Nation Game

the forums


You are not connected. Please login or register

End/modify NG3? Quickly begin NG4 with better rules? VOTE

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

wat do?

53% 53% [ 9 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
41% 41% [ 7 ]
6% 6% [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 17

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:I don't like the territories=armies. I think they should be seprate so it creates more diversity.
That would require we keep the economy system, which, right now, is a massive clusterfuck.
How is it clusterfuck?

View user profile
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:I don't like the territories=armies. I think they should be seprate so it creates more diversity.
That would require we keep the economy system, which, right now, is a massive clusterfuck.
How is it clusterfuck?
No one knows how much gold they have.
For a while, everyone thought resource nodes produced gold, even though Honolulu and I were both told by kobo1d on turn 1 that they didn't, and the fact that a nation with a lot of resource nodes can't actually do anything.

View user profile
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:I don't like the territories=armies. I think they should be seprate so it creates more diversity.
That would require we keep the economy system, which, right now, is a massive clusterfuck.
How is it clusterfuck?
No one knows how much gold they have.
For a while, everyone thought resource nodes produced gold, even though Honolulu and I were both told by kobo1d on turn 1 that they didn't, and the fact that a nation with a lot of resource nodes can't actually do anything.
Not true. Now that we all state how much gold we have it clears up the first issue. The resource node was an issue....at the begining it was later made clear to us. As for not nations having more nodes.. it gives you advantage more military power. But it comes at the cost of you giving up econmic power.

View user profile
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:I don't like the territories=armies. I think they should be seprate so it creates more diversity.
That would require we keep the economy system, which, right now, is a massive clusterfuck.
How is it clusterfuck?
No one knows how much gold they have.
For a while, everyone thought resource nodes produced gold, even though Honolulu and I were both told by kobo1d on turn 1 that they didn't, and the fact that a nation with a lot of resource nodes can't actually do anything.
Not true. Now that we all state how much gold we have it clears up the first issue. The resource node was an issue....at the begining it was later made clear to us. As for not nations having more nodes.. it gives you advantage more military power. But it comes at the cost of you giving up econmic power.
The problem is that your military power is tied to your economic power.

I have two armies.
TWO.
You know why? Because I took a bunch of resources.
I don't have a military advantage; the Caliphate had two territories and one resource and would've destroyed me if I hadn't called for back-up.
Because of my advanced "military power."

It's not a fair trade-off, because an economic power will have a dozen armies by the time a "military" power has five.

View user profile
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:I don't like the territories=armies. I think they should be seprate so it creates more diversity.
That would require we keep the economy system, which, right now, is a massive clusterfuck.
How is it clusterfuck?
No one knows how much gold they have.
For a while, everyone thought resource nodes produced gold, even though Honolulu and I were both told by kobo1d on turn 1 that they didn't, and the fact that a nation with a lot of resource nodes can't actually do anything.
Not true. Now that we all state how much gold we have it clears up the first issue. The resource node was an issue....at the begining it was later made clear to us. As for not nations having more nodes.. it gives you advantage more military power. But it comes at the cost of you giving up econmic power.
The problem is that your military power is tied to your economic power.

I have two armies.
TWO.
You know why? Because I took a bunch of resources.
I don't have a military advantage; the Caliphate had two territories and one resource and would've destroyed me if I hadn't called for back-up.
Because of my advanced "military power."

It's not a fair trade-off, because an economic power will have a dozen armies by the time a "military" power has five.
Don't want to sound like an ass but that's your fault for picking al those resources and if resources are the only problem then get rid of them but it is clear NG3 rules are just fine

View user profile
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:I don't like the territories=armies. I think they should be seprate so it creates more diversity.
That would require we keep the economy system, which, right now, is a massive clusterfuck.
How is it clusterfuck?
No one knows how much gold they have.
For a while, everyone thought resource nodes produced gold, even though Honolulu and I were both told by kobo1d on turn 1 that they didn't, and the fact that a nation with a lot of resource nodes can't actually do anything.
Not true. Now that we all state how much gold we have it clears up the first issue. The resource node was an issue....at the begining it was later made clear to us. As for not nations having more nodes.. it gives you advantage more military power. But it comes at the cost of you giving up econmic power.
The problem is that your military power is tied to your economic power.

I have two armies.
TWO.
You know why? Because I took a bunch of resources.
I don't have a military advantage; the Caliphate had two territories and one resource and would've destroyed me if I hadn't called for back-up.
Because of my advanced "military power."

It's not a fair trade-off, because an economic power will have a dozen armies by the time a "military" power has five.
Don't want to sound like an ass but that's your fault for picking al those resources and if resources are the only problem then get rid of them but it is clear NG3 rules are just fine
In much the same way that it's the fault of the player who has never played 3.5 for picking a fighter while the rest of his group (who have also never played the game) chose casters?

The current economy is a clusterfuck. The resources are not as useful as straight income. It might work if we scrapped resources, but then why not just modify NG2 rules?

View user profile
I believe that we keep the gold currency but do away with resources to minimize what ever cluster fuck you are feeeling.....

View user profile
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:
Premier Cherdenko wrote:
irishman wrote:I don't like the territories=armies. I think they should be seprate so it creates more diversity.
That would require we keep the economy system, which, right now, is a massive clusterfuck.
How is it clusterfuck?
No one knows how much gold they have.
For a while, everyone thought resource nodes produced gold, even though Honolulu and I were both told by kobo1d on turn 1 that they didn't, and the fact that a nation with a lot of resource nodes can't actually do anything.
Not true. Now that we all state how much gold we have it clears up the first issue. The resource node was an issue....at the begining it was later made clear to us. As for not nations having more nodes.. it gives you advantage more military power. But it comes at the cost of you giving up econmic power.
The problem is that your military power is tied to your economic power.

I have two armies.
TWO.
You know why? Because I took a bunch of resources.
I don't have a military advantage; the Caliphate had two territories and one resource and would've destroyed me if I hadn't called for back-up.
Because of my advanced "military power."

It's not a fair trade-off, because an economic power will have a dozen armies by the time a "military" power has five.
Don't want to sound like an ass but that's your fault for picking al those resources and if resources are the only problem then get rid of them but it is clear NG3 rules are just fine
In much the same way that it's the fault of the player who has never played 3.5 for picking a fighter while the rest of his group (who have also never played the game) chose casters?

The current economy is a clusterfuck. The resources are not as useful as straight income. It might work if we scrapped resources, but then why not just modify NG2 rules?
Scrapping resurces would b fine but to completely scrap NG3 and make whole new rules or revert back to NG2. Why? When the game w have been playing is just fine. And you could have gone for the plain territories arround you.

View user profile
Bland and boring it is, with action points and collecting matching sets of symbols. Very Happy

Economy? Book-keeping! Don't want. Unless gold doesn't carry between turns, at which point life is good. Smile

View user profile
Chinese R-3 wrote:Bland and boring it is, with action points and collecting matching sets of symbols. Very Happy
Yea ok if I wanted that I would play some free shitty online game.

View user profile
And what are you playing now? Smile

View user profile
OOC, i hate my computer sometimes

IC: i like how this game introduced an economy system, and i will say in support of it that Money = armies not size of land... look at Britain and look at Canada... Britain has a better military and is smaller, Canada is HUGE but has a military? my point being is that the more and bigger military you have depends on how much you are willing to spend on it

and to fix the problem if we do the Sit Rep every post it should help everyone know how much Jew Golds they have...

I also support the idea of two IC threads, one for fluff and one for colonization/ announcing where you will attack.

I did not like NG2 as much as i like NG3...


I also think we should be able to do more with our money, ie Blockade or cut off someone from there money for lets say double...

ie if i wanted to cut off Player As money for colony 2, i would pay 2 Jew Golds to cancel that payment off, something that is more fluffy then just WAR!!!

View user profile
Perhaps economy could be worthwhile but we'd need to make shit about 10 times more obvious this game.

View user profile

Syrnn

avatar
Moderator
His Majesty The King wrote:OOC, i hate my computer sometimes

IC: i like how this game introduced an economy system, and i will say in support of it that Money = armies not size of land... look at Britain and look at Canada... Britain has a better military and is smaller, Canada is HUGE but has a military? my point being is that the more and bigger military you have depends on how much you are willing to spend on it

and to fix the problem if we do the Sit Rep every post it should help everyone know how much Jew Golds they have...

I also support the idea of two IC threads, one for fluff and one for colonization/ announcing where you will attack.

I did not like NG2 as much as i like NG3...


I also think we should be able to do more with our money, ie Blockade or cut off someone from there money for lets say double...

ie if i wanted to cut off Player As money for colony 2, i would pay 2 Jew Golds to cancel that payment off, something that is more fluffy then just WAR!!!

The problem with these proposed system is then balancing the dynamic of the economy and the military, because exponential growth in one leads invariably to the other, while this is not truly so (See: War is not good for the economy, if you took any kind of Econ 101 you would know this). We are here for a simple to play (that is, post a day only for some players!) and fundamentally "gameable" experience. None of us here are professional game designers in so far as I am aware, and even with such a boon, I most certainly don't want to see this board undergo series of play-testing to fine tune what will be a system solely for use here.

Yes, I agree that size does not necessarily equal economic strength, and yes I agree that NG2 ended in a terribly ham-fisted (though interesting nonetheless) fashion. Does it mean that we need to recreate the entire system? No, the joy of NationGame was in its pick-up-and-go nature. After all, it was designed originally to be played on /tg/ of all places! God forbid someone not be able to participate for sheer complexity or speed that the game moves at; and that, I think, is the key factor many of the more dedicated players are forgetting. This isn't merely for those of us here hankering to get our game on, but for anyone whom is willing to make the commitment towards the long term of the game and oversee something that is, while slow, rewarding.

I think that the skeleton economy I mentioned before scrapping the multiplier principle of the NG3 resources coupled with restrictions on how war can acquire territories and the number of dice a player can bring to bear should they face multiple aggressors and so on all address the issue in some manner. I don't see why it is discounted. Yes, I can understand why people wouldn't like NG1 or 2 in comparison with the ambitions of NG3, but the reality is we need to take smaller steps towards crafting a more complete system, not an overhaul that gets rid of all faulty, as well as functioning parts, of the system.

View user profile

kobo1d

avatar
Moderator
So as of this post, 9 people want to start from scratch and 7 want to continue. So we are very divided. This poll allows vote canceling, so if anyone changes their mind feel free to re-vote.

Here is my proposal: we begin setting NG4 into motion, immediately. Not the game yet, but the pregame threads. Deciding on everything takes some time anyhow. While we're doing this setup, though, NG3 continues.

Everyone seems to have an idea of the rules they are imagining in their head.

Syrnn, China, Cherdenko, minotaur, anyone else, take some time to formulate your ideas into an actual set of rules. If we all post our various ideas, we can then perhaps merge the best of them, or vote on a favorite(s). There isn't a set time limit, as for the moment we are continuing NG3, but the sooner everyone articulates their general rule ideas into an actual rule document, the sooner we can dissect them.

View user profile
So, we need a way for shit to not be exponential.
How 'boot this:
during your turn, you dedicate what % of your available workforce goes to War, and what % goes to Expansion.
Your total military strength for that turn = the % you dumped into War, multiplied by (your number of territories).
Your total ability to expand for that turn = 1 war territory per 20%, or 1 peace territory for 40%.
Have to win a war -and- pay to expand in the same turn to take territory in a war.
There are 20 sets of 3 resources scattered around the map. acquiring a full set through conquest or trading gives you a 20% bonus, to be spent as the player pleases.

Only downside is: No random chance. I wonder where the random chance should come in?

View user profile
Chinese R-3 wrote:And what are you playing now? Smile

View user profile

43 Rules Idea on Sun May 02, 2010 1:23 pm

Here's a set of rules for discussion. I've tried to keep the simple basis of NG 1 and 2 while addressing some of the issues from those games. After the rules are some commentary on my thoughts behind them.
Notes: All numbers listed are preliminary, and can (and should ) be adjusted based on map size/# of players.

1] Play
There are 2 IC threads, a turn thread and a diplomacy thread
Each nation makes 1 post to the turn thread, listing the action
taken that turn, and rolls any dice required by their actions.
Nations may post as many times as they like in the diplomacy
thread, and are encouraged to RP heavily there.

2] Actions - Each day a nation may choose one action
A - Colonization
Roll 5d6, for each 4+ gain one unoccupied territory
B - Expansion
Gain 2 unoccupied territories
C - Attack
The nation may launch an attack on a nation with which they
are at war.
D - Mobilization
Gain 2 size dice for this turn
E - Give Territory
Give up to 5 regions to another nation

3] War
Declaring War - Wars must be declared 1 turn before fighting
begins. An announcement of the declaration of war must be
made in the nation's turn post.
Ending War - Both parties in a war must indicate that they have
agreed to peace in their turn post.
Dice - A nation has 3 base dice + 1 size dice per 10 territories
Base Dice are always used, Size dice must be declared to be used
Size dice may only be used once per turn
Fighting - attacker and defender both roll dice. At the end of
the turn the higher total wins. The victor may take 1d6
territories(if attacker) or 1 territory(if defender) from the
loser.
Allies - An nation may contribute any unused size dice to help
an ally attack or defend. The support must be declared and
the dice rolled by the contributing nation in the turn thread.
Supporting an ally may be done with any action
Inactive Players - If a nation was attacked and has not rolled
defense dice by the end of the turn then all their dice are
counted at a value of 3 per die. If there is more than one attacker then size dice are divided equally between each attacker. If the inactive nation wins they do
not gain territory.
*

4] Nation creation and reformation
To create a nation, choose a name and up to 8 unoccupied
regions and make a post in the turn thread. The turn after a
nation joins it may begin taking actions.
Eliminated Nations - A player that has lost his nation may
either start a new nation with 4 unoccupied regions, or
play a rebel front
Rebel Front - A rebel front has no regions, no base dice, and
2 size dice. The only action it may take is to attack
(although like any nation it may support an ally with any
unused size dice). If a rebel front wins territory in an
attack or is given territory by another nation, it acts as
a regular nation from that point on.

* War example:
Bob the Massive has a mighty nation with 11 size dice. He also
has 3 wars and an ally at war. On his turn Bob chooses to
attack enemy 1, and rolls base + 4 size dice for the attack
Since he is not attacking enemies 2 and 3, he rolls defense
in case they attack him, allocating 3 size dice to the first
and 2 to the second. The remaining 2 size dice he uses to
support his ally. Bob's turn looks like this
Action : Attack enemy 1 (4 dice)
Defending enemy 2 (3) dice
Defending enemy 3 (2) dice
Supporting ally 2 dice

He then rolls 20 dice. The first 7(4 + size) are his attack
the next 6 are the first defense, the next 5 are the second
defense, and the last 2 are his support.
As a courteous player, he then edits his turn post with the
totals for the attack and each defense.

He wins the attack, looses the first defense and wins the
second.
Therefore on his next turn, he posts up to 6 regions that
he wants from enemy 1, and his first die rolled shows how
many he gains. He also chooses the 1 territory he wants from
enemy 3 for the successful defense. Enemy #2 gets to choose
the regions he wants from Bob and roll for them in his post



Thoughts on the rules
1] - The separation of threads into turn and diplomacy is to provide
an easy record of what has occurred, and separate out actions
from fluff.
The one post per day limit is to limit clutter and so players
must think about what they choose to do before posting,and to
force hard decision making.

2] - A nation having to choose one focus a day makes things simple
and avoids questions like can a nation a war still try to
colonize(answer : yes if they spend their action that way)
Rather than having to post and roll multiple times for
colonization and attack, the actions were given increased
value to simply things.
The expansion action was added to offer a choice, risk
colonizing for the potential big payoff or expand for
guaranteed growth.
Mobilization is to give another option to players who aren't
attacking or expanding, while the extra dice cannot be used
in an attack, they can be used for defense or in support
of an ally.
The give territory action is there to impose limits on how
fast nations trade territory and give it a cost.

3] The Base dice are so all nations have at least some war
fighting ability and to help cut down on steamrolling.
the size dice were reduced from 1 per province to help
make the numbers more manageable (avoiding the ridiculous
rolls necessary in NG2).
Size dice only being usable once per turn penalizes multi front
wars and makes allies a trade off, as giving an ally dice
reduces your own options.
The territory expansion on victory is there to add an element
of chance for an attacker(as you never know successful an
attack will be) and make attacking better for gaining territory
that defending, since an action has to be used to attack.
The inactive player rule is there to keep wars from bogging
down and avoid the need for a gamemaster to roll for players
that aren't there.
Wars needing to be declared a day ahead of time is to avoid
the attack at 11:30 pm that the opponent never has a chance
to respond to syndrome, and give attacker, defenders, and
allies the ability to plan out their turn(since after all they
can only make 1 turn post)

Trade - There is no trade support in these rules, it would go back
to being fluff only. While I regret this, the fact is it's very
hard to have useful trade without an entire economic system
which would kill the simplicity needed for the rules.

I welcome comments and discussions of this proposal

View user profile
I like it, but I loath the taking away of economics.

View user profile
I like minotaur's rules, but I feel like we should have more than one action. You should also be able to roll defense until the end of the next turn, as not everyone can show up in time to roll every day. Backed rolls won't be as big a problem as they were in NG2 because you don't attack each territory.

In addition, the number of territories required for size dice should be reduced (maybe to 1 per 5?) to increase the ability of a nation to defend itself and attack.

In addition, what if someone attacks with all their size dice, and their opponent does the same? If that happens for several turns there will be no change in the direction of the war.

Oh, and the attacker shouldn't have to wait a turn. The person declaring war should get an advantage in the form of a free attack with no chance of immediate retaliation. This works if we allow defenders up until the end of next turn to defend.

View user profile
Premier Cherdenko wrote:

In addition, the number of territories required for size dice should be reduced (maybe to 1 per 5?) to increase the ability of a nation to defend itself and attack.

This could be changed. Upping it really won't help a nation attack and defend though, as every nation would share in the increase.


In addition, what if someone attacks with all their size dice, and their opponent does the same? If that happens for several turns there will be no change in the direction of the war.

If two enemies attack each other, whoever wins the round gets to take territory, just as if one attacked and one defended. This just represent two offensives running into one another.


Oh, and the attacker shouldn't have to wait a turn. The person declaring war should get an advantage in the form of a free attack with no chance of immediate retaliation. This works if we allow defenders up until the end of next turn to defend.

The reason I had wars wait a turn is so that everyone has a chance to see the war and react to it before dice start getting rolled. The thing is if we allow immediate attacks and defenders to roll the next turn, it's the same as if wars are declared a turn before combat except that wars start getting backlogged.

Example:
War declared turn 2
Attacker starts assault turn 3
Defender defends turn 3
result known immediately

With the change:
Attack declares war and assaults turn 2
Defender still has until end of turn 3 to roll and acquire allies
(the same as originally, so the attackers surprise attack has gained nothing for him)
however now the result of attack in turn 2 won't be known until the end of turn 3, causing a paradox. If the attacker keeps fighting, or is engaged by others, war resolution continues to back up with each turns attacks not resolved until the turn afterwards


I like minotaur's rules, but I feel like we should have more than one action. You should also be able to roll defense until the end of the next turn, as not everyone can show up in time to roll every day. Backed rolls won't be as big a problem as they were in NG2 because you don't attack each territory.

The reason I cut it down to one action is for the benefit of those who don't have time to post more than once a day. We could switch to multiple actions, but each action would need to be cut down(ex with 2 actions each colonization attempt gets 2 rolls.

Since wars are declared ahead of time, defenders will know 24 hours+ in advance that they will need to make a defense roll. And since you don't have to wait for the attacker to make their roll, a log on any time in the turn is sufficient to roll defense.
(ex, Someone declares war on me. The next day when I have a chance to log on, I use my action for something else, so I roll defense. Then whenever the attacker logs on they can roll their attack. If they decide not to attack, then my defense doesn't matter and the turn moves on)

View user profile
Seems to work but it makes war very unprofitable - you take 1d6 in a successful war (avg. 3.5) and take an average of 2.5 for a colonisation. Only at size 30 do you gain advantage over an opponent who has size 1-10, as otherwise the fight is simply too close to be reliable.

I like the concept, but the numbers are off. >.>

View user profile
To make war profitable, you'll NEED to make each territory taken in war 1/2 the cost to take it in peace exactly (as in war, there's 1 winner, and 2 combatants) - also, an attacker would aim to have at least double the defender's power before trying anything.
One possibility that needs to exist is that a person could stockpile military forces for an invasion. An -im-possibility that needs to exist is that a defender shouldn't be able to wall someone twice their size.
There needs to be a motive for expansion.

When I try to tweak your system it just doesn't allow it because a military response is immediate, either large nations get elevated to steamroll status with no lasting penalties or smaller nations can wall them.

I'm screwing around with the numbers to see if I can come up with something linear but also intuitive. Obviously armies need a high 'creation cost' and minimal maintenance cost from there. A Constant ability to take territory seems good for removing most of the exponentials associated, and military power proportional to # of territories also works, but I don't want to do this with any Gold (or whatever economy resource) carrying over between turns.

Annoyingly, giving the players the option of supporting different sizes of military massively increases the Action Point total, and not giving them that option goes against the general idea of an economy+war game. Balancing, balancing.
There's the issue of massive breakpoints in an action-point system, too - in an economy system, any gold unused carries over. With action points it's wasted, and it'll be wasted very goddamn often with anything but aspergers-level micromanagement.

armies need a high 'creation cost' and minimal maintenance cost from there.
And that, in itself, leads to massive militarization because nobody will want to disband their armies, even in peacetime. Perhaps there could be a Buyback of 75% of the army's initial cost to disband it? :S
It'd certainly lead to natural steamrolling tendencies - buy up armies, declare war, win with armies, use disbanded funds from armies to grob londs, ride the exponential curve for a bit then repeat.

Right, econ system is go. But it needs to be SIMPLIFIED. ... LOTS.
I can probably do that, but it'll take some time getting everything in order :]

View user profile
Edit: Screw this, simpler plan below.



Last edited by Chinese R-3 on Mon May 03, 2010 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
I have an idea of my own, though all the numbers are rudimentary and a bit arbitrary and may need to be changed.

It uses two types of actions, "Standard" and "Move" (yes the names are stolen directly from D&D).

Each player gets 4 Standard actions, which can be used for any of the following actions:
Declare War - A formal declaration of war. Fluff is not optional. You may not use territories claimed during war to boost your military power until the war is over, and you may not declare war less than two turns before ending a war.

Attack - Costs 2 standard actions. Military Power is equal to one-half the number of territories you have (will probably need to reduce this, it's mostly a placeholder). You must choose how much Military Power to allocate to a target. You may or may not have a fixed amount of this that is always used in defense (something like 1/4 total territories) to prevent you being totally defenseless if you are attacking. Exact rules for taking territories undecided.

Trade - Establish a trade route with target nation. Spending two Standard actions will allow you to establish a trade route with up to three nations, and spending four will allow you to establish routes with up to five. Trade routes confer no direct bonuses to the owner, but the target receives a (as-of-yet unspecified) modifier on military die rolls. Presumably, this will be used reciprocally by all nations involved in the trade agreement. Trade deals can only be canceled by expending a Standard action on the Embargo action, and will not end until such time or until a Blockade action is used on the target nation. Trade represents a way to support a nation in conflict without actually taking sides; you can't provide ally support to both sides of a conflict, but you can trade with both.

Embargo - Cancel trade deals with target nation. Spend two Standard actions to cancel trade deals with up to three nations, and three Standard actions to cancel as many as you want.

Blockade - Cancel everyone's trade deals with target nation. New deals cannot be made for 1 turn. You can spend two Standard actions to make it three turns, and four Standard actions to make it five. This has a cooldown of 2/4/6 turns, depending on how many actions you spend on it.

Militarize - Gain bonus to military potency depending on how many Standard actions you spend. Always lasts two turns (not including the turn you use it), regardless of actions spent. Can only be used once every fifth turn.
1 action - +1 dice
2 actions - +3 dice
4 actions - +5 dice

Ally Support - Up to one-half of your Military Power is subtracted from you and given to one player of your choice. This lasts one turn, but has no cooldown, so you can offer support as long as you are willing to expend an action. You do not need to Declare War to send ally support.

Each player also receives 3 Move actions per turn, which can be spent on any of the following actions:
Expansion - Gain two territories of your choosing. Spend two Move actions to gain three.

Colonization - Costs two Move actions. Roll up to 6d6. Colonize on each 4+. You must specify territories to be taken before rolling. Territories gain priority by the order they are listed (i.e. if you say "Colonizing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6," and then you roll 1, 1, 1, 4, 6, 1, the two successes mean you colonize territories 1 and 2).

Plan Expedition - Gain a +1 bonus to all Colonization rolls next turn. Take a -1 penalty to all Colonization rolls the turn after. This does not apply to the turn it is used, and cannot be used more than once every three turns (so you cannot use it until the turn after the -1 penalty is applied).


Players may or may not also receive one (1) Free Action. A Free Action can be substituted for any action which takes only 1 Standard action. It may also be used to Expand. You cannot spend a Standard or Move action to take that same action on that turn, and you may not use a Free Action to Declare War.

Actions do not carry over between turns, however a player that is absent will keep up to one turn in actions backed up. So a player who has been absent for one day will have 8 Standard actions and 6 Move actions, as will a player that is absent for three days. Free Actions cannot be backed up.

Criticism, numbers, and ideas for additional actions are welcome.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

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