Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Proposal: You do realise this means War

fails - unpopular 2-3 - rt

Adminned at 25 May 2023 22:56:39 UTC

If the Rule “Monuments” exists, repeal it.

In the rule “Regional Development Fora”, remove the bullet point that begins with “Award” if it exists. In the same rule, after the bullet that begins with “Invite”, add these two bullet points:

* Recruit [Effortful Active + 2]: A Motion to subtract an amount from a City’s Population in this Region that would reduce the City’s Population to no less than 1, and add that amount to the Region’s Soldiers
* Declare War [Procedural]: A Motion to add this Region and another non-Abandoned Region named in the Motion to the list of Regions in the At War variable, removing any repeated instance of the same Region in the At War list.

Add a new rule named “War” and give it the following text:

Each Region has a publicly-tracked number named “Soldiers”, defaulting to 0.

There is a publicly-tracked variable named “At War” that contains a list of Regions and defaults to empty. If a Region’s name is in the list At War, then every City in that Region with a Population of at least 1 is considering to be Warring.

There is a publicly-tracked variable named “War Victories”, which is a table with one column named “Winner” and defaulting to no rows.

When there is only one non-Abandoned Region that has at least 1 City with non-empty Zones, any City Architect may execute the War Victory action by rolling DICEX, where X is the number of rows in the War Victories table. The result of this roll is R. The City Architect whose name is in the Winner column of row number R of the table achieves victory.

In the rule “War” add a subrule named “Combat” and give it the following text:

As a Weekly Action, a City Architect who controls a City that is Warring may execute the Combat action, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Choose a City that is Warring and is not the same Region as the City that this City Architect controls. Consider the chosen City to be the Defender and the City that this City Architect controls to be the Attacker.
* Prep Phase: Calculate D = PD + SD + 1, where PD is the Population of the Defender and SD is twice the number of Soldiers of the Defender’s Region, and A = PA + SA, where PA is the Population of the Attacker and SA is twice the number of Soldiers of the Attacker’s Region.
* Combat Phase: Roll DICEX, where X is D + A from the previous step, and call the result of the die roll L.
* Resolution Phase: If L is greater than D, subtract 1 from the Defender’s Region’s Soldiers, to a minimum of 0, or if the Defender’s Region’s Soldiers is already 0, subtract 1 from the Defender’s Population, to a minimum of 0. If L is less than or equal to D, subtract 1 from the Attacker’s Region’s Soldiers, to a minimum of 0, or if the Attacker’s Region’s Soldiers is already 0, subtract 1 from the Attacker’s Population, to a minimum of 0.
* Optionally, if both the Attacker and the Defender each have a Population of at least 1, repeat the steps starting at the step beginning with text “Prep Phase”
* Add a row to the War Victories table. If the Attacker has more Population than the Defender, set this row’s Winner to the name of the City Architect who controls the Attacker. Otherwise, set this row’s Winner to the name of the City Architect who controls the Defender, unless that City Architect is idle, in which case remove this row from the War Victories table instead.

If a City is reduced to 0 Population as a result of the Combat atomic action, set its Zones to empty.

After realizing that my previous Proposal was only delaying the inevitable, I’m proposing a different idea that gives every City Architect a literal fighting chance for victory.

Comments

redtara: they/them

24-05-2023 21:55:33 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

24-05-2023 22:01:04 UTC

against Also against the layering in of complicated new mechanics. I like the current monument approach

Chiiika: she/her

25-05-2023 18:29:25 UTC

against wanna ease things tbh

Bucky:

25-05-2023 21:48:22 UTC

against