Asu,
I see that, and am happy for the game to end as a test bed. If the game carried on, it is likely someone would exceed 42 dinars due to no loss mechanic, meaning no way the game ends would be beneficial to the Princes.
jakofipa wrote:Whilst I am glad that I managed to solo in the rules being played, I do feel that it was much to easy to do so. The fact that it ended after fulfilling the criteria is needed, but should have been more explicit and well known.
I think the general mechanics are good, but some of the numbers are wazir favoured.
I would suggest:
1. Winning Dinars is 3 times the solo SC number, NOT 3 times the leading player. The original creates a moving target for the Wazirs, meaning a Wazir could solo just from a Prince losing an SC!
2. Perhaps to order an ARREST, you can still command 1 army? Like the reverse of being Wazir-less. This would still mean it is a big ask to arrest a Wazir, but is not quite so crippling.
3. Perhaps lowering the PLUNDER incentive (half what it is maybe?). Otherwise you could easily get the solo gold in 4/5 turns (as I did) from successive plunders. Making arrests easier would also reduce this chance.
4. Having some mechanism for Dinars to leave the game. At present the wealth of the Wazirs in total always increases, meaning they will almost always win unless it is a fast game; which the Wazirs can stop. I would suggest each store of Dinars (Wazir or prince) losing 10% (rounded down) a year to help slow down inflation.
Though thank you all for a very enjoyable game! I would definitely be interested in helping ironing out any rules/ playing in further games. I really think this variant has a lot of potential!
Jak: a very rich Wazir
jakofipa wrote:2. Perhaps to order an ARREST, you can still command 1 army? Like the reverse of being Wazir-less. This would still mean it is a big ask to arrest a Wazir, but is not quite so crippling.
3. Perhaps lowering the PLUNDER incentive (half what it is maybe?). Otherwise you could easily get the solo gold in 4/5 turns (as I did) from successive plunders. Making arrests easier would also reduce this chance.
jakofipa wrote:4. Having some mechanism for Dinars to leave the game. At present the wealth of the Wazirs in total always increases, meaning they will almost always win unless it is a fast game; which the Wazirs can stop. I would suggest each store of Dinars (Wazir or prince) losing 10% (rounded down) a year to help slow down inflation.
pjkon wrote:We could eliminate the Wazir general rules making it less of a requirement for princes to hire Wazirs to compete with their rivals thereby requiring Wazirs to actually be somewhat trustworthy to get someone to hire them.
pjkon wrote:The problem of small powers being totally crippled without a Wazir (see Castile at the beginning of our game who Badojaz could possibly have finished off with the right luck even with an 8 center me attacking him because such a high percentage of his forces couldn't more) (sjg, how could you! After all I did to dig you out of that start![]()
)
pjkon wrote:By the way, none of this is meant to say that the game in its current state is bad. I enjoyed it immensely, and my sincerest thanks to lorde for bringing it to us. Sorry for stabbing you after you did that![]()
Telleo wrote:The mafia forum, to them,
Sir SJG's known as a gem,
He writes a good game,
and runs it the same,
Oh what a perfect GM!
Lordelindel wrote:Jakofipa wrote:2. Perhaps to order an ARREST, you can still command 1 army? Like the reverse of being Wazir-less. This would still mean it is a big ask to arrest a Wazir, but is not quite so crippling.
3. Perhaps lowering the PLUNDER incentive (half what it is maybe?). Otherwise you could easily get the solo gold in 4/5 turns (as I did) from successive plunders. Making arrests easier would also reduce this chance.
My thoughts on a solution:
A) Princes who arrest their Wazirs can move 1/2 (rounded down) of their units despite giving an arrest order and
B) Wazirs who get arrested on a turn where they also ordered a plunder removes all of their dinars from the game (rather than the usual half)
That would incentivize Wazirs to plunder once and move on, rather than trying to double or triple plunder a Prince and also increase a Prince's willingness to arrest (so arresting is always the safer choice).
lordelindel wrote:pjkon wrote:The problem of small powers being totally crippled without a Wazir (see Castile at the beginning of our game who Badojaz could possibly have finished off with the right luck even with an 8 center me attacking him because such a high percentage of his forces couldn't more) (sjg, how could you! After all I did to dig you out of that start![]()
)
Possible solution:
Princes with less than four units need not hold a unit every turn
That would also allow Princes to move all of their units in the first year, so early hiring of a Wazir would be done in order to get the Wazir-Generals (which I would allow at the beginning of the game, rather than year 3). It will also prevent second turn plunder-stabs that cripples a player for the rest of the early game.
lordelindel wrote:jakofipa wrote:4. Having some mechanism for Dinars to leave the game. At present the wealth of the Wazirs in total always increases, meaning they will almost always win unless it is a fast game; which the Wazirs can stop. I would suggest each store of Dinars (Wazir or prince) losing 10% (rounded down) a year to help slow down inflation.
Possible solution:
A) Transferring Princes costs a Wazir 10% of their dinars (which are just lost to the ether) and
B) Arrests eliminate the dinars, rather than storing them
This would disincentives Prince-hopping (and encourage the fostering of trust) and fairly represent the cost of moving an expensive household!
Return to Al-Andalus Diplomacy [1 Game]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest