Sunday, July 05, 2015

Proposal: The Rising Tide

Fails 3-4. Adminned 21:53 by Tantusar.

Adminned at 05 Jul 2015 21:53:29 UTC

Remove the following text from the ruleset: “If a Convoy is in a position, and its Driver’s Effective Strength in the next Zone on that Convoy’s Route exceeds the Effective Strength of the Tribe occupying that Zone (or if there is no such Tribe), then the Driver of that Convoy may Change its Position to that Zone by reducing their own Fuel by 1, and posting a comment describing the position change on the post which initially described that Convoy.”

Add the following as a third paragraph to the rule entitled “Convoys”:

As a daily action. the Driver of a Convoy may Change that Convoy’s Position to the next Zone on the Convoy’s Route by reducing their own Fuel by 1, and posting a comment describing the position change on the post which initially described that Convoy. If a Convoy Post specifies that a Convoy will be moving through occupied Zones, then the Tribes that occupies those Zones may make a comment to that Convoy Post indicating Safe Passage. For each such Safe Passage granted, the Driver of that Convoy may then move that Convoy through the relevant Zone.

If the Driver seeks to move through a Zone which is occupied by another Tribe, but for which they have not obtained Safe Passage, then they must first roll X DICEY in the GNDT, where X is the number of Tribes contributing to the Effective Strength of the Convoy, and Y is the Strength of the Tribe that Occupies that Zone. Each result is compared against the Strengths of each Tribe that contributes to the Effective Strength of the Convoy, starting with the Tribe of the Driver then proceeding through Supporting Tribes in alphabetical order. For each result that is higher than the Strength of the Tribe it is being compared against, lower the Strength of that Tribe by 1. The Driver then rolls DICEZ, where Z is the new Effective Strength of the Convoy, and reduces the Strength of the Tribe Occupying that Zone by the result.

In the rule entitled Support, after the text “Each tribe has a Strength value, which defaults to 1”, add “and cannot fall below 1.” Add the following at the end of the rule: “The Effective Strength of a Convoy is the Driver’s Tribe’s Effective Strength in the Zone they are seeking to move into. “

A future proposal will deal with Safe Passage leading to ambushes.


Kevan: he/him

05-07-2015 08:37:25 UTC

Note: (preceding with “Note” so that you can edit it, in case this was a typo) - I can’t see that an “Effective Strength of the Convoy” is defined anywhere.

Josh: he/they

05-07-2015 08:49:04 UTC

Note: Thanks! Have added a clarification.

Kevan: he/him

05-07-2015 08:57:24 UTC

Note: Oh, and rolling XDICEY only gives you the total, it is impossible to compare “each result”.

Josh: he/they

05-07-2015 09:04:50 UTC

Note: Okay, I’ve added a space (X DICEY) to make it clearer that it should be separate iterations of the roll.

Kevan: he/him

05-07-2015 09:07:52 UTC

for We need to be tracking Strength somewhere, though.

Tantusar: he/they

05-07-2015 11:46:42 UTC


Brendan: he/him

05-07-2015 15:01:45 UTC

Okay, so I am moving a Convoy into the Babylonians’ territory. They have strength 4. I have strength 3. I am supported by Triemond and Blood Sausage, who have strength 2 and 1 respectively, and are adjacent to the Babylonians’ Zone. My effective strength is… 5? I think? (My 3, “increased by 1 for every other Tribe adjacent to that Zone.”)

I roll DICE4 3 times and get 2, 4, 1. I compare 2 to 3 and do nothing. I compare 4 to 2 and reduce the strength of Triemond to 1? I compare 1 to 1 and do nothing.

My effective strength has not changed (3+1+1). I roll DICE5 and get 3. This reduces the strength of the Babylonians to 1. They had no active participation in any of this; they may well have been off the blog for a day and failed to see my convoy-starting post in time to offer Safe Passage.

I don’t see anything in this rule that allows me to actually move into the occupied Zone once the comparison is done. I did rewrite this comment three times trying to understand the math involved, though. It seems to heavily favor the attacker (who has a chance of having their strength reduced by 1), and penalize the defender (who may have no chance to react, and may have their strength reduced by much more than the attacker’s), and offers very little reason to form alliances (Triemond and Blood Sausage have nothing to gain in this scenario).

I’m open to arguments in favor of this rule, but for now, against

redtara: they/them

05-07-2015 15:21:41 UTC

against I strongly dislike the randomness mechanic. I know dynastic themes are just meant to be vague, but if mechanics like this are dependent on dice rolls then we’ll be playing a more risk-like game than a diplomacy one.

Josh: he/they

05-07-2015 18:44:59 UTC

Brendan: fair enough. I rejigged the mechanic while writing it and didn’t really work it through properly; you’re right, and it is currently overbalanced. For what it’s worth I think it’s worth fixing rather than failing, as it won’t cause problems immediately upon enactment, but I think that depends on how the underlying dynamic takes you.

Ienpw: That’s a fair point, and I would definitely be open to a game where outcomes were more certain.

Darknight: he/him

05-07-2015 19:18:29 UTC



05-07-2015 21:16:48 UTC