Diplomacy - The South, Turn 14 (Year 4, Months 4-6, Summer)

[Leonardo]

Also, poisons and assassinations are currently too expensive and give you too little to be useful. I'd like to see a price drop or some other way to improve them.

There are some economic adjustments nox has planned(her post with all the traits) that should see them get used more. This is also the biggest map so far in terms of territory numbers, so players will be a bit more spread out.

Each region should have unique trait affecting their economy, and 2 that affect war or movement in some way. Poisons aren't really that expensive when people aren't at war, it just kinda sucks because you have like 8 food or gold after.

Nox also was talking about poisons costing food instead, though with year long terms I think not due to army upkeep in winter. They cost a fair bit for good reason too; they aren't supposed to be used as weapons of war so much as intrigue, though that definitely is part of war in this game.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Part 3:

We need a clearer rule on who can be a general. I think it should only be reserved for male members of the house, over 16 years of age - and who can inherit. So no nephews/brothers/uncles of the Lady.

We need a clear rule on moving nobles. I think moving in PMs should be allowed – after all a person could travel in secret.

Q: Can an army march through a region that has an enemy castle, but no troops in it?

A: Yes.

Q: For the Forced March general trait, when does the general need to join the troops?

A: Any troops that go with the general in question have 2 more moves. The moment when they join him, that bonus starts applying – the moment they separate, it stops.

Q: Can you sack your own regions to destroy the infrastructure there for good and all, scorched earth strategy?

A: Yes.

Q: Can a port in a recently sacked region be used? Or one in an enemy's region which you are currently sieging?

A: Yes. Any port can be used by any army at any time, as long as there is no armed resistance against them at that region or if they have defeated it.

Q: Question about the Siege breaker general trait: the rules state that you need four times the defender's troops. So, if the castle is empty, you would need 500 men?

A: I think that for the purposes of this trait, it should be fair to treat a castle as having a minimal garrison of 500 troops. The description says that the general has to outnumber them 4:1 (but not over 4:1, as is the no-casualties rule). My ruling would then be that in order to take an empty castle without a siege, the general in question must have 2000 troops - and if he is successful, he will take half in casualties, as in a regular battle.

Q: Can you have a general command a couple engagements and then be transferred elsewhere before the combat phase ends? Not to command some other contingent, just to experience the last two move of the combat phase ten regions away.

A: No, you can't have a general transferred away in the middle of the battle phase. This would defeat the purpose of having a general.

Q: How does the Master-at-Arms trait work in detail? You have to transfer the guy to the region where you want to raise men and raise them there? Can you raise men in an ally's region that way? Does the general have to accompagny the men later or can they be sent ahead alone or split up? Can the general give these men to an ally immediately and still have them march this turn?

A: The troops have to be raised in the province this general is currently at. So you can't raise troops somewhere else and send the general to them. Those troops can move only if they are accompanied by that general. Yes, an ally can raise those troops and give them to the general if he is currently on his land.

Q: Does a Cautious General give battle before retreating, causing half losses to the other party? Or does he just retreat and lose his men for nothing?

A: A general with this trait would be one that commands from the rear - which means that he keeps a reserve around himself. So if he goes in with an army of 2000 men, he sends 1500 to do the fighting and keeps 500 with himself. If the enemy's army is 2000 or less, the general will commit his reserve and win (or draw) the battle. However, if the enemy is 2500 (or more), the general will take his reserve and retreat, In any case, the enemy will have to deal with at least 1500 of his troops - and take losses if he doesn't outnumber them over 4:1.

Also, note that this trait only kicks in if the general is losing - so if the battle is a draw, it won't apply at all.

As far as retreat numbers go, I'd say that a smart general will keep a quarter of his force in reserve. The minimum retreat force is 500 men. So, the numbers look like this:

Start with 500 - retreat with 500 - no battle

Start with 1000 - retreat with 500 - 500 are left to fight

Start with 1500 - retreat with 500 - 1000 are left to fight

Start with 2000 - retreat with 500 - 1500 are left to fight

Start with 2500 to 3500 - retreat with 500 (because of the rounding down to the nearest 500 rule) - 2000 to 3000 are left to fight

Start with 4000 - retreat with 1000 - 3000 are left to fight

Start with 4500 to 5500 - retreat with 1000 (because of the rounding down to the nearest 500 rule) - 3500 to 4500 are left to fight

Start with 6000 - retreat with 1500 - 4500 are left to fight

And so forth.

[Leonardo]

That's another thing. How will the seasons shift? Should it be a roll of the dice? Or should the Gamemaster pick as he wants?

Every 5 or so years. I had it preset at around 4 for the other game, but with the change it makes more sense the other wag

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That's another thing. How will the seasons shift? Should it be a roll of the dice? Or should the Gamemaster pick as he wants?

A dice-roll. Make it a 50% chance or the like per turn, that way we'll have a winter every 10-12 turns on average.

[Deadwood]

Barring for players who leave the game but remain active on the boards?

[Leonardo]

Barring for players who leave the game but remain active on the boards?

That sounds a bit difficult to police hehe

[TheCrannogDweller]

Yeah, inactive players are a big problem. I think there should be a mechanism to root them out.

For example, if a player doesn't post in the first 2(3) turns, he is disqualified and his lands revert to blank. However, that's really not applicable for later stages in the game.

Anyway, I'll go through the last three PMs (the longest ones) in the next couple of days.

[Et Cetera the Mouse]

What's wrong with letting inactive players be? It can be annoying, but also useful if you sack them. It adds a bit more randomness to the game. However, if a player hasn't been active, their troops disappear when all members of the family are captured, and all lands that would be transferred to the holder of the family revert to blank.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

What's wrong with letting inactive players be? It can be annoying, but also useful if you sack them. It adds a bit more randomness to the game. However, if a player hasn't been active, their troops disappear when all members of the family are captured, and all lands that would be transferred to the holder of the family revert to blank.

It leaves too much to chance. It's too much of an advantage, especially in the first few turns. If you are lucky enough to sack your inactive neighbour during the first four turns, you basically doubled your income for no real investment. Quite a gamebreaker.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Not only that, but if you only sack his capital, you double your income - all at the cost of 500 troops (if you do it right).

[Leonardo]

Agreed

[TheCrannogDweller]

Btw, I think we should apply the "armies count as double" rule we had for Wyl and the Prince's Pass to The Bloody Gate and Crakehall/Deep Denn/Golden tooth.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Could you link the map please?

[Leonardo]

I just sent a JPEG to nogg if he wants to upload it, I can't figure out how to do it on my phone

[TheCrannogDweller]

That's the map Leo sent me.

That's the map with the borders I propose for the Westerlands.

Mine also has a couple of region name changes, with in-world lore in mind - namely Drax Castle - Deep Denn and Golden Tooth - Nunn's Deep.

Edit: Now that I look at it, if the Reach is not open for playing, I don't think Crakehall should get the force-multiplier - so only Deep Denn, Golden Tooth and the Bloody Gate.

[TheCrannogDweller]

And this is how I think the starting sets for all regions, except the Riverlands, could look like.

This version has 5 players in the Westerlands, 3 on the Iron Islands, 4 (or 6) in the Vale, 3 in the Crownlands and 2 more on the islands to the east of Westeros (1 on the Sisters and 1 on Dragonstone). So even without mapping out the Riverlands, we already have space for 15+ players.

Edit: I just tried and I think we can put 7 more players in the Riverlands. So that brings us to 24 without squeezing anyone too much.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Thanks.

So, about 160 regions. Sixteen players again? Or fewer? Starting points in the Vale or the Westerlands will be a bit too close together compared to the central Riverlands.

The colored riverparts are independent water regions?

I like the longer ways. Makes offensive wars a bit more difficult. Don't know whether it will work with a full turn for embarking soldiers in the Riverlands though. And the islands still have that starting advantage.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That's damn close together. We'd be right back to full-blown war from the first turn again, even worse than this time. Or do you want to cut down marching distances?

[Leonardo]

The rivers are not traversable nor sail able; the only two ways to cross are lord harroway's town and the twins.

Aye we won't have to make them so close together once we have the riverlands on the board

[TheCrannogDweller]

Here's what the Riverlands might look like.

In any case, the islands will always have some initial advantage in safety.

Edit: Mind you, that is a map with places for 24 players (26 if you count the two red sets in the Vale). I doubt we'll have that many players - it will probably be around 20, so it will be a bit more spacious.