A PBP strategy game chatforum.

[Daemonwelsh]

This forum is to be used for discussion about the game. actual turns should be posted in the game thread.

Possible rules discussions should go here, as well as bribery, and other political maneuvers.

[LTDave]

Our chatroom is here for discussions about the game.
Not exactly a chatroom, but a part of the forum.

It would be preferable if this topic were to be strictly gameplay, and the other one used for mechanics, and everything else.

A great idea.

The other thread is waiting on Crovius and Telva to have a turn - otherwise I'll move again on Friday (my time)...

[Miment]

I would love to get in on a second game, whenever that might happen. I have an idea to help keep things simple hint:(wiki user pages). I'll see what comes of it.

[Crovius]

Sorry, I was in the hospital witha collapsed lung for 4 days. But yeah, I'd also like a second game with slightly more in depth rules, like unit subtypes, more terrain, units starting with specials, and a GM controlling barbarians and wild allies (like marbits, gobwins, elves, etc), and making it so that there is more difference between units besides movement. A larger map might be nice too. I'd volunteer to be GM, with me not having a kingdom to run. The only down side is making a map. I'd need a site where i could upload a map from paint, and my workplace blocks places like deviantart and photobucket. Though, maybe if someone else could make a World map, like a map every side has that at least tells them the absic terrain of every hex in the world, they I could simply tell you which hexes you have explored and such.

[LTDave]

Crovius - trust you are getting better from your lung collapse. I'd like to hear what you are thinking for the new version of the game. At the same time I urge caution - complexity adds complexity, not necessarily fun.

Miment - I'd be interested in seeing what these wiki pages would look like.

[Crovius]

I'll fill you in on more details, but let me explain it like this: Yes the complexity would go up, but most of that work would be just for the GM. And I love working numbers! So the complexity for the GM would be more like more fun for me while you uys get more options. It'd be a lot like... Advance Wars!

[LTDave]

In a PM with Telva, he tells me that he can't find the time to post orders at the moment. So his faction is unattended.

I have therefore taken my turn, since he does not intend to take his.

We need to have a rule for unattended empires, so that they simply can't get knocked out by their neighbours too easily.

I suggest that if a player doesn't have their turn, that all their cities simply pop infantry.

[Crovius]

Or unit popping orders repeat from last turn (if they cna afford it). And maybe units stuck in the field try to retreat to the nearest city, or at least group together to protect themselves.

[Daemonwelsh]

and their research points go into the first a-mancy they have points in, until it is researched. then they go into the next. etc. etc. etc.

in other news, my turn is done.
and I really want hex H2.

[Crovius]

That's my city!

Also, how many moves to calvalry have? I forget if it's 2 or 3.

And does the city defense bonus still mutiply the effective # of units in the city? Cause then I have 12 calvalry in there.

[Miment]

Re-reading the game thread, I should have a page mocked up soon.
[EDIT] basic mock-up up: http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/User:Miment/Main I'll keep working on it, need to look at transculsion as a way to keep the page clear. [/EDIT]

[Daemonwelsh]

That's my city!

Also, how many moves to calvalry have? I forget if it's 2 or 3.

And does the city defense bonus still mutiply the effective # of units in the city? Cause then I have 12 calvalry in there.

2 move for cavalry
I do think so.

[Miment]

OK, my simplification idea has come to fruition. Check it out.

That's with seven players. If it's too hard to distinguish between the players, we could give the table borders or color the cells... Anyways, the way it works is:
1)each player makes a page for their empire under their user pages (in the example, they're User:Miment/Secondary and User:Miment/Tertiary). The main game page will then transclude those so that all empire pages are viewable from one place.

When it's your turn, you click the link to your empire, take your turn and save the page. Go back to the main page, change "Most Recent Player" and add mancies that you've finished developing (if any)

Now, I have no idea how that's going to look on moniters with lower resolutions. I'm running 1280 X 1024 and it's OK... When you're all finished, you can just copy/paste your entire empire page to the forums, it should turn out pretty readable, and with a link to the game page. See bottom of post.

So, what do you guys think? Wanna try it for the next game? I can tweak it some more if you want.


<noinclude>Game Page</noinclude>
<br>
==[[User:Miment/Tertiary|Empire: WoD]]==
Color: White
<br>Player: White Wulf
<br>Turn: 2
====Schmuckers====
Starting: 144
<br>Income: 210
<br>'''Available: 354'''
<br>Upgrade: None
<br>Unit Upkeep: 81
*10 Cavalry
*10 Infantry
'''Ending: 273'''

====Cities====
*I1 "Requiem" Level 5
*H2 "Forsaken" Level 4
*I2 "Awakening" Level 4
*H3 "Lost" Level 4

====Units====
Pop 1 Calvalry in every city (I1, I2, H2, H3)

Before Movement
*I1 2 Cavalry, 3 Infantry
*I2 2 Cavalry, 3 Infantry
*H2 3 Cavalry, 3 Infantry
*H3 3 Cavalry, 1 Infantry

Movement:
*No movement

After Movement
*I1 2 Cavalry, 3 Infantry
*I2 2 Cavalry, 3 Infantry
*H2 3 Cavalry, 3 Infantry
*H3 3 Cavalry, 1 Infantry

====Develop-A-Mancy====
'''Completed'''
*Cover-A-Mancy
*Provisions

'''Developing'''
*Thick Blood:+5 points, total progress:5/9
**average rating was 3, so it will take 9 A-mancy points to develop.

[Daemonwelsh]

How abotu both sides need to have allies researched, and have to agree to the alliance?

I mean honestly, I don't see why alliances need to be researched. It's a diplomatic move, not a technological advancement.

with this version of alliances, it is forced. and it takes all of 4 a-mancy points to forge an alliance with someone else without their consent. this way there is also an in-game mechanic for making an alliance.

[Crovius]

How abotu both sides need to have allies researched, and have to agree to the alliance?

I mean honestly, I don't see why alliances need to be researched. It's a diplomatic move, not a technological advancement.

with this version of alliances, it is forced. and it takes all of 4 a-mancy points to forge an alliance with someone else without their consent. this way there is also an in-game mechanic for making an alliance.

Wow.... 4 amancy points. That's such a big deal! No... wait, it isn't. Cause in 4 turns I could "force" an alliance with everyone. There needs to be a way to get out of the alliance.

[Daemonwelsh]

Just make your own in game alliance-breaker.

and it is built in that you can only develop the a-mancy once.

[GeeFresh]

Hey dudes, Just found this chatforum.

Am still none-the-wiser.

[Daemonwelsh]

Hey dudes, Just found this chatforum.

Am still none-the-wiser.

what questions do you have?

[LTDave]

Ok, so I just took turn 6. An hour earlier than I should have, but I'm going out for the rest of the day, and didn't want to slow down the game.

We seem to have lost Telva and turbler is a bit sporadic in posts.

I've noticed some problems with the economy side of things (ie, everyone has too much money), and am coming up with some variations for the 1.3 version to overcome them.

If we have another go at such a GM less game, I think it would be best to:

1. have ferwer cities
2. Let cities pop more than one unit
3. Make it harder to upgrade cities
4. Have rules for when players don't post their orders.

[Daemonwelsh]

Im taking my turn right now.. should be done by 5/6