Erfgame 3 (CLOSED) - Rules and Discussion

[0beron]

Ah you're right, I had the idea that farms were more productive than that :/
However, the current rules have Mills actually clearing the forest, changing the terrain to plains and converting the Mill to a farm...which now that I think about it doesn't make sense. Erfworld always renews itself at dawn, so I think Mills should stay Mills, especially if they will cost more than farms.
But given that Mills do 350, and Mines 500 with a pretty darn small chance of doubling (only 1.5%), it seems that Mines should be 3 points.

Did the math on this, and with it being a 1.5% chance, I figured the total income produced by a Mill (1000 turns @350) and a Mine (985 turns @500 + 15 turns @1000) over 1000 turns, and the Mine produces 145% of the Mill.

Also, have you decided how many total Flavor Points cities have at each level? Do you like my original numbers (4/8/16/32/64), or my most recent post (4/8/14/22/32)?

[Kaed]

You're right, it should be 3 then. I hadn't done the calculation before and for some reason thought it was 5% chance xD

I like the new one more, I'm always for more reserved amounts in general.

Also for those of you wondering about why we're still waiting... I'm waiting to hear back from Bal.

[Exate]

since we're playing a game we need the ability to construct roads and the like ourselves.

I don't really agree that we need any such thing. Roads, like city sites, could easily be permanently in place on the map from the start of the game, with no way for players to permanently modify or create them. There are a myriad of games where this is the case.

As long as we're on the topic of resources, it's clear from context in the comic that mines, farms, and so forth don't produce income independently- they have to be actively worked by units. Is there any mechanic reflecting this in our game, or are our money-machines running on autopilot?

However, the current rules have Mills actually clearing the forest, changing the terrain to plains and converting the Mill to a farm...which now that I think about it doesn't make sense. Erfworld always renews itself at dawn, so I think Mills should stay Mills, especially if they will cost more than farms.

Yeah, mills should definitely not change the terrain type- particularly if any random warlord can build them! That's basically saying that any shmuck can change forest terrain to plans terrain over the course of what, a dozen turns? Ridiculous. Changing terrain is reserved for extremely potent magics and the Titans.

Yeah I like your rules Oberon. I may play with them I little, like for instance I think I'll raise the loose materials cost to 4 and extra resource node to probably 4 too.

As far as playing with the presented ruleset goes, I would encourage you to keep things fluid here. The things that I wrote down for flavor items were meant more as examples and ballparks for what people might want and they might cost than an exhaustive list of options, so if once the game gets going people want something that's not on the list for one or more of their cities, that's cool. Unique magical effects and little differences between sides add spice to the game. And the spice must flow.

[0beron]

I don't really agree that we need any such thing. Roads, like city sites, could easily be permanently in place on the map from the start of the game, with no way for players to permanently modify or create them. There are a myriad of games where this is the case.

Yes you're right, but this adds a TON of work for the Titans, who already seem overworked with prepartion. It may not be accurate to Erfworld, but it's a small inconsistency I feel we have to accept.

As long as we're on the topic of resources, it's clear from context in the comic that mines, farms, and so forth don't produce income independently- they have to be actively worked by units. Is there any mechanic reflecting this in our game, or are our money-machines running on autopilot?

I actually disagree to a point...yes it's implied there may be units there, I don't think it ever indicates that they're infantry or anything. Sure a Warlord needs to visit them to make them produce more, but if there are units there, they can just pop with the resource point. Again, it may be a small inconsistency, but we don't have much comic material to go off of and it makes the game simpler to run if we assume these units are part of the mine.

And lastly, I agree with your idea that my city rules are guidelines. They Flavors are not an exhaustive list, and the the Titans may allow other uses as they see fit for each player.

[Kaed]

Yeah you can forget the forest depletion thing that was something from Alpha. We're in beta now and fixing everything :V

For now we can build roads if we like. I'm pretty sure a dirtamancer can build or destroy any road he damn feels like, so the units can do that too. Same with the resource points, it's been established that cities get more money by the warlord just walking into the place and back out, and it counts as 'overseeing' production. It doesn't make sense to US. But we're not erfworlders.

[0beron]

Would you like me to make a google-doc for our new rules? In the process of making Beta, we're making such big changes to the Alpha, I think a totally new document is justified hehe

Also, I'll probably post the stats for my Level 1 Capital and Level 1 normal City to the Side Index later tonight, since it seems we're settled on the gist of the city rules.

[Exate]

For now we can build roads if we like. I'm pretty sure a dirtamancer can build or destroy any road he damn feels like, so the units can do that too.

A dirtamancer could build or destroy any road he feels like, sure- but would it stay the way he left it? If a dirtamancer destroys a building in a city, doesn't the building reconstruct itself the next turn when the city repairs? How does this mesh with being able to make permanent modifications to cities, like having a vast complex of tunnels as a result of mining? I'm not sure. There are natural magics are work here about which we know too little.

My instincts say that if a dirtamancer built a road in the middle of nowhere, the road would last only until the hex resets itself the next day. But if you see the matter differently we certainly don't have to follow it.

Same with the resource points, it's been established that cities get more money by the warlord just walking into the place and back out, and it counts as 'overseeing' production. It doesn't make sense to US. But we're not erfworlders.

I actually disagree to a point...yes it's implied there may be units there, I don't think it ever indicates that they're infantry or anything. Sure a Warlord needs to visit them to make them produce more, but if there are units there, they can just pop with the resource point. Again, it may be a small inconsistency, but we don't have much comic material to go off of and it makes the game simpler to run if we assume these units are part of the mine.

I do recall that the very early comic had an image of a marbit with a pick getting a gem, and I think we've seen other images of infantry mining manually since, though I couldn't name one. That implied to me that actual units need to do actual work, rather than the "stroll around and inspect things that don't ever change" that warlords do for city management.

You're right that they could all be auto-popped specialty-worker-personnel, though. We haven't heard mention of anything of the sort in Gobwin Knob's units, but then Gobwin Knob thought their mines were depleted so they might have disbanded their resource gatherers to save on upkeep or they could have depopped when they couldn't find any more gems or something. We can just not worry about it, although I will say that if an enemy sends units into a mine or farm they should be able to kill the workers.

[0beron]

You're right that they could all be auto-popped specialty-worker-personnel, though....We can just not worry about it, although I will say that if an enemy sends units into a mine or farm they should be able to kill the workers.

Definitely agreed, and the next turn that the mine is unoccupied by an enemy, the units re-pop. Think of it as the Resource Point's production is the net profit once their upkeep is automatically deducted. So for example, a mine "technically" produces 550, but the upkeep of those units is 50.

[Kaed]

Would you like me to make a google-doc for our new rules? In the process of making Beta, we're making such big changes to the Alpha, I think a totally new document is justified hehe

o/` All these points of data make a beautiful doc, now we're out of alpha (but not releasing on time) o/`

Go ahead.

Those poor miners and lumberjacks.

[0beron]

Those poor miners and lumberjacks.

HE'S A LUMBERJACK AND HE'S OKAY, HE SLEEPS ALL NIGHT AND HE WORKS ALL DAY!

I'll put up that Google-doc later tonight :p

EDIT: P.S. My side isn't Rhyme-o-mancy-centric for nothing! :p

[Exate]

You're right that they could all be auto-popped specialty-worker-personnel, though....We can just not worry about it, although I will say that if an enemy sends units into a mine or farm they should be able to kill the workers.

Definitely agreed, and the next turn that the mine is unoccupied by an enemy, the units re-pop. Think of it as the Resource Point's production is the net profit once their upkeep is automatically deducted. So for example, a mine "technically" produces 550, but the upkeep of those units is 50.

This raises the question of if you can raze an occupied resource point for income/resources, like you can a captured enemy city.

I'd go with yes. Pillage, then burn!

[0beron]

This raises the question of if you can raze an occupied resource point for income/resources, like you can a captured enemy city.

I'd go with yes. Pillage, then burn!

Ehhhh, I'd rather lump them in with the value of the city. So they boost the amount you gain from razing the city, but can't be razed individually.
Or alternatively, make them indestructable. When you raze the city, they fall dormant, and when the city site is rebuilt on, the new city automatically gains those points. This latter option seems more faithful to Erfworld.

[Kaed]

Or alternatively, make them indestructable. When you raze the city, they fall dormant, and when the city site is rebuilt on, the new city automatically gains those points. This latter option seems more faithful to Erfworld.

This. They are also 'dormant' when an enemy captures them and kills all the workers. Seige warefare! Workers are effectively 1/0/0/0 units so... any enemy unit can kill them, and just lurk there killing them again each turn. XD

You get no experience from workers though.

[0beron]

Oh yeah haha, I figured it was a no-brainer that they won't produce income while occupied by an enemy. :p

[Exate]

Or alternatively, make them indestructable. When you raze the city, they fall dormant, and when the city site is rebuilt on, the new city automatically gains those points. This latter option seems more faithful to Erfworld.

It's only more faithful to Erfworld if we consider resource points to be terrain features, in which case they couldn't be built by sides. That which a side can build, a side can destroy; that which a side cannot build, a side probably can't destroy. If the resource points are popped for/by the city, then they should be as destructible as the city itself is. Being razed along with the city is reasonable in that case, but not being able to be destroyed at all (presumably unless you get a linked Dirtamancer in play to reallocate all city points)? That's fairly ridiculous.

[0beron]

Well you're totally right, but again I'm applying the "only as faithful to Erfworld as possible" principle. I think it is more likely that resource points are at least built ON a special terrain feature. But to save the Titans work, we are allowed to initially build them, kind of acting as Titans. Once they're built, they're part of the terrain. So after a while of playing the game, we have created a map that is like what the Titans would have initially spent a BUNCH of time drawing.

[Kaed]

Another small detail - When a side is destroyed (i.e. no remaining leaders or hier) all their cities become neutral, as we know. This means, in game terms:

-All units in the cities who are not casters gain the Neutral special (0 upkeep, 0 Move) and lose access all other specials (save things like flying) while Neutral remains (theoretically you can try to turn them to your side...).
-All units outside the cities disband immediately, including workers.
-All cities retain their treasury, but their schmucker production is set to 0.
-Their cities and the units inside take on a cast of dull and flavorless, their colors and insignia fades to a dull, blank gray. Units inside the city can do little more than defend themselves from attacks, and generally have a hopeless air.

It's only more faithful to Erfworld if we consider resource points to be terrain features, in which case they couldn't be built by sides. That which a side can build, a side can destroy; that which a side cannot build, a side probably can't destroy. If the resource points are popped for/by the city, then they should be as destructible as the city itself is. Being razed along with the city is reasonable in that case, but not being able to be destroyed at all (presumably unless you get a linked Dirtamancer in play to reallocate all city points)? That's fairly ridiculous.

I'll agree there partially, yeah. They are tied to the city, you can't destroy them unless you raze the city. And that removes them too.

Incidentally, workers disband without a resource node to live on. Razing is murder! : D

[0beron]

Alrighty, I have compiled the core of the rules we have changed. A few notes on changes I made because they seemed like common sense:

• I re-classified the Specials so they’re easier to understand
• I upped the threshold for “Heavy” to 15, since Kaed increased the Special unit’s hits.
• The pop-times for an Heir that Exate suggested was way too fast, we know that a level 4 normally takes 60 turns for an Heir, so I increased them
• Increased the minimum distance between cities

Current Beta Rules
I will continue making additions as we make changes. Currently the link only gives permission for you to comment, if the Titans would like editing power, please Pm me with your gmail address.

[Exate]

That's looking pretty good. Nice work.

The relatively low Move of the scouts (considering their purpose) jumps out at me as something in need of correction. I'm also not sure if having flying scouts be basically strictly better than land scouts is appropriate- for any other unit type, the Flying special would cost points instead of effectively granting them. It's a little awkward to modify units at this late date, but I don't think it would be inappropriate to tweak them so that there's only one Scout unit, with base move of 8 or so and the option of buy the Flight and (Terrain) Capability specials using its 4 points.

You have the Frightening special listed twice.

You might want to check up on the updated Burrowing description to be sure that it's in line with what you've got there.

I believe the Battlecrap special is D-Class.

You may wish to put the rules on warlord promotion next to the rules for knight promotion.

You may wish to add the unique specials that various sides have developed for this game. While they may seem very side-specific, with enough games played we'll develop a wide library of abilities to choose from and the side-specific nature will become less important as they fade into a large array of options.

I am not sure how to balance the Improved [Unit] and Improved [Stat] city abilities. At the moment, the former can provide either stat increases or specials, but I don't think the stat increase to a single type of unit would be balanced against a blanket +1 in a specific stat to all types of unit. Restricting the available specials to Simple-only doesn't really help, either, and I'm not sure it's sensible; specials vary enough that it would likely be better to have the special in question and the % chance of popping with that special both subject to player-GM negotiation. It's less mechanical, but then city customization is producing things unique enough that I think player-GM communication at some point is desirable anyway. Of course, Improved [Unit] for the stat boost might also be best discussed with the GM- boosting a class D unit should logically have a more profound effect on its stats than a basic infantry unit, simply because its stats are higher and thus deserve more of an increase for the benefits to remain proportionately worthwhile. The cost of the city upgrade might be varied a bit to reflect the particulars here as well.

Your rules seem to lack stats for rulers, heirs, warlords, casters, and courtiers. Those should probably be included. I would appreciate a description of courtiers' specific capabilities as well; my impression at the moment is that they're basically warlords who don't have impressive stats and don't provide a Leadership bonus, which is to say, they're Commanders and can stop your units from auto-attacking but are pretty worthless in actual combat and generally have no specials worth noting.

I would strongly encourage you to use a chart of some kind for city stats. Having them all written out over multiple pages is unnecessarily cumbersome and makes it difficult to identify the costs and benefits of upgrading at a glance.

[Nihila]

I'm somewhat confused on the final ruling on Resource Points, can that be in the beta rules as well? Once a Resource Point is purchased, do we also have to devote time to building it?