Rules & Proposals

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
  1. ✠Ikaroqx✠
    ✠Ikaroqx✠
    Here's an idea to limit agents against one player, as even with the increased cool down time, if people cycle through them, a player will be hit every turn.

    Agents (excepting spies) can only be used against a player every 2 turns. For example, Bob and Ben have saboteur's ready to use against Jim. Bob uses his, but Ben can't use his next turn. He has to use his saboteur the turn after.

    The results of the voting
    Proposal 1 7
    Proposal 2 7
    Proposal 3
    Proposal 4 1
    Proposal 5 8
    Proposal 6 2

    Passing proposals
    1 - When you take a region in the New World, all regions adjacent to that one will be revealed

    2 - If you want to attack elsewhere in the New World, where there aren't any discovered regions, you can do so. However, these attacks will suffer a -1 penalty

    5 - Retreating fleets

    Also please give your opinions on Librarian's proposal

    I think it would be interesting, if you could have a separate random event roll which is slightly less frequent than the regular and less likely. Say you rolled a d5, if you got a 1 or a 2,(So a 2 in 5 chance, just an example) a rebellion would occur in the new world, depending on the country, it would spawn a colored and aggressive rebel faction. If they get a 1 or 2. The GM would then roll a dice to see which nation gets it.

    Firstly, a rebel faction will aim to push their previous overlords out of America, but once their previous kings are out, the person they rebelled against can proxy control them, controlling them normally, but if a new player wanted, they could negotiate with the colonizer to play as their colonies.
    Players may name the rebel faction what ever they want.
    I think this would be a nice touch.

    Responses

    Ikaroqx - Librarian - IMO that's too complex for this sort of game, but here's a workaround: if a region revolts in the New World, and isn't successfully retaken by the player next turn, the region will turn dark grey and a new faction, called New World Rebels, will be created. This faction will represent all new world rebels, and emergent countries like the ones you listed. It'll be GM controlled, and it can only attack. It cannot conduct diplomacy. It will not be allowed to build forts or cities, but it can build ships. There will be only 4 dice options when attacking a region:
    1 - failure and the enemy launches a counterattack
    2 - defeat
    3 - defeat, but with a +1 bonus
    4 - Victory and the region is taken
    This is to prevent this rebel faction from becoming too powerful - after all, it's supposed to represent a temporary revolt that can be quashed.

    Librarian - I wanted it to emulate today's revolutions in the new world, I guess that could work, but only if it could eventually return to a vassalised of it's previous state? and gain (vassal)independence? For example, the rebels can only enter diplomacy with their former owners, they may only conduct diplomacy with Vassalage of itself in the deal, then when it is vassalised, it can go to a different country (like the USA for England) but controlled by SOAB (for USA)?

    What your trying to do is only have it as a small rebellion like an old world one, what I am trying to do is to allow more strategy, like if there is the USA, do the enemies of England support the rebels.

    Ikaroqx - How about this: One rebel faction, the New World Rebels whenever a revolt occurs and the player does not take it back in one turn. They will be coloured dark grey, but to differentiate them from each other, they'll have an outline of the colour of the faction they revolted from. For example, say there's a revolt in England NA, a region will turn grey, and they'll have a red outline.

    My reasoning for this is to prevent using up/ running out of too many colours, especially if more people join this game or the next one.

    Ooh, here's another idea: If the rebels get 5 regions, they'll become an independant faction, like the ones you say. Dunno how they'll be controlled then though.

    However, during the revolt/ revolution phase, who would control the rebel faction? I suppose the GM would, but that'd mean also conducting diplomacy, whereas GM aren't supposed to play their own factions.

    Librarian - I agree more with Ivan, diplomacy cannot be attempted by the rebel factions, only the other nations can offer to annex them or grant independence. And roll to see if they accept or not. The difference being is, if you choose independance, the nation is inactive and cannot attack but can defend, and only expands if gifted regions, If annexation, they are controlled by the peace maker but keep their colour. Perhaps for the annexed it has a darker grey and a lighter grey for independent.
  2. ♞Rogue General♞
    ♞Rogue General♞
    My issue is not with saboteurs, which are fine as they are, but with the new "repair" mechanic in the game. Gonna have to keep spending all of my moves to continually repair the cities that keep rebelling. This is just cray-cray!

    Current rule
    If a player loses their city due to a rebellion or invasion, not only does the player have to retake the city, but on top of that they have to spend an additional 5 build-points to "repair" the City. If the player doesn't repair the City, he/she will not gain any benefits from that City (i.e. No Prestige or benefit from Guilds).

    Proposed rule change
    A City only gets "damaged" if an opponent invades it, not if only a rebellion occurs in the City.
    Saboteurs are powerful enough weapons, and the added effect of forcing the target player to waste 5 build-points to repair their city (on top of spending moves to retake the city) is a bit overpowered imo.
  3. High Fist
    High Fist
    Aye to rule change.
  4. Cyrene
    Cyrene
    yes change this rule please.
  5. ✠Ikaroqx✠
    ✠Ikaroqx✠
    Yeah I see this way is better. It'll be a pain if it happens to me.
  6. ✠Ikaroqx✠
    ✠Ikaroqx✠
    Yeah I see this way is better. It'll be a pain if it happens to me.
  7. NobleWoman
    NobleWoman
    Aye, change the rule
  8. fredtrotter
    fredtrotter
    I thought we already changed this? Looks fine though.
  9. Lord of Shadows
    Lord of Shadows
    I support the proposal.
  10. Spartan999
    Spartan999
    suppport
  11. Librarian
    Librarian
    I have a proposal.

    The game will not end if there is a war going on that has taken a region in the last 3-5 turns. This will prevent the game left open ended if a Major World war is started. And the 5-4 Turn limit is to prevent abusing the rule. (Ahem, Lenin.)
  12. Lord of Shadows
    Lord of Shadows
    I support the rule.
  13. Kirila the Kitten
    Kirila the Kitten
    Ok... I too support the rule.
  14. High Fist
    High Fist
    Support, for 3 turns.
  15. ♞Rogue General♞
    ♞Rogue General♞
    Sure.
  16. High Fist
    High Fist
    This war better happen.
  17. NobleWoman
    NobleWoman
    Okay
  18. Kirila the Kitten
    Kirila the Kitten
    I already declared war HF, don't worry.
  19. ✠Ikaroqx✠
    ✠Ikaroqx✠
    Rules to remove
    Cities do not generate prestige
    Prestige should only be awarded when your faction achieves a one off great accomplishment, such as winning great battles, building a magnificent < fleet Sure, building a city and the others. It's also clear that lots of you are building them mainly for the prestige, that's natural, I'd do it too. Cities shouldn't be a method to farm prestige. Therefore the prestige winning limit should be set to 150

    Rules to tweak
    Leagues and great alliances
    We need to use a common sense with these; there's no need for five to attack one just because you're allies with each other. It only alienates the target. JAM on the other hand, is refreshing partly because we have multiple wars on that are only between two players. It's an even match, and I suspect no one can feel like they're being targeted or ganged up on.
    Perhaps there should be a limit of how many people can be in a league (3?)
  20. High Fist
    High Fist
    Perhaps there should be a limit of how many people can be in a league (3?)
    Could do it like EU4, and have a "relationship limit". So you can only ally, say 3, other people.

    It'd
    only be a league then if each of the three spent each of their three relationships on each other. Then they couldn't ally anyone else.
Results 101 to 120 of 127
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast