Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grujah]

create: E8

Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm thinking along the lines of attacking other pieces.

How about a mechanism for getting the bidding for proximity out of the thread?

And into PMs? xD

[Grujah]

Idea - (goes against me, but w/e) - central tiles require higher upkeep than outer ones - prevents huge groupings in center.

[Grujah]

I had an idea of something which I consider to be a nice new rule: you can spend money to gain additional IPs on your turn (or maybe also on others' turns). For example, the first extra IP could cost N$30, the second N$60, the third N$90 and so on.
Just wanted to say it, maybe someone doesn't have an idea for a new rule but likes this one, or perhaps I'm going to propose it myself on my next turn.

Not bad at all.

[Grujah]

Idea - (goes against me, but w/e) - central tiles require higher upkeep than outer ones - prevents huge groupings in center.

Actually, I am probably going to make some "terrain changes" of sorts (probably give them color value which indicate stuff) as my next suggestion, if nobody does anything similar meanwhile.

[EFHW]

create: E8

Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm thinking along the lines of attacking other pieces.

How about a mechanism for getting the bidding for proximity out of the thread?

And into PMs? xD

I was thinking maybe a sealed bid auction via PM.  Each person sends one PM with their offer, the player in question says in thread which one they are taking.

[Voltaire]

create: E8

Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm thinking along the lines of attacking other pieces.

How about a mechanism for getting the bidding for proximity out of the thread?

I don't know if I like that, I think it was one of the most interesting things to happen to this game.

Idea - (goes against me, but w/e) - central tiles require higher upkeep than outer ones - prevents huge groupings in center.

Actually, I am probably going to make some "terrain changes" of sorts (probably give them color value which indicate stuff) as my next suggestion, if nobody does anything similar meanwhile.

I like that. I was going to do something similar if my housekeeping turn hadn't been, well, housekeeping.

[mail-mi]

Hmm... Interesting idea. But it might be hard to make it viable though. I assume that you mean something like "You may spend IP(s) to attack other player(s) 'close to you' which lose some amount of hit point. If their hit points is 0 or less, the unit is removed from the board"?

Currently it is very cheap to make a new unit, and starting to attack someone will probably have serious diplomatic consequences. Somehow you want to balance that, which is quite hard. But I think it's a good idea if executed well. Could you give some more details of your idea?

---

I had an idea of something which I consider to be a nice new rule: you can spend money to gain additional IPs on your turn (or maybe also on others' turns). For example, the first extra IP could cost N$30, the second N$60, the third N$90 and so on.
Just wanted to say it, maybe someone doesn't have an idea for a new rule but likes this one, or perhaps I'm going to propose it myself on my next turn.

I'm thinking more like robbing other players of money. With like a Risk dice-rolling thing.

As for your other idea, that could also work.

[Jimmmmm]

Bump. mail-mi has about 15 hours to propose.

[mail-mi]

Final proposal:

If the current player has a unit that is directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend 1 IP to attack that player. This process is known as "Pirating." To do this, the active player posts in-thread Attack: ## to ?? where ## is the name of the tile of the active player's unit and ?? is the name of the tile the other player's unit.  The active player is then known as the "attacking player" and the player being attacked is known as the "defending player."Immediately following, both players will roll 1d6 in thread. If the defending player's roll is higher than the attacking player's, nothing happens. If the attacking player's roll is higher than the defending player's roll, N$100 will be taken from the defending player's money total, and added to the attacking player's money total.

Move: E8 to F8
Move: F8 to G8
Proximity between G8 and H7

[Jack Rudd]

Vote: Yes on this proposal

[florrat]

Vote: No on Rule 357(?)

I like the idea, but this execution is bad. We have the procedure of improving the execution of a rule, called "proposing a draft rule".

- What if the defending player never rolls? He won't lose money? Easy way to dodge the attack.
- The rule doesn't specify what happens when the rolls are equal. Of course this means that nothing happens, but it's still sloppy to treat another case where you do explicitly say that nothing happens.
- The current rule allows a player to attack the same player unlimited times per turn. Is this intended? It sounds bad to me.
- "I don't care if you have N$50 left, I rob N$100 from you, so now you have N$-50"

[Jimmmmm]

Vote: No on Rule 357

What florrat said.

[Jimmmmm]

Although I don't think allowing this kind of malicious behaviour is a bad idea in general.

[EFHW]

Vote: No on 357

[EFHW]

Although I don't think allowing this kind of malicious behaviour is a bad idea in general.

Is this the general sentiment? 

[Jimmmmm]

Although I don't think allowing this kind of malicious behaviour is a bad idea in general.

Is this the general sentiment?

This is just, "I'm fine with the idea in general, just not this implementation of it".

[Jimmmmm]

Although I'm not sure how I'd suggest doing it.

[mail-mi]

Vote: No on Rule 357(?)

I like the idea, but this execution is bad. We have the procedure of improving the execution of a rule, called "proposing a draft rule".

- What if the defending player never rolls? He won't lose money? Easy way to dodge the attack.
- The rule doesn't specify what happens when the rolls are equal. Of course this means that nothing happens, but it's still sloppy to treat another case where you do explicitly say that nothing happens.
- The current rule allows a player to attack the same player unlimited times per turn. Is this intended? It sounds bad to me.
- "I don't care if you have N$50 left, I rob N$100 from you, so now you have N$-50"

Wait--I never said what proposal it was. Lets count that as my draft, then.

[Grujah]

"Final proposal: "

[mail-mi]

"Final proposal: "

But I didn't number the proposal. Isn't that required?

[Jack Rudd]

"Final proposal: "

But I didn't number the proposal. Isn't that required?

Not as I read the rules. It is automatically given the number 357 for reference, as required, but there's nothing actually stating that you have to state when making your final proposal what number it's been given.

[mail-mi]

"Final proposal: "

But I didn't number the proposal. Isn't that required?

Not as I read the rules. It is automatically given the number 357 for reference, as required, but there's nothing actually stating that you have to state when making your final proposal what number it's been given.

Oh. Heheh oops

Well at least I got the idea out there.

[Voltaire]

Vote: No on Rule 357

[Grujah]

Vote: Yes on Rule 357

[Grujah]

I'd rather you can push people around, though, screw with proximity etc.