Trinity feeedback and suggestions

Discussion on the duel-like Trinity 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)

Trinity feeedback and suggestions

Post by Hannibal » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:24 am

Hi folks!

Now that the two Trinity test games are over, this is the thread for comments and suggestions as to whether to continue it and whether to tweak it. Feel free, whether you've played, GM'ed, or only watched.

H.
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
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 13, 2007 1:39 am

I have a few questions I'd like to ask the six who played in the two test-games:

1) Was there any/much diplomacy? Did you try to persuade each other into things? Or was there no diplomacy in practice?

2) Did any diplomacy lead to any actual naps? For what sort of length?

3) Was 3 rips right, or should it have been 4 rips for victory?

4) Is it probably best as now, TWO-colours each and 4 Robos, or perhaps as ONE-colour each and 7 Robos?

5) Is "analysis-paralysis" a real problem, or does it just mean more options and more skill?

6) If it IS a problem, or otherwise, would it play better if we had AAA and BBB naps? ie: each of the three players' two colours is labelled A and B. All the A's are napped till start of T? (6?), as are the B's. SO, it would cut down your options, since some attacks are off-limits by nap, so making analysis easier as to your possible orders. Yet adding to strategy, because you can USE the naps to grab terrain, shield, and have some safe borders ... But it's an added complexity ... does the game need it? Would it do more harm (complexity) than good (less paralysis from too much choice)?

7) Any other comments or complaints or suggestions?

8) Oh, and, I'd like to experience it as a PLAYER; so Anybody up for a game and anyone willing to GM it?

Han
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
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Post by Brykovian » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:54 am

Those are good questions, Han. Once I'm done winning Trinity #2 (maybe 1 more turn), I'll give you my feedback. ;) :D :P

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
Dragonette
Commander
Commander
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:00 am
Location: mercenary camp

Post by Dragonette » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:46 am

your not guna win hold ya orses. Get to the back of the queue im at the front for first place.

d

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 13, 2007 10:07 am

I meant to transfer my post re Victory Conditions from the other thread to here, for any debate on it to happen in this thread. So here it is:

The other Trinity game, #01, has just finished. It was a knife-edge climax, with out-gunned Hryllantre going for his third rip for the win, and the more powerful Duke trying to stop him. Hryll took the rip, held it against counter-attack by Duke, and Hryll won the game. Brilliant play.

For me, it underlines what I like about the rules, ie that it is to get 3 rips, not to own 60 provinces or kill off both the other humans.

Hryll focussed on the victory conditions, and went for them. Duke looks like he focussed more on being stronger than the other guy(s) [Yond was knocked out earlier]. Maybe Duke wouldn't "look" so much stronger at the end if Hryll had concentrated on fighting back, instead of sacrificing armies and position for the rips required ... Which worked out brilliantly for him, sacrificing power in order to get rips ...

The rules produced a really exciting climax: Could the powerful one stop the weaker one from grabbing a third rip? Bearing in mind that the weaker one is maybe weaker only because he went for his first two rips instead of building up, while his opponent went for build-up rather than rips ...

When Yond asked me to set-up a three-player variant of Duel, I spent quite a while designing it. I DID consider the "obvious" Victory Condition of "kill 'em all". But, as a designer, I know that 2-player games [or two left after the demise of the third player] tend to suffer from inevitableness: once one player is in the lead, it is TOO hard for the other to come back. But you can't make it self-correcting to a 50/50 in the climax [as some games do]. I wanted the right balance: If you are the stronger, you have more power to win or stop the other guy; but the weaker still has options and hopes that might work if he can pull it off. Makes it more skilful; you can make your superiority count; or you can come through from outnumbered to a win. The odds favour the stronger, if he plays it right, but the weaker has hope if he's clever, rather than merely death-by-attrition.


Han
Last edited by Hannibal on Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:21 am, edited 1 time 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

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 13, 2007 10:11 am

And Duke generously replied:

Duke wrote:

I have been joking around in the game comments but I honestly liked the setup. Sure it sucked when I realized I missed that angle and noticed I had crappy troops to stop it from happening but if I look at it all from a neutral standpoint I have to say that it was exiting from beginning to end.

Normally this last and the next one or two turns would have been nearly pointless since I had what I needed to win and all I had to do was to decide if I wanted to be on the safe side and drag it out a bit or just go for it and take a minor risk.

Now I even lost and even though I dont like that part one bit I have to say that it kept the game alive.
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
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Post by Brykovian » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:52 pm

Dragonette wrote:your not guna win hold ya orses. Get to the back of the queue im at the front for first place.
Um ... okey-doke then. ;)

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Post by Brykovian » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:19 pm

Now to Han's questions ...

1) Was there any/much diplomacy? Did you try to persuade each other into things? Or was there no diplomacy in practice?
I had no diplomatic contact with the other players. Outside of my late-game taunts in this forum (and some "encouragement" by Dragonette for me to get my orders in), there was no conversation regarding the game.

2) Did any diplomacy lead to any actual naps? For what sort of length?
N/A :)

3) Was 3 rips right, or should it have been 4 rips for victory?
3 seems like the natural number to pick here, imo. However, having a 4-RIP goal might be an option as an additional level of challenge. I think RIP'ing a Robo should count as half-a-RIP compared to RIP'ing a human player ... they are easy to predict.

4) Is it probably best as now, TWO-colours each and 4 Robos, or perhaps as ONE-colour each and 7 Robos?
I like the 2-spots-per-human approach ... otherwise it's a standard WOK game with 7 very predictable opponents and a finite win condition ... you'd need to make it a race to RIP robos and up the winning RIP count.

5) Is "analysis-paralysis" a real problem, or does it just mean more options and more skill?
The AP isn't nearly as bad as Duel. In fact, I would say it compares closely to coordinating with a clanmate in a standard game.

6) If it IS a problem, or otherwise, would it play better if we had AAA and BBB naps? ...
I would rather not see forced NAPs with only having 2 slots per player. However, it might be an interesting option for the GM. Just like the 4-RIP win condition, it could be held up as an interesting additional challenge to a game.


Thanks for putting this together ... hope my comments were helpful.

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
Dragonette
Commander
Commander
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:00 am
Location: mercenary camp

Post by Dragonette » Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:55 am

Brykovian wrote:
3) Was 3 rips right, or should it have been 4 rips for victory?
3 seems like the natural number to pick here, imo. However, having a 4-RIP goal might be an option as an additional level of challenge. I think RIP'ing a Robo should count as half-a-RIP compared to RIP'ing a human player ... they are easy to predict.

4) Is it probably best as now, TWO-colours each and 4 Robos, or perhaps as ONE-colour each and 7 Robos?
I like the 2-spots-per-human approach ... otherwise it's a standard WOK game with 7 very predictable opponents and a finite win condition ... you'd need to make it a race to RIP robos and up the winning RIP count.



-Bryk
I agree with bryk these would add more fun and entertainment value, i think. It means that if their are robots near you and you kill them you get a reward, ehich is better then getting nothing.

d

Post Reply