Nation Game

the forums


You are not connected. Please login or register

Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1 Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:21 pm

kobo1d

avatar
Moderator
Please suggest rule changes from NG2 in this thread. My idea:

Nation Game 3:

Nation Game 3 is a game of diplomacy, trade, and war. Each player controls an entire nation in a fictional world. The goal of the game is to defeat the other players; through military might, diplomatic savvy, or clever resource management. Roleplaying is highly encouraged.

Territory:

The world map is divided up into 450 territories, from which the players form their nations. Each territory is valuable in its own way. Most generate gold, some instead provide valuable resources.

Gold:

Each territory generates 1 gold per turn. Roughly 1 in 36 territories, determined at random at the start of the game, generates 2 gold per turn. A player's capitol city, a space determined at the start of the game by the player, generates 2 gold per turn as well. A player who has captured an opponent's capitol city only gains 1 gold per turn from the ex-capitol.

Turns:

Every day, at 12PM EST, a new turn begins. If a player doesn't post for 4 turns, their nation is dissolved. If you feel this might be a problem for you at some point, bring it up and we can try to work something out. A player must post each day to generate gold for that turn. Each turn, a player may spend their gold, or bank it for later. Gold may be spent on expansion, army creation, or traded with another player. Each turn, a player may also elect to use their military to attack another player's territory(ies). (Actions have been done away with, you are only restricted by the limited amounts of gold and armies you have)

Expansion:

An adjacent unclaimed territory may be annexed by a player. The cost (in gold) of such expansion is equal to half the number of territories you control, rounded down. Expansion gets progressively more expensive as your territory increases, to represent the difficulty of maintaining a massive empire. During a war, the cost of expansion into unclaimed territory is doubled, becoming equal (in gold) to the number of territories you control.

Territories may not be freely given to another player, but players may grant another player the ability to colonize their territory, as if were empty. This sort of territory annexation has no distance restrictions, and costs half the price of regular expansion in gold (1/4th the number of territories you control, rounded down).

Example: If you control 5 territories, annexing a nearby territory (your 6th) costs 2 gold, and the next two territorial expansions (your 7th and 8th) cost 3 gold each. If you have 49 territories, annexing the 50th would cost 24 gold; the 51st would cost 25.

Army Creation:

Gold may be spent to build a military force. An "army" costs 5 gold to create, and costs 1 gold per turn to maintain. Players that cannot afford their army upkeep must disband any units they can no longer afford. Players may choose to purposefully disband a military unit. Despite the name, armies may represent many kinds of armed forces: army, navy, air force, etc. Armies cannot be used the turn they are purchased.

Resources:

Resource providing spaces (“nodes”) are determined at random at the start of the game. Roughly 5 in 36 spaces provides a standard resource, and there are 5 different standard resources across the globe. Each resource grants a cumulative 10% bonus on all military dice rolls. Multiple resource nodes of the same type do not stack. There may be special types of resources that do not have nodes, only available through trade with a non-nation entity. You may supply resources to neighboring nations, for free or at a cost, but allowing another nation to use your only node of a resource denies yourself its bonus for the duration of the trade.

Example: If you have access to one resource, you would multiply the total of an attack or defense roll by 1.1, if you have 5 resources, each roll would be multiplied by 1.5.

War:

Step 0: Before you may attack another player, you must declare war and give some sort of reason for the war. The defender may either accept the attacker's terms (if there are any), or go to war.

Step 1: Player declares what player they are attacking/defending (and it should make geographical sense).
Step 2: If the player is involved in multiple wars, the player must choose how many of his armies to devote to each player. Each player may only battle another player once per turn.
Step 3: Player rolls a die for each army he decided to use in Step 2. Please mention any resource bonus when rolling.
Step 4: Allies may provide dice of their own to assist another player. Assisting allies should make sense geographically, but can provide as many of their armies as they choose. Any armies an ally provides may not be used in that ally's own wars. Do not roll dice for your allies, they need to publicly confirm their assistance and roll their dice for you. Allies with resource bonuses may apply them to their rolls.
Step 5: At the end of the turn, the rolls are compared and whichever player (plus their allies) rolled the higher amount wins the battle. The winning player may spend gold to annex the opponent's territory as if through expansion, but at half of the regular price (1/4th the number of territories you control, rounded down).

End of Battle:
For each territory that has changed hands during a war, the player who lost the battle no longer gains the gold/resources from that territory, but the winning player does.

War ends when the two nations come to an agreement, one nation gains all of the other nation's land, or when the attacker gives up.

Example of a War:

Player 1 is in a war on two fronts. He has 10 armies (dice), and 3 resources. He chooses to attack Player 2 with 7 of his 10, and Player 3 with another 3.

Player 1 rolls 1,4,3,6,5,1,1=21(x1.3)=27.3 for Player 2 and 3,2,4=9(x1.3)=11.7 for Player 3.

Player 4 decides to use 1 of his armies to help the attack vs. Player 3. Player 4 has 5 resources.
Player 4 rolls 2=2(x1.5)=3 to help Player 1 vs. Player 3.

Player 2 has 5 armies and 1 resource.

Player 2 rolls 1,5,1,5,5=17(x1.1)=18.7 for Player 1.

Player 3 has 3 armies and 5 resources.

Player 3 rolls 3,2,6=10(x1.5)=15 for Player 1.

Player 1 wins the battle with Player 2, and loses the battle with Player 3 (even with the help of Player 4). Player 1 spends some of his gold to claim some of Player 2s adjacent territory on the victorious front, but loses some on his other side when Player 3 elects to spend his gold to claim some of Player 1's territory.

Non-Nation Entities:

Selected veteran players may elect to play as a meta-national entity. These players generate 3 gold per turn and have access to a unique resource for which they have a limited but monopolist supply. They have access to 6 nodes of their special resource, which they may do with as they wish. They may trade this resource with other nations as they see fit. They are capable of having army dice, but not capable of holding a territory. If a territory were to be taken by a non-nation, it instead becomes unoccupied again. Like nations, non-nation entities gain bonuses from resources in war (including their own if they haven't traded away all 6 nodes.)

Civil Wars/Revolts:

If a player has been eliminated, they may continue posting and possibly make a comeback at a later date. When a player is eliminated, if they are interested in rejoining later, they roll a d6 for each remaining army they have at the time of their defeat. Any 5's or 6's rolled at this time represent a rebel force that remains solvent and under the control of the eliminated nation. These armies do not have a military upkeep cost until the exiled player regains a territory.

Players generate 1 gold per turn in exile, and may still trade with foreign powers. Should they have 3 gold, in addition to enough to create an army(s), they may do so, forming immediately in their previous capitol. At this time, all of the revolting ex-nation's army dice must be rolled to take the ex-capitol. The opponent holding the ex-capitol treats this as an attack on said territory as any other attack.

Victory:

The game is over when the players mutually consent to end the game. Usually this is when one nation becomes unrepeatable, or the game becomes static.

Beginning the Game:

Each player starts with 5 adjacent territories on the map of their choosing. Each player begins with 10 gold, and one standing army. Players do not have to pay military upkeep on their 1st turn. New nations may join for five 'turns' (days) after the game has started.

Players who seek to join the game after the cutoff date may do so in the same manner as an eliminated player rejoining the game. The new player first chooses a name for their faction/ethnic group and a desired homeland province, and starts generating 1 gold per turn. At this time, new players receive 1 army to represent their guerrilla resistance force. New players may begin trading with other nations immediately. Should a new player have 3 gold, in addition to enough to create an army(s), they may do so, forming immediately in their desired capitol. The opponent holding the ex-capitol treats this as an attack on said territory as any other attack, but may not use their free defense dice to assist.

Roleplaying:

Fluff is HIGHLY encouraged and OOC should be kept to a minimum in this thread. Take it to the OOC thread, please. It is looked down upon if you cannot explain how you are attacking / colonizing a colony, HOWEVER it is not against the rules per se. Just please use common sense.

Please do not attempt to play more than one nation. Yes, we can check I.P.s.



Last edited by kobo1d on Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:34 am; edited 8 times in total

View user profile

2 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:54 pm

We need something about giving away colonies, as seen in the current game.

Don't know exactly how to regulate it fairly, though. I might just put something about it similar to what we have for expanding in unreachable places.

View user profile http://nationgame.forum-motion.com

3 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:05 pm

How about a system on revolts and re-creating old nations after they are conquered?

View user profile

4 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:55 pm

I'll again state my preference for discarding the current combat system in favor of something not directly tied to territory. The giving of colonies in the current game was just a symptom, the real problem was larger nations could consume smaller ones with ease, and there was no way to stop or slow them. There were no close wars in this game, every time, regardless of allies(like tzenak, who got assistance from almost every active nation) and other actions the bigger nation curbstomped the other. This made war a surefire way for large nations to gain 4 territories a turn, a surefire loss for smaller nations, and ultimately utterly boring.

View user profile

5 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:19 pm

Ideas for the combat system:
- instead of one colony equaling one dice, five colonies equal one dice (should you have six colonies for example, you would receive one dice)
- allies give half the dice they would use themselves (rounded down)
- ???-sided dice is rolled each turn with ??? being the number of colonies total in the game and the colony that is rolled is worth one colony more than it was before (this could be permanent or not; fluff-wise it would be like discovering oil or gold in the colony, so I'd say permanent, but I dunno)

Critique? Other suggestions?

View user profile http://nationgame.forum-motion.com

6 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:51 pm

Honolulu wrote:Ideas for the combat system:
- instead of one colony equaling one dice, five colonies equal one dice (should you have six colonies for example, you would receive one dice)
- allies give half the dice they would use themselves (rounded down)
- ???-sided dice is rolled each turn with ??? being the number of colonies total in the game and the colony that is rolled is worth one colony more than it was before (this could be permanent or not; fluff-wise it would be like discovering oil or gold in the colony, so I'd say permanent, but I dunno)

Critique? Other suggestions?

5=1 doesn't feel right, but after thinking about it I suppose it's at least worth trying; at the very least it means far fewer numbers to add together. I also like the new ally dice. I think we should probably specify that the minimum is 1 die; no one should be worth less than 1 ally die, and no one should ever be able to roll less than 1 die in war.

I also like the idea of resources; I think we should take it further and work on a system for trade, though. Currently, trade is a thoroughly meaningless fluff-only thing that doesn't even come up much. We could do so much more with it, though, since this game moves slower than /tg/(gameplay does, anyway; the fluff doesn't slow much until after everyone's already quit due to it moving too quickly). I remember reading an old post from kob1d a while back saying that he had an idea for a rudimentary economy, and if he still has it I'd like to hear it.

As for colonies, I think the rule should be that you can only exchange territories in peace time, excepting trades to your attacker, or by orders of your attacker, for the purposes of peace.

View user profile

7 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:16 pm

Ideally I would like to see a system where war is risky for everyone, war is exhausting (so there is an impetus to make peace rather than fighting round after round), and fighting on multiple fronts is dangerous.

This could actually work well combined with some sort of basic economic system. Maybe countries could each have base dice(such as the 1 per 5 that honolulu proposed) and then could spend money to get extra dice(perhaps with an upper limit, such as you can only double your dice). Allies would only contribute dice if they spend money. This way , war is an economic drain even if your winning, allies have to take their commitments seriously as it cost them money, and fighting more than one enemy at a time is dangerous, as while you will always get the base dice, it will cost you significantly to try to boost your army against multiple attackers or defenders.

View user profile

8 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:24 pm

minotaur wrote:Ideally I would like to see a system where war is risky for everyone, war is exhausting (so there is an impetus to make peace rather than fighting round after round), and fighting on multiple fronts is dangerous.

This could actually work well combined with some sort of basic economic system. Maybe countries could each have base dice(such as the 1 per 5 that honolulu proposed) and then could spend money to get extra dice(perhaps with an upper limit, such as you can only double your dice). Allies would only contribute dice if they spend money. This way , war is an economic drain even if your winning, allies have to take their commitments seriously as it cost them money, and fighting more than one enemy at a time is dangerous, as while you will always get the base dice, it will cost you significantly to try to boost your army against multiple attackers or defenders.

I like this.
There are probably currently-unpredictable abuses, but we'll work those out in time for NG4, eh?

The only problem is determining how much money you get.

View user profile

9 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:37 pm

Here's a basic proposal:

Countries have a Rating and Money-
The Rating = provinces/5 (this can be adjusted based on map size/player base)

Money accumulates until it is spent - each turn a country makes it's rating in money(from taxes)

New Actions: These can be done instead of colonization or war

Trade (costs 1 money) - choose another country, they earn d6 money (this is added at the start of the country's next turn)
this can only be done once per country per turn.
(this represents buying their trade goods , so to make money for both nations they will each need to spend an action trading)

Boost Economy(costs 2 money)- earn d6 money (like trade, it is added at the start of the countries next turn)

Interdict Trade(costs 1/2 rating of target country)- The target country does not get any trade money from actions this turn. Any trades it makes also do not earn money for their receipient
(Note: as in real life this is a really good way to start a war. Also, like wars or colonization this needs to be fluff justifiable, i.e. no interdicting trade on a country on the other side of the world unless you can somehow justify it)

Anyone have input or a better idea?

View user profile

10 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:00 pm

Syrnn

avatar
Moderator
If I may, I think that actually having armies (or banners) would be a great way to limit ones ability for war. There was a great game I played once called Conquest of the Empire that was a Roman Empire style game similar to risk, with an economy and limited movement of troops - you had legions and so on, but they could, in essence, only move with a General, of which you had three. Your Caesar was a general as well, but losing him loses you the game (something I find a bit unnecessary), and regions had income for which you would buy more troops. It was really rather reminiscent of Axis & Allies without the ridiculous scale, nor the stacked teams. This might make a good example of how to do things, and having Batallions rather than Legions as your measure of troops would be a good way to do it. Moreover, I think there ought to be a way to encourage more than just military victory, but diplomatic (ie by way of ascending to political power absolute), or economic (essentially by being able to buy out other people). These are just ideas that popped in, but I thought I would throw the chips in on it while I could.

I still maintain that having something like a Merchant League or Church, or even just a general Assembly of nations for which there are players that are not in direct competition but add certain benefits, either financial, military, or political (like in the form of votes, possibly on laws that affect all lands) would be a great thing to keep the game multi-dimensional, and not a dice-hoarder. For any whom have experienced it, Warrior Knights by Fantasy Flight Games pulls this off quite well, and while the combat system, based on cards, makes War universally a costly and usually bad thing for both nations involved, the principle or idea behind these separate non-national entities is solid to me.

Thoughts welcome, otherwise I could go into great detail about either!

View user profile

11 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:07 pm

Mostly, I think minotaur's on to something. However, I think the fact that this cuts into your colonization/war will get in the way, and we should have some way to make being an economic superpower a major advantage, rather than just a way to boost military strength at the cost of expansion.

In addition, I think trade should be a bit more passive; I just don't like the idea of expending an entire action on it, for each destination. A country in the middle of the map should be a trade hub, and should have all the advantages that come with that, without being forced to expend all of its actions to ensure each ally expends only one of theirs.

----

Syrnn, I like the idea of having limited troop movements, and I feel it would actually help with fluff. I also think we should have capital cities; you put a capital in one of your starting territories, and that territory has a huge defensive bonus. But if you lose that territory, your opponent takes half your money and you're militarily crippled until you can establish a new capital city, which costs money and consumes one action (maybe two?), and doesn't take effect until the next turn.

Wow, this gets less and less like Nation Game all the time...

View user profile

12 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:10 pm

i think if we do this new Business style game that the whole world would be a great map to use, ie we would have more things to trade and it would just be better all round... change my vote from 40k map to Whole world map... and WWII setting would be good or WWI..


but this economic system thing could work well... i like it better then the single minded WAR BITCHES approach

View user profile

13 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:18 pm

Syrnn

avatar
Moderator
Personally, the reason I bring up Assembly/Church/Merchant League idea is that I personally do not believe I have the time to wholly invest in NG3 like I did 2, which, though incredibly fulfilling, did take a lot out of me - I really went all out in trying to make things comprehensive for each of my posts, though I certainly petered out towards the end. I would love to be involved, but I doubt I can run a nation. Thus, being a meta-power that can grant bonuses, and is more involved with the passive portions of the game, rather than the direct bid for power, would be great.

Between the idea of trade embargos from the league, excommunication from the Church (Or an Inquisition style force for support?), and international/realm law within the Assembly that affects each power (possibly even granting offices that have distinct advantages and responsibilities) from the Assembly, these are all ideas I think would really bring the world to life as a whole, rather than merely just what each player internally knows about their nation and its people. With such institutions, it makes it that a stance must be made, or risk not having the possibility for certain admittedly minor benefits. An ebb and flow to the body politic of the world would, to me, be a far more interesting thing to observe as much as play in, and it is what I really strove to create with my policies in NG2.

Anyone feel like this might work, or is this bogging stuff down too much?

View user profile

14 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:22 pm

Syrnn wrote:Personally, the reason I bring up Assembly/Church/Merchant League idea is that I personally do not believe I have the time to wholly invest in NG3 like I did 2, which, though incredibly fulfilling, did take a lot out of me - I really went all out in trying to make things comprehensive for each of my posts, though I certainly petered out towards the end. I would love to be involved, but I doubt I can run a nation. Thus, being a meta-power that can grant bonuses, and is more involved with the passive portions of the game, rather than the direct bid for power, would be great.

Between the idea of trade embargos from the league, excommunication from the Church (Or an Inquisition style force for support?), and international/realm law within the Assembly that affects each power (possibly even granting offices that have distinct advantages and responsibilities) from the Assembly, these are all ideas I think would really bring the world to life as a whole, rather than merely just what each player internally knows about their nation and its people. With such institutions, it makes it that a stance must be made, or risk not having the possibility for certain admittedly minor benefits. An ebb and flow to the body politic of the world would, to me, be a far more interesting thing to observe as much as play in, and it is what I really strove to create with my policies in NG2.

Anyone feel like this might work, or is this bogging stuff down too much?

It's hardly bogging stuff down, but I don't think we could have too many, simply because it would be difficult to fill them. You've said that you'll likely play one, but I think I'd rather play a nation (though playing the Church does seem interesting), and I'm not sure how many others currently here would play one, and I simply don't think we could allow extranational power to the new players who aren't as familiar with our rules and expectations (which are quite different from those of a standard Nation Game).

View user profile

15 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:29 am

kobo1d

avatar
Moderator
Lots of good ideas, but we have to be careful not to make this just a pen-and-paper Civ-game too. Ideally, any new rules should be simple and elegant.

My economy idea I never wrote up was each territory generates 1 "gold" per turn, and then the "gold" could be used to spend on various things, like expansion or war. Using a currency opens up the opportunity to trade gold between players, i.e. "Help needed for war! Mercenary army needed, offering X gold." or "I'll buy these colonies from you for X gold." etc.

In this situation, you can buy an "army" for x gold, and this army is essentially a single dice that can be used in war, perhaps having a physical location in game. Armies would likely also have a upkeep cost, and there would have to be some way to lose them in war I think. Expansion could cost gold as well.

I never really fleshed out the idea fully, just brainstorming.

View user profile

16 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:13 am

Syrnn

avatar
Moderator
kobo1d wrote:Lots of good ideas, but we have to be careful not to make this just a pen-and-paper Civ-game too. Ideally, any new rules should be simple and elegant.

My economy idea I never wrote up was each territory generates 1 "gold" per turn, and then the "gold" could be used to spend on various things, like expansion or war. Using a currency opens up the opportunity to trade gold between players, i.e. "Help needed for war! Mercenary army needed, offering X gold." or "I'll buy these colonies from you for X gold." etc.

In this situation, you can buy an "army" for x gold, and this army is essentially a single dice that can be used in war, perhaps having a physical location in game. Armies would likely also have a upkeep cost, and there would have to be some way to lose them in war I think. Expansion could cost gold as well.

I never really fleshed out the idea fully, just brainstorming.
It sounds a lot like Empire Points used in ME for Warhammer. I think that keeping gold completely economic is important, though tying this to armies makes sense. Influence, rather than gold, I would say should be the currency of colonization, but this would be a hard thing to quantify. I'm not quite sure where I am going with this, but I agree with kobo1d that the systems should remain simple, yet elegant.

I think armies should be something completely bought - if someone wants a standing army to defend their nation, each year it should require "upkeep", though an initial cost of just buying would be greater, to stymie rapid building of forces, but make maintaining forces over long periods of time somewhat manageable. Whether these forces need to be localized, however, or universal to your nation, I still think one army/banner/batallion should be one dice, or other equivalent. Two or three gold to hire/build such an army, one gold to maintain a standing unit, and possibly two gold to finance support to an ally.

The clearer the rules, of course, the better. What the institutions or meta-nations might be able to do is garner gold in its own fashion, such as collections by the Church, bribes in the KLeague, or taxes by the Assembly. In this, they might be able to influence the world, though not a great deal. Again, just ideas, but these should be treated in whatever fashion suits you.

View user profile

17 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:55 am

kobo1d

avatar
Moderator
I've got a notepad here with shortened versions of what everyone has suggested. I'm trying to figure out a way to tie all the ideas together in a coherent ruleset.

One of my biggest annoyances with the WW2 era game was that the world shouldn't really be empty, populated with little seperated "island" nations and vast unexplored area. The world was pretty well established at that time, and it just seems incredibly odd to me.

This is why I really liked the fantasy game because it made more sense to me having unexplored areas in that setting. Any fluff ideas that could reconcile the weird divide?

This should probably be in the setting thread, but this thread is hot right now. Very Happy

View user profile

18 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:18 pm

kobo1d wrote:I've got a notepad here with shortened versions of what everyone has suggested. I'm trying to figure out a way to tie all the ideas together in a coherent ruleset.

One of my biggest annoyances with the WW2 era game was that the world shouldn't really be empty, populated with little seperated "island" nations and vast unexplored area. The world was pretty well established at that time, and it just seems incredibly odd to me.

This is why I really liked the fantasy game because it made more sense to me having unexplored areas in that setting. Any fluff ideas that could reconcile the weird divide?

This should probably be in the setting thread, but this thread is hot right now. Very Happy

i have an off the wall setting...ok here we go

each country is actually a corporation, these corporations come from off planet searching resources to fuel there industries, each corp. has a private army to help them aquire resources... the setting would be quasi steam punk/ WWII tech... that would represent the "island" being there initial landing site. then they would expand from there

View user profile

19 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:38 pm

and to justify it, if we want to do an earth map we can say the back story is Earth got fucked up beyond living conditions, humans fled to mars now we are coming back to "recolonize" or vice versa where humans are colonizing mars

View user profile

20 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:56 pm

His Majesty The King wrote:and to justify it, if we want to do an earth map we can say the back story is Earth got fucked up beyond living conditions, humans fled to mars now we are coming back to "recolonize" or vice versa where humans are colonizing mars

imokaywiththis.jpg

View user profile

21 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:30 pm

Premier Cherdenko wrote:
His Majesty The King wrote:and to justify it, if we want to do an earth map we can say the back story is Earth got fucked up beyond living conditions, humans fled to mars now we are coming back to "recolonize" or vice versa where humans are colonizing mars

imokaywiththis.jpg

justasplanned.jpg

View user profile

22 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:27 am

kobo1d

avatar
Moderator
Trying my hand at crafting some rules now. Going to attempt to make the rules setting-neutral so they can be reused later.

Updated OP with the ideas. I'm not sure if their perfect, but at least it's a place to start maybe. Too complicated?

View user profile

23 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:12 am

So is the game over? Perfect ending, if so, Whats the plan behind the next game?

View user profile

24 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:14 am

Odin wrote:So is the game over? Perfect ending, if so, Whats the plan behind the next game?
read the whole thread, and the setting nd maps threads.

View user profile

25 Re: Nation Game 3: To Pick the Rules on Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:06 am

I like the new rules, though the fact that you can't use defending armies in attacks doesn't feel right.

Just to be sure, does expansion not require anything but the expenditure of gold? I think it should require an army, so a rich nation can't continue to freely expand while in war without damaging their ability to wage war.

In addition, the meta-nations should generate more gold. Maybe three a turn?

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum