New Variant: Emergence (USA)

This is the place for games which are currently being created and developed, and where the designer is listening to feedback from other players. The game is not ready to play, and the designers are not looking for sign-ups - indeed, they may have no intention of GMing the game themselves when it is finished. But your input is welcome!

Moderator: Morg

Forum rules
Despite repeated requests, designers are still regularly posting maps of several hundred Kb size. All maps should be under 80Kb and preferable 50-60 maximum. Unless you have prior permission, any larger map will be removed without warning.

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby asudevil » 09 Feb 2018, 18:49

I have only an issue with arctic. I don't like that there are 2 spaces on the east bordering the west. Which makes it MUCH easier to go west than east...because you can force a support to the west...but you can't do the reverse...so fleets in both eastern sea spaces prevent any chance of the west to head east...even if they are doing other things...where on the other side you would have to support.

I think was mentioned also a 1/2 power would have been better like 1900,
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16578
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1351
All-game rating: 1447
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby EnlightenedMonarch » 09 Feb 2018, 19:48

asudevil wrote:I have only an issue with arctic. I don't like that there are 2 spaces on the east bordering the west. Which makes it MUCH easier to go west than east...because you can force a support to the west...but you can't do the reverse...so fleets in both eastern sea spaces prevent any chance of the west to head east...even if they are doing other things...where on the other side you would have to support.

I think was mentioned also a 1/2 power would have been better like 1900,


Yeah, this was something I didn't love either. I don't know that it has to change, but if it does I would either make NAO no longer connect (1/1), or make NPO connect too (2/2). It depends, do you want the Arctic movement to be just a helpful way for northern powers to get their fleets to the other side of the map if needed, or a feature that can be fought over?
"Nothing reduces unemployment like a good war."
Gold Classicist
Imperial Leader of Japan in Colonial 7
Past Campaigns: Norway (CDRBH), Ranier (Emerald City 3), Italy (ModEx 1), Ethiopia (Africa 4)
User avatar
EnlightenedMonarch
 
Posts: 389
Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 00:05
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1393)
All-game rating: (1419)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby asudevil » 09 Feb 2018, 20:39

EnlightenedMonarch wrote:
asudevil wrote:I have only an issue with arctic. I don't like that there are 2 spaces on the east bordering the west. Which makes it MUCH easier to go west than east...because you can force a support to the west...but you can't do the reverse...so fleets in both eastern sea spaces prevent any chance of the west to head east...even if they are doing other things...where on the other side you would have to support.

I think was mentioned also a 1/2 power would have been better like 1900,


Yeah, this was something I didn't love either. I don't know that it has to change, but if it does I would either make NAO no longer connect (1/1), or make NPO connect too (2/2). It depends, do you want the Arctic movement to be just a helpful way for northern powers to get their fleets to the other side of the map if needed, or a feature that can be fought over?


I think the simplest way is not have NAO connect.
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16578
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1351
All-game rating: 1447
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby EpicDim » 09 Feb 2018, 23:47

asudevil wrote:I think the simplest way is not have NAO connect.


Or just add the Arctic as a space.
Gauls (Ad Arma) 3-way, Russia (Othello) 4-way, Austria (Crowded Othello) Solo, England (Devious GM 2) Solo, Egypt (Time Travel) 3-way, (Exploration: Great Expeditions) Solo
EpicDim
 
Posts: 893
Joined: 13 Feb 2013, 05:32
Location: Frisco, TX
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1169)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 09 Feb 2018, 23:56

EpicDim wrote:
asudevil wrote:I think the simplest way is not have NAO connect.


Or just add the Arctic as a space.


He already has Hudson Bay on the map (currently greyed out). That could serve the purpose of the Arctic, adjacent to MAO, Winnipeg, Ontario, Quebec, GSL, SOC, and NAO. Ontario would become a two-coast province, while Quebec would behave as a single unified coastline.

Then the connection between NAO and SOC could be severed while creating additional strategic possibilities for the Northwest Passage.
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby asudevil » 10 Feb 2018, 01:09

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
EpicDim wrote:
asudevil wrote:I think the simplest way is not have NAO connect.


Or just add the Arctic as a space.


He already has Hudson Bay on the map (currently greyed out). That could serve the purpose of the Arctic, adjacent to MAO, Winnipeg, Ontario, Quebec, GSL, SOC, and NAO. Ontario would become a two-coast province, while Quebec would behave as a single unified coastline.

Then the connection between NAO and SOC could be severed while creating additional strategic possibilities for the Northwest Passage.



And run it identical to Panama
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16578
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1351
All-game rating: 1447
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby Aeschines » 10 Feb 2018, 16:09

I'd like to play!
Platinum Member of the Classicists
User avatar
Aeschines
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: 20 Apr 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1424
All-game rating: 1607
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby asudevil » 10 Feb 2018, 19:23

Aeschines wrote:I'd like to play!


Don't you already have a 10 player game you need to focus on?

Says the CAPTAIN
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16578
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1351
All-game rating: 1447
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby RedSun » 12 Feb 2018, 06:59

I'm interested in this!
Groups:
The Holy State of Asteria in CYOC
RedSun
 
Posts: 2090
Joined: 10 Jun 2017, 00:21
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1156)
All-game rating: (1173)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: New Variant: Emergence (USA)

Postby joe92 » 12 Feb 2018, 13:35

asudevil wrote:I have only an issue with arctic. I don't like that there are 2 spaces on the east bordering the west. Which makes it MUCH easier to go west than east...because you can force a support to the west...but you can't do the reverse...so fleets in both eastern sea spaces prevent any chance of the west to head east...even if they are doing other things...where on the other side you would have to support.

I think was mentioned also a 1/2 power would have been better like 1900,

EnlightenedMonarch wrote:Yeah, this was something I didn't love either. I don't know that it has to change, but if it does I would either make NAO no longer connect (1/1), or make NPO connect too (2/2). It depends, do you want the Arctic movement to be just a helpful way for northern powers to get their fleets to the other side of the map if needed, or a feature that can be fought over?

asudevil wrote:I think the simplest way is not have NAO connect.

EpicDim wrote:Or just add the Arctic as a space.

NoPunIn10Did wrote:He already has Hudson Bay on the map (currently greyed out). That could serve the purpose of the Arctic, adjacent to MAO, Winnipeg, Ontario, Quebec, GSL, SOC, and NAO. Ontario would become a two-coast province, while Quebec would behave as a single unified coastline.

Then the connection between NAO and SOC could be severed while creating additional strategic possibilities for the Northwest Passage.

asudevil wrote:And run it identical to Panama


I appreciate all the input. Nanook brought this up early on and now it's been brought up again and discussed at length. Given that the agreement is that the current proposal seems imbalanced I will change it up.

I like the proposal. I've read over it a few times and pretty much agree with it; I intend to make a slight alteration.

The Arctic passage was added to prevent a corner position from being established. In the Panama, if the canal gets blocked up it can be easily countered by sending armies 3 spaces to the other coastline of Mexico and capturing a Stronghold centre. If an Arctic space, be it the Hudson Bay or similar, was blocked up a similar scenario is not possible. The other coastline is at minimum 6 spaces away. That's why I wanted to make it easier to travel across the Arctic. Plus, there's more empty space in the north than the south. The solution I proposed gave an east to west advantage, but adding the NPO as a space that can also move through will balance that out (with a tweak to the rules).

Hudson Bay will be added as a navigable space. It will connect on the west to NPO and SOC, and on the east to NAO and GSL. Both NPO and NAO will only be able to move to Hudson bay and provide support as such. A fleet in SOC will be able to move to Hudson Bay or GSL, and a fleet in GSL will be able to move to Hudson Bay or SOC, and both provide relevant support. The movement map would like as such:

Code: Select all
NPO------HUD------NAO
 |        |        |
SOC-------⊥-------GSL


This balances out the east vs west movement, but also keeps them close to one another without an easy blockade solution. I shall update the map and amend the rules later today.
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Nothing

Platinum Classicist

Taking a break
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1106
All-game rating: 1721
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to PbF Variant Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest