It’ll definiely be a no from me I’m afraid!

Considering that you’re the only District with 0 Defences, I’m not surprised.

I am now, but it’ll be someone else sooner or later, and whoever it is is going to get absolutely ratfucked, to the extent that I expect whoever it is who does get targetted by it to just idle out for a few days rather than take the hit.

This is a race to the bottom proposal that will ruin the dynasty if it passes.

That seems a bit extreme. A raid would only come up when “Govern” is an option, and whoever chooses it would be giving up the other possible choices of Gathering or Innovating.

That said, I’m willing to adjust this to something more reasonable. Should the cost for Raids be higher? Maybe the raiding District should have to pay a minimum of 5 People plus 5 more for every 1 Defence of the Target?

I just think that Defences should do more than just cause a greater loss of Food on the occasion when that one Downside appears. It’s not much utility otherwise.

I disagree; in a world where every decision is a balanced trade off, making a decision that is either balanced or beneficial for yourself while being strictly negative for your opponent is a no-brainer, and every rational actor should take it 100% of the time.

In general I think direct pvp attacks are a risky box to open. It makes the game very vulnerable to pools, it’s inherently beggar-thy-neighbour and rich-get-richer, and it’s just a bit of a sour play experience. I’m not vote-locking this so feel free to tinker but I can’t envisage voting for something like this under any circumstances.

Ok, fair enough. I don’t want to ruin this dynasty, as I really do like the core mechanic. I’ll consider withdrawing this Proposal and trying something else with Defences.

Would you consider a rule similar the existing “A District with no X” rules to be fair? Something like:

A District with no Defences is Open. An Open District cannot establish a connection to a Commons if they don’t already have a connection to that Commons.

A District with negative Defences is Weak. A Weak District loses 5 People every time it Gathers.

per Josh; i do like something along the lines of those alternate Defence rules, though. i think it should be risky to have a really low quantity of any of People, Food, or Defences.

Withdrawn

I’ll try a version of those Defence rule ideas.