Saturday, July 04, 2015

Proposal: Diplomacy, you say?

S/Ked and adminned by Ienpw III

Adminned at 04 Jul 2015 18:10:55 UTC

Remove the following sentence from rule 2.3 “Convoys”: “If the Position of a Convoy is a Zone occupied by a Tribe, that Tribe may change the Convoy’s Position to the next Zone on its Route, by posting a comment to this effect.”

In its place, add the following sentence: “A Convoy cannot move to a Zone unless the Zone is unoccupied or the Driver’s Effective Strength in that zone exceeds the Zone’s occupant’s Effective Strength in that zone.”

To rule 2.3 “Convoys”, add a subrule called “Support” with the following text:

Each tribe has a Strength value, which defaults to 1. Tribes have an Effective Strength for each Zone, which defaults to their Strength.

Each Tribe has a Support value, tracked in the GNDT, which is “-” by default. As a daily action, a Tribe may change its Support value to be one of “-” or the name of a Tribe.

A Tribe’s Effective Strength for a given zone is increased by 1 for every other Tribe adjacent to that Zone which supports that same Tribe.

This took me ages (like half an hour) to word (what I hope is) correctly.

Essentially, it’s like in Diplomacy. If you try to move to a square or if you occupy that square, and another tribe is both adjacent to the square and Supports you, your strength is increased by 1. If there’s a defender, the attacker is obliged to beat the defender’s score. This applies to the location of convoys in the case of attacks, or of tribes in the case of defense.

If I screwed up the mechanics of the rule, I’ll S/K this proposal in favour of a fix.

Illegally adminned as it was not the oldest pending proposal. Josh


redtara: they/them

04-07-2015 07:04:56 UTC

Oops. I knew I’d make at least one mistake.

I’ll S/K this and propose a fix, since apparently fast S/Ks are back in the game these days.

redtara: they/them

04-07-2015 07:05:33 UTC

against s/k (I unidle and quorum remains 4)

Josh: he/him

04-07-2015 07:33:58 UTC

I might be going nuts but I can’t see speedy S/Ks in the rules. If I’m being stupid, sorry :(

redtara: they/them

04-07-2015 07:38:53 UTC

Oh no, you’re right. Oopsies.

I’ll just go on record supporting speedy S/Ks while I’m here.