Rules & Proposals

Q1) Yes you can attack the same region twice from 1 fleet.
Q2) No the +1 does not apply until the next turn. I actually don't think you can send two spies to the same region.
Q3) Yes you do round up so in that example, his average would be 5.

I would really like to build a city right about now. I propose we change the rules to say this:

Proposed Change to Rules

How many cities you can build is determined by how many regions you control. 1 – 25 regions: 1 city. 26 – 50 regions: 2 cities. More than 50 regions: 3 cities. A player can therefore build up to 3 cities during the game. How many fortifications you can build it determined by how many regions you control. 1 – 20 regions: 1 fortification. 21 – 40 regions: 2 fortifications. 41 – 60 regions: 3 fortifications. 61 – 80: 4 fortifications. More than 80 regions: 5 fortifications. A player can therefore build up to 5 fortifications during the game.

@High Fist: just realized I need to change the rules for World Wars 1510 to reflect this as well. I’ll e-mail it to you again. Actually, I’ll post them in the RtD Development group so that the potential players of the game can see them and decide if they like them or not. Cheers! Cats

Originally Posted by Rogue General

The rules don't state anything of the sort.

Well they should because that's the way it has always been. 1 spy per region. Check EWs IV through VI. You cannot use 2 spies on 1 region. Unless Ivan specifically changed that rule, this shouldn't be possible.

Yes that'd be good to change. Shall I do it now?

Another question: Someone uses two moves to attack one region. The first attack gets a 3 and thus a +1 bonus if they attack the same region. Can this bonus apply to the second attack, or does it only apply if they attack the region next turn?

In Asian Wars, players can use more than 1 spy on a region. I very much prefer that option, because at times you only have 1 move, but 2 spies available. So I am opposed to limiting spies in this way. Shall we vote?

@Ivan
In RotR, I gave the bonuses to players immediately (in the same turn). In EW VI, it was always the next turn. It's up to you how you want to go about it.

Fine, change it. But let me know next time, ok? Besides the Rivers system, there were no other changes to the EWs rules as far as I know.

Sound job. Though the rule set is easily enough understood compared to these new economic games. I'd say most would be fond of the rules set.

I'm fine with this rule proposal. I want a city too damnit!

Rules to update

Cities & Guilds

Spys and spying
Should we go back to EW6 rules, which was the following?
[0]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] 1 spy
[5] 2 spies can be used
[6] 2 spies can be used, with +1 each
[7] 3 spies
[8] 3 spies, with +1 each

Cities & Guilds
New rule:
How many cities you can build is determined by how many regions you control. 1 – 25 regions: 1 city. 26 – 50 regions: 2 cities. More than 50 regions: 3 cities. A player can therefore build up to 3 cities during the game.

How many fortifications you can build it determined by how many regions you control. 1 – 20 regions: 1 fortification. 21 – 40 regions: 2 fortifications. 41 – 60 regions: 3 fortifications. 61 – 80: 4 fortifications. More than 80 regions: 5 fortifications. A player can therefore build up to 5 fortifications during the game.



Old rule:
A player can build up to 3 cities: 1 when you have 15 regions, 2 when you have 30 regions, and 3 when you have 60 regions.An important city cannot be built in a region that already has an important city or a fortification. Players can own any number of cities.

Spies: Yes, EWVI rules please.
City: New rule sound good.

I'm fine with the new rules.

if you have a city, you get +1 prestige every turn. So what should happen if a player has 130 prestige, and then for 20 turns they are inactive, but not attacked. Their prestige will reach 150, nd they'd win, even though they're inactive, and for all we know, not playing anymore Should that be fair, or should you have to be active to win?

Also, should players who don't put their moves in still get prestige from the cities?

The prestige way of winning is flawed IMO, you can just sit on your cities and ta-da. Give rep.

I'd say raise the prestige winning condition to 250.

Yeah, and make prestige a little harder to get

Originally Posted by Ivan Braginski

if you have a city, you get +1 prestige every turn. So what should happen if a player has 130 prestige, and then for 20 turns they are inactive, but not attacked. Their prestige will reach 150, nd they'd win, even though they're inactive, and for all we know, not playing anymore Should that be fair, or should you have to be active to win?

In theory, yes. In practice, that won't ever happen.
If a player is absent for an extended period of time, you can bet that other factions will take the opportunity to seize that player's cities.

But I see your point. Instead of 150 (or 250) Prestige, how about setting the prestige victory condition to 200?

How about you need a certain amount of regions and prestige to win?

Lord of Dread asked if you can upgrade your forts. The answer is not as this point, but here are a few ideas of upgrading it.

First option
The player says they want to upgrade their fort, and the GM rolls for the upgrade. If it is a 1, 2, 3 or 4, the fort at any level (unless it's already the top level obviosuly) will be upgraded one level. If a 5 or 6 is rolled it will upgrade two levels, and if a 7 or 8 is rolled, it'll upgrade 3 levels.

Second option
The player says they want to upgrade their fort, and the GM rolls for the upgrade. However, whatever number comes up will be the type of fort built, so there's a risk that'll you downgrade rather than upgrade.

Third option
Very similar to option 2, except that forts don't downgrade, only upgrade. If a player rolls a score lower than their fort level, the GM will keep rolling until a higher score than their fort level is reached.

Do we vote? In that case I vote for 1st option.

I vote 1 one as well (since I only got a fort )

1st option for me

1st.