Rule Changes/Proposals

Any player may propose rule changes here

Originally Posted by Lord of Cats

The rules say NPC factions can engage in diplomacy with player factions. Is it possible for a player faction to create alliances with NPCs? Is it possible for Scythia to create an alliance with five NPCs on the first turn, for example?

Wanted to get player input on this since we didn't have this in most of the previous RTDs. Rule proposals regarding NPC diplomacy, and using Prestige as a currency:

Prestige and NPC Diplomacy (click to expand)

Rule change 1: Prestige "Prestige" is renamed to "Influence" Per discussion below, we'll keep "Prestige" name the same. Rule change 2: Diplomacy with NPC factions Players may spend "Prestige" to try to persuade/bully an NPC faction to do something. The amount of Prestige you need to spend depends on how many cities you own: - 0 or 1 city = costs 1 Prestige - 2 cities = costs 2 Prestige - 3 or more cities = costs 3 Prestige GM rolls dice to determine outcome. Rolling a 1-3 means your persuasion attempt fails. 4-6 means your persuasion attempt is successful. What can you bully er, persuade an NPC faction into doing? - Declare war on another NPC faction - Attack a specific region or Sea zone - Trade a region with you - Sign a 5-turn peace treaty or ceasefire with you or another NPC - Establish an alliance with your faction or with another NPC - Force them to break an alliance (-1 to persuasion attempt) Rule clarifications Note: the clarifications listed below are Rule clarifications that will be enforced, but I won't include them with the general Diplomacy rules. Instead, they will have their own separate section to reduce clutter. Rule clarifications - Persuasion attempt does NOT cost a Move! It only costs Prestige. If you have a large amount of Prestige saved up, you can try to persuade multiple NPCs in a single turn. - To persuade an NPC to attack a specific region/sea zone, they must already be at war with the owner of that region, and they must be able to attack it this turn - You cannot ask NPCs to trade capitals, cities, or fortifications - NPC factions cannot break a peace treaty or ceasefire - NPC factions cannot gain or lose Prestige due to any diplomatic actions they take (or actions they are bullied/persuaded into taking). - If you are allied to an NPC faction they will always join your side in a defensive war (meaning, if the enemy initiated the war). - However, an allied NPC faction will refuse to join your side in an offensive war if they already have a Peace Treaty or Ceasefire signed with the opposing faction. - NPC factions cannot be forced to break an alliance on the same turn the alliance was created. - NPC factions cannot be forced to sign a peace treaty or ceasefire within the first 2 turns of a war. (I.e, they must be at war for at least 2 full turns before they consider any form of peace). - NPC factions cannot declare war on an ally, unless war breaks out between 2 of their allies and they are forced to choose sides. If an NPC is forced to choose sides in this manner, they will remain loyal to their oldest allies (meaning, whichever faction was allied to them for a longer duration). - NPC factions may attempt diplomacy with each other. This costs them Prestige, just like it does for player-controlled factions. GM rolls dice to determine outcome.

EDIT: Simplified rules text based on feedback

I would keep diplomacy as simple as possible. I would make a list of possible treaties and have the rule be that a player can propose 1 treaty to each faction per turn. It doesn't take a move (just like using agents doesn't take a move) since moves involve fighting and building. When proposing a treaty to an NPC, roll a die with 1 to 3 being failure and 4 to 6 being success.

Keep prestige the way it is.

Best,
Cats

No strong opinion on the renaming of prestige to influence. Works either way for me.

In regards to diplomacy, I tend to agree with Rogue General. I'm all in favour of simplicity, but there needs to be some cost or otherwise the system is open to abuse. For example, there's nothing stopping the player to continuously try to form an alliance with every other faction, until he finally succeeds.

Totally agreed with Abdulmecid.
Lets keep it simple. New or first-time players are also joining in...let the rules not scare them!!

Prestige and NPC Diplomacy

#1: Prestige name Sure we can keep "Prestige" name the same. I just thought "Influence" makes more sense with the new diplomacy rules, but I don't care much what we call it. #2: NPC Diplomacy Rules For the new diplomacy rules however... as far as simplicity goes, if we compare the suggestions its not that much more complicated. Simply put, the difference is: - (Cats suggestion): players may propose one treaty to each NPC faction per turn (insert list of things you can propose) vs - (My suggestion): players may persuade the NPC faction to to do something (insert list of things possible). This costs 1-3 prestige. All the other complexity you see is not because of Prestige being involved but just the caveats I've had to include to avoid players from abusing NPC diplomacy in general. [Edit: deleted fluff] Another thing. This kinda solves one of the main issues I personally had with Prestige (and I think other players kinda hinted at this in Rise of the Republic RTD), that being, there isn't much point to Prestige in the end-game (besides encouraging a player to uphold their treaties). Most prestige interaction in the late game was "punishment", i.e. you get punished for violating this treaty or that treaty. I wanted to balance it out by now providing "opportunity" as well. Players now have the opportunity to spend Prestige to influence other (NPC) factions, even cause them to become like client-states in some cases. They are more useful now that you can dictate specifically what you wish for them to do. Which leads me to the next reason: there are fewer folks participating in the game this time around. Without something to allow players to influence NPC factions, I feel the game might get stale more quickly. My hope is the new NPC diplomacy rules lead to a more dynamic game and more fun experience for all players involved. Really curious to see how you Warlords shape the map not just through conquest, but also through NPC proxies One final note, this also helps take out some of the guesswork for the GM. You can ask the NPCs to do some pretty specific stuff now, and the less decisions I need to make on behalf of an NPC the less complicated it is for me EDIT: I agree with the call to simplicity though. Perhaps what I could do is simplify the wording down to just a few bullet points. Then I'll have the rest of the caveats/loophole rules in another section that we can refer to as the game progresses, so that we don't overwhelm players. How does that sound? EDIT 2: Alright, I've simplified the rules text. I also moved the extra rule clarifications to the end - it will have its own section to reduce clutter. Many of these clarifications deal with edge-case scenarios that I don't think we'll encounter much, but its good to have this in text to prevent conflict in the future. See the edited OP above.

Rule proposal: Bonuses. We had these bonuses in Rise of the Republic, I forget why I omitted them here.

Bonuses

Bonuses At the end of every turn, the GM will average all the dice-rolls you got from Military and Building moves. Depending on the result, you may get a bonus next turn: [0] = No effect [1] = No effect [2] = No effect [3] = No effect [4] = No effect [5] = +1 bonus to 1 Dice-roll next turn [6] = +1 bonus to 2 Dice-rolls next turn [7] = +1 bonus to 3 Dice-rolls next turn *Dice-rolls for determining counterattack outcome, and rolls for passing Edicts are not counted. * Bonus +1 cannot be used for diplomacy rolls or for evading ships/fleets.

This rule comes into effect immediately unless you guys really don't want it.

I want this rule. Go ahead RG!

Alright. Bonuses have been added.

Originally Posted by Lord of Cats

Hmm, since the way naval battles work prevent any kind of counter-attack, I should be attacking land regions during the first 5 turns grace period. Naval battles would also deny getting those bonuses unless the result is divided by 3.

Per Cat's suggestion, a rule update regarding sea battles:

Sea Battles: bonuses and penalties

During offensive naval battles your dice rolls are averaged. If your average is 7 you gain +2 prestige. If your average is 5 or greater you only get +1 prestige. If your average is 3 or greater (and you failed to conquer the sea zone), +1 to your initial battle roll in this sea zone next time (bonus expires in 1 turn) If your average is 2 or less, -1 penalty to your initial attack roll in this sea zone next time. (penalty expires in 1 turn) If your average is 1 or less, the enemy will also launch a counterattack.

This keeps sea battles more consistent with land invasions & dice roll bonuses in the game. I'll have this applied retroactively so Scythia does get a +1 on its initial sea battle roll for turn 2.

Edit (July 8th): Added prestige bullet points above

What do y'all think of giving a buff to players with crappy luck? Something like: A faction that tries (and fails) in capturing a region/sea zone for 3 turns in row gets +1 for all attack rolls until they finally capture something.

I dunno, open to ideas here.

I, of course, am open to this suggestion. :p You could call it an experience bonus where the faction has gained enough combat experience (despite defeats) that they finally score a victory.

EDIT: If a faction has been defeated 2 turns in a row, it receives +1 on its attack roll(s) if it attacks the same region(s). If 3 turns in a row, +2, 4 turns, +3, and if 5 turns, +4 at which point it should by the gods succeed.

Originally Posted by Lord of Cats

EDIT: If a faction has been defeated 2 turns in a row, it receives +1 on its attack roll(s) if it attacks the same region(s). If 3 turns in a row, +2, 4 turns, +3, and if 5 turns, +4 at which point it should by the gods succeed.

May end up being a bit too strong? Hmm.. I gotta mull this over a bit.

Anyways I can't blame you for switching factions - those were some awful rolls

Rules Clarification Question: About fortifications... what does "defense" mean? I know that sounds silly, but given that land attacks only involve 1 die roll, what does +2 defense mean? Does that mean -2 on the attacker's roll?

Originally Posted by Lord of Cats

Rules Clarification Question: About fortifications... what does "defense" mean? I know that sounds silly, but given that land attacks only involve 1 die roll, what does +2 defense mean? Does that mean -2 on the attacker's roll?

Correct. I should update the wording for clarity.

New Rule Proposal: Contesting a sea zone

If a player wants to add warfleets to a sea zone but it's already "owned" by another player, the new player may "contest" the sea zone. If successful, their fleets will be added to the sea zone. A maximum of 2 factions can have split-ownership of a sea zone. Any additional factions that want to have their fleet added to the sea zone must boot an existing faction's fleets out of the sea (like a game of king of the hill).

Full text of updated Sea Zone/Sea battle rules with the added "contesting a sea zone" option:

Sea Zones and Sea Battles (and Pirates)

Sea Zones and Sea Battles Sea zones are labeled, and are divided by black lines on the map (Ex: Eastern Mediterranean, West Mediterranean, Black Sea, etc.). Unlike regions which can only be owned by 1 player, Sea Zones can be have a maximum of 2 "owners". Sea Zones can be: Pirate-controlled Player-controlled (1 player has fleets in the sea zone) Split control (2 players have fleets in the sea zone) At the beginning of the game, all Sea Zones are pirate-controlled. Sea Battles Map for reference To attack a sea zone and thus "control" it, you may attack it like you would any other region (i.e. you must own a region or sea zone touching it). Once you control a sea zone, you may launch attacks from it as if it were any other region. Unlike battles for land regions which takes a single dice roll, Sea Battles will take 6 dice rolls: 3 for each side. Dice rolls for each side are added up, and whichever side has the highest sum wins the battle. Additional bonuses/penalties for sea battle depending on previous dice rolls: Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  During offensive naval battles your dice rolls are averaged. If your average is 7 you gain +2 Prestige. If your average is 5 or greater you only gain +1 Prestige. If your average is 3 or greater (and you failed to conquer the sea zone), +1 to your initial battle roll in this sea zone next time (bonus expires in 1 turn) If your average is 2 or less, -1 penalty to your initial attack roll in this sea zone next time. (penalty expires in 1 turn) If your average is 1 or less, the enemy will also launch a counterattack. If you control (or have split-control) of a sea zone, your fleets will automatically try to intercept enemies traversing the sea, with a 50% interception chance. If intercepted, the enemy move fails. Traversing the Sea Instead of attempting to control or contest a Sea Zone, you may instead choose to simply traverse the sea to attack a region on the other side. If the sea zone is not controlled/contested by a hostile player or by pirates, you may traverse without issue. However, if the sea zone you wish to traverse is controlled (or partially-controlled) by pirates or an enemy faction, you have 2 options: 1) Option 1: Attack the enemy fleet in the sea zone in an effort to wrest control of the seas for your own faction This uses a Move. If you are successful, your faction will now replace the enemy for control of the Sea Zone. 2) Option 2: Attempt to traverse through the sea zone to attack a region on the other side, trying to sneak past the enemy faction's ships (or pirate ships) that are patrolling the area. This uses a Move. GM rolls dice. Rolling a 1, 2 or 3 means your ships have been intercepted, and your move fails. 4, 5, or 6 means you successfully sneak past enemy ships. Contesting a Sea Zone A maximum of 2 factions can have fleets patrolling a Sea Zone. If no faction owns a sea zone: This means pirates are patrolling the sea zone, and will try to block factions from traversing this sea zone. Players can attack the pirates to try to remove them from the sea zone (as discussed above). If successful, the player will now "own" the sea zone and the pirates will be eliminated. If one (1) faction controls a sea zone: If "Faction A" owns a sea zone, another faction (Faction B) may attempt to contest the sea zone using a Move. If successful, Faction B will also have their warfleets added to the sea. Now two (2) factions have split control of the sea zone (and so both factions' fleets will try to intercept enemy attempts to traverse the sea). This is NOT a declaration of war! So you can contest sea zones owned by friendly nations. This also does NOT remove "Faction A" warfleets! (If you want to eliminate faction A's presence from this sea zone, you must declare war and attack their fleet in a normal sea battle). If two (2) factions have split control of the sea zone: Let's say Faction A and Faction B have split control of a sea zone, so they both have fleets patrolling there. If "Faction Z" also wants to have their fleets patrol this sea zone, they first need to target either Faction A or Faction B and contest them using a Move. If successful, the targeted faction will lose control of that sea zone, and Faction Z will replace them. Hint: Think of contesting a Sea Zone as a game of king of the hill, except instead of 1 king at the top of the hill, there are a maximum of 2 factions controlling a sea zone. When should you "contest" a sea zone vs. outright "attack" it? Simple. If you want a naval presence in a sea zone that is currently owned by a neutral/friendly faction (and you wish to keep the peace), simply "contest" them in the sea zone. Diplomatic relations might be strained, but you will avoid outright war. Otherwise, if you're already at war with a faction that owns a sea zone, it makes sense to just attack their fleet instead. How is a winner decided when "contesting" Sea Zones? Same way sea battles are decided, and all bonuses/penalties that apply to sea battles apply to contesting a sea zone as well. Bonus from Logistics Logistics wins wars. As reminder, sea battles take three (3) dice-rolls for each side, instead of the usual single dice roll for land battles. For each Great City you have touching a particular sea zone, you get +1 for all three sea battle rolls within that sea zone. For each Fortification you have touching a particular sea zone, you get +1 for your initial sea battle roll within that sea zone. Learn how to build Cities and Fortifications below under "Advanced Rules".

The new "contesting a sea zone" rules are planned to take affect after Turn 9 results are posted to allow for discussion here.

I vote no on this. I would just apply the traversing a sea zone rule for attempting to attack from an adjacent sea zone. For example, if Pontus wanted to attack Crete, it would have to traverse the Eastern Mediterranean, which is patrolled by Macedon, from the Black Sea. Just roll a die to determine if Macedon stops the Pontic fleet or not, 1-3 the patroller stops the traverser (orders their ships to depart from the seas or risk war) and 4-6 the patroller does not. If allied with Macedon, Pontus could attack from their patrolled sea zone because they'd let their ships on through without issue.

The problem we really need to solve are these terrible dice rolls, lol! Most players are getting 1's and 2's. How about Roll Dice With Friends.com? It says anyone can enter the dice room and see the results.

Originally Posted by Lord of Cats

I vote no on this. I would just apply the traversing a sea zone rule for attempting to attack from an adjacent sea zone. For example, if Pontus wanted to attack Crete, it would have to traverse the Eastern Mediterranean, which is patrolled by Macedon, from the Black Sea. Just roll a die to determine if Macedon stops the Pontic fleet or not, 1-3 the patroller stops the traverser (orders their ships to depart from the seas or risk war) and 4-6 the patroller does not. If allied with Macedon, Pontus could attack from their patrolled sea zone because they'd let their ships on through without issue.

I'd like to offer more factions the opportunity to protect their coastal regions and not make Sea Zones be a complete zero-sum game.

The eastern Mediterranean Sea is a particularly egregious example. It is wholly "owned" by Macedon, and under the current rules none of the other 5 factions get a chance to protect their coastline with fleets.

The only way for any other faction to have a naval presence at all in the sea zone would be to declare WAR on Macedon.

Even Pergamon, with the supposed "Maritime Supremacy" edict is not allowed (under the old/existing rules) to have their fleets protect their own coastal regions without declaring war on Macedon. Doesn't that sound just a little bit silly to you?

Originally Posted by Lord of Cats

The problem we really need to solve are these terrible dice rolls, lol! Most players are getting 1's and 2's. How about Roll Dice With Friends.com? It says anyone can enter the dice room and see the results.

I've tried that recently, the functionality appears to be more limited compared to Rolz.org. Doesn't have timestamps from what I recall. But I'll take another look at it. I'm not averse to using a website other than rolz.org, its just that I've tried in the past to find a suitable alternative and didn't find one. Let me know if you have any other dice-rolling websites I can explore, I'll check em out.

Originally Posted by Rogue General

I'd like to offer more factions the opportunity to protect their coastal regions and not make Sea Zones be a complete zero-sum game.

The eastern Mediterranean Sea is a particularly egregious example. It is wholly "owned" by Macedon, and under the current rules none of the other 5 factions get a chance to protect their coastline with fleets.

The only way for any other faction to have a naval presence at all in the sea zone would be to declare WAR on Macedon.

Even Pergamon, with the supposed "Maritime Supremacy" edict is not allowed (under the old/existing rules) to have their fleets protect their own coastal regions without declaring war on Macedon. Doesn't that sound just a little bit silly to you?

The coastal factions are "protected" by Macedon's patrols which will try to intercept any potential enemies. If at war with Macedon, the faction will need to fight them/contest the sea zone.

The best solution is to divide up the sea zones. Right now, controlling a sea is over-powered because they touch/threaten so many land regions. Break em up. Have the Aegean Sea, and Levantine Sea, the Western and Eastern Black seas, the North and South Caspian seas and so forth.