Rule Changes/ Proposals

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Originally Posted by temetem

Wait a minute, isn't that the point of rep? to be praised for something you did or for something that someone found insightful? and about not being repped, i didn't get repped. and i got no complaints about being unsportmanlike.

There are achievements in the game that the players can accomplish and that fellow players give rep for. The GM is not supposed to give rep for the players’ achievements. And a GM is definitely not supposed to judge other players and give rep for “true sportsmanship” which implies that other players do not have “true sportsmanship.”

Originally Posted by temetem

it is only that Gen. Maximus and Theotian went beyond anyone else's perseverance in the struggle to survive, and perhaps perish, by their own creation. most everyone else bailed when their nation started to sink. totally understandable. the rep was for people who went beyond that and played, to sum it up, honorably.

Then Rogue General should have simply said he is giving rep to Theo. and Max. because he liked that they played to the end/hung on. He should not have used the words, “true sportsmanship.”

Originally Posted by temetem

Speaking of theworldstage's earlier post, doesn't switching factions for power defeat the purpose of winning the game through self-creation? not much satisfaction in winning by reaping the rewards from a GM-controlled faction. i agree with theworldstage on his statement that WC is taking bad performance on his part in-game way too seriously. Losing isn't the worst thing in the world. I mean, Gen. Maximus, as far as i know him, loves history and is obsessed with playing as Rome. Once Rome was lost, he shouldered his pride and moved on without too much fuss.

I am not upset about losing. Why do people think that? I’m perfectly fine with losing if I have no other options. But I do have an option in this game: playing as a different faction which has a better chance at going somewhere. People seem to be having an issue with me self-destructing my faction, which is perfectly acceptable in EW, but not in RotR due to the current nature of the GM-controlled faction rules which are faulty.

Originally Posted by temetem

WC, ROTR is unlike the EW series. the EW series is a race to the finish. ROTR is on a smaller map, more factions, more turns, and a complexity that is solved by one simple motive...war. in a fast-paced rtd, there will be losers, for there to be any winners. look at how many factions are destroyed... not abandoned, destroyed. this game takes diplomacy and its counterpart, treachery (which is totally welcome, as you've seen) to a higher level. in EW, diplomacy is background status. You've been playing the big, bad, iranian bully thus far, don't you think that the Aegeans, dispersed as they are, felt defeat to a worse degree than you have? the idea is to play, and to either win or lose.

What’s funny is that Rogue General said that his game is based off of EW, but it has become apparent that it is not. This is due to his handling/rules of GM-controlled factions. I have made a proposal to basically eliminate GM-controlled factions because a faction won’t be controlled/active until a player takes it. THAT will solve a majority of problems in this game.

Originally Posted by temetem

People blame you for taking this game too seriously. However, i will encourage you to taking the game, as a game, seriously. the difference is i don't want you taking winning/losing too seriously.

I do not take a game seriously. I take what people say seriously (which is a mistake sometimes). I do not take winning or losing too seriously. They just happen; they just are, and you go through them at various times.

In conclusion, you’re making assumptions about me, temetem. Please stop. Thanks.

@Ivan: see, I was right. I knew what the counter-argument would be. But I totally disagree with it because it causes more problems than it solves them. Yeah, I know RotR rules are different. That’s why I want to change them. I want them to be like EW because those work.

Originally Posted by Ivan Braginski

My proposal is that GM factions can grow, but they can always only do one attack a turn, no matter how large they may become
OR
They can only take regions every 5/10 turns, though if they become larger they can still eventually take 2-3 regions a turn
Basic rule proposal
If this already hasn't been mentioned, I suggest that GM controlled factions cannot be taken over by current players. They whole purpose of GM controlled factions is so new players have a decent faction to begin playing, not for current players who want to hop around the map.

You’re complicating things. Now current players will say it isn’t fair to be stuck with their factions for the entirety of the game (and I’m one of them). If non-player-controlled factions are allowed to expand, player-controlled factions must interact with them. How much interaction should there be? That is an essential question with no easy answer. The simplest solution is to not have them expand at all until a player comes to take them.

Cheers! Warrior

1. Yes
2. Abstain
3. Yes.

WC, IMO RG (any more abbreviations? ) giving rep for Maximus and Theotian repped them because he approved of their actions/ behaviour as himself, not as Rogue General the Game Master.

Mind you, you've brought up very valid points; no one should be forced to keep playing as the same faction, yet at the same time it's unfair for everyone else if they're allowed to simply switch to an existing one, especially if it has more regions than the previous one.

Damn this problem. We've got to come to a compromise, both sides have valid arguments.

Guys, do you think we should limit the number of fleets that can be built? The seas are crawling with them, and I fear that they may cause problems.

1. Difficult for the GM to keep track of fleets positions and current status (fresh, weakened, repairing, upgrading)
2. Difficult for the GM to put them on the map if more and more are built, unless their symbols can overlap

They also seem to be destroying each other at a pretty quick rate when nations come into conflict.

Look to the Pontus Euxinos and you'll see what looks like a solid idea on how to avoid problems with too many fleets: fill in the shape and put in a number.

RG talked with Lenin Cat about the trade-off that exists between having no fleet cap and being able to upgrade/repair the ones you've got.

@Ivan Braginski

Not really a problem for me, tbh. As tws said, I just put in a little number inside the symbol if there are a lot of fleets.

I would prefer a limit of fleets to 4 fleets but in echange you should be able to update them

@Antiochus,

I think that would be a great restriction on the next RotR, but that there are nations with tiny navies and nations with very large navies at the moment

Perhaps the same restriction that is in European Wars would work here. Maximum of 3 fleets at the beginning of the game, 6 at 10 regions, 9 at 20 regions, and so on.
EDIT: Or the fleet cap could be determined by your faction's Prestige? Hmm...

Region count would better approximate building capacity, wouldn't it? (forests, etc?)

True. Region count makes more sense.
Since there will be navy caps, I'll include rules for upgrading ships also, if that's ok with everyone.

These rules will not come into effect in this round, but in RotR II.

New proposal.

When a faction has two allies who are at war with each other, that faction must choose one ally to side with and terminate the other alliance.

I noticed this rule in EW and it's not in this game. It makes sense so there you go.

i disagree with this region exchanging because you want other factions to be at war with you, it either should be limited or not allowed when you give a region to a faction which is also hostile to your so that they can attack you, its getting abused

@High Fist
How will the rule be enforced? As in, what will be the penalty if a faction does not make up its mind?
Prestige penalty, perhaps... or something else?

@Antiochus
I understand that you don't like region exchanges (even though the same system is in European Wars and Asian Wars), but do you have a specific idea (proposal) on how to change it?

not yet but i'm going to work it out when i'm free to do it

but something has to be done about it

@Antiochus, Are you saying like how I can zoom across the map to N. Africa? Cause yeah, I agree. When the same thing was happening to Epirus I got fairly annoyed at that.

If you can think of something to nerf that, that'd be cool.

@Rogue, I'm not sure. If they don't choose one, then both alliances are terminated maybe? Could leave you very weak if you're relying on them in a war.
I'll ask WC, since I saw this rule in one of his posts. In the mean time, anyone else have a better idea?

Whatever the rule is that gets constructed for this purpose (HF's alliances point), either it must have a way to be grandfathered in for existing conflicts, or should be postponed to the next RotR. It would make sense for conflicts to come in the game, but many decisions around strategy and diplomacy have been made by every player along the existing lines.

That said, I'd be more than willing to bend my head to the task of figuring out how to write the rule.

Rule proposal:
The faction turn order system will be changed to a European Wars-style system.
Every 5 turns, the faction order will be shuffled. With this rule change, there can be no contesting of regions.

Example: If you roll a [5], while an enemy rolls a [6] in a regional tug-of-war, it will not necessarily be the case that your enemy will own the region at the end of the turn. Who attacks first, and who attack last, will be based on the faction order.
Example 2: If you build a fleet, and an enemy builds a fleet in the same turn, whoever is higher on the faction list will have their ships constructed first. This will make things more balanced for the remainder of the game.

I realize the game is nearly at an end, but this rule will also be in effect in future RTDs I might GM, if no one is opposed to the rule change.

Two questions; what happens to that persons turn? The one who fails, I mean.
Will we be aware of who will precede who?

It will be just as it is in European Wars, so the faction that is listed first, will go first. So yes, everyone will be aware of who will precede who.
The faction list is shuffled every 5 turns (as opposed to EWVI, in which factions are shuffled every turn).

I'm not sure I understand your other question.