot-Duels or 2 or 3-spot-Trinity games?

[korexus]

I think 2-spot-duel is less ambiguous. Double Duel could mean 4 players fighting.

Speaking of which. Trinity could be 3 players with 1/2/3 spots each and the rest filled with robots.

Although maybe we shouldn't throw too many variants out at once...

Chris.