TheGrayMouser wrote:My own opinions on future campaign rules:
I really like the concept that every action has a risk/reward many things in this campaign are just reward / reward (because of victory conditions)
so
Forts: the idea of a fort is to defend/deter if it does that the reward for building it has been accomplished, however white elephants are historially valid(ie the massively expensive castles in wales built 13c) thus your forts at end game should NOT contribute to victory points
Trade: nothing is guaranteed in life so perhaps the $ earned by both players should be randomized? Imagine setting up a trade route w your "ally" and you get 20 ducats a turn and they get 80? could be interesting in how the relationship with that player turns out ove rthe course of the game. Trade wars, treachery? ha ha
Battles: get rid of tactical vs strategic a win is a win, a loss is a loss and a draw... well a draw should have some minor impact on the attcker The real problem is in a campaign your going to have many players of varying skill and the armies themselves might be an issue, albeit a very subjective one...... It seems imbalancing the way it is. For example I think Im pretty damn fortunate to win a battle vs some of the top players once in a while, but unless I crush them at the level of a strat victoy it is hopeless, basically it limits to what you can do strategically.
I agree w stockwell that "allied" attacks should cost something
Allied players and Joint attacks: basically as it is its confusing and I doudt anyone will ever do a joint attack, way too risky in terms of lottery luck and you basically need both players to win victories for it to work... Also it is contrary to the concept of bringing superior forces vs one opponenet . I mean why ally and have an allied army with you when the defender gets two armies automaticlly?
Perhaps it should be something like this: a joint attack causes 2 battles: the defender fights each of the attackers at the same time, just one victory seals the deal, ie the defender loses the province... However the defender would have the option of calling in an ally to thwart the joint attack and then it would be 2 games and 4 players(where you likely have to use total BP's lost to determine a victory loss draw etc in the case of defenders wins one but loses the other)
Alliances: not sure why alliances only give the one proposing it any points , basically it kind of turns it into a point grab ... How about only if there is a large GAP in between two players forming an alliance in prestige and or stability, the one with the low gets some prestige/stablity?. I mean why would Rome at its height be more pestigious by making an ally with some nameless tribe? Howver that nameless tribe certianly could benefit prestige wise from the deal..... Also as has been suggested the one propsing should have to pay some money for diplomatic stroking .
Finally, based on how FOG armies are inherantly unequal, that could be balanced on the starting resources for each player: for example the mamluks, a horse archer army, might be given an xtra territory or two... Venice might have less territory but start w a fleet or two.. Milan maybe starts with an academy or trade hut and a fort...
Cheers!
A lot of interesting thoughts TGM.
Going in order:
1) Reward/reward action:
the idea of risk/reward is in some way planned also in the exsisting rules for all the actions.
Actually, in fact, the cost of each action is balanced having in mind that 25 ducats are the equivalent of 1 VP, that a province has a value of 100 ducats and that each action should give an advantage of approximately 2 VP.
So, for example, an academy costs 75 ducats (3 VP) and earns 5 VP (3 prestige level and VP), a church cost 25 ducats (1 VP) and earns 3 VP (2 prestige level and 1 VP), a fortification costs 50 ducats (2 VP) and earns 3 VP (1 VP and the chance of avoiding the loss of a province calculated 2 VP at 50% of possibilities), a Merchant's Quarter costs 50 ducats (2 VP) but permit to sign trade agreements wich earns 100 ducats (4 VP).
Of course not all the benefits are exactly calculated (because a Merchant's Quarter could permit the signing of 2 or 3 agreements but on the other hand it could be destroyed before sealing 1) but the fundamental idea was this.
Also attack actions try to follow this rule, given that, even if they don't cost anything and have a potential reward of 5 VP (4 VP for conquering the province and 1 stability level), they could also end with a defeat and a -1 VP situation (-1 stability level), giving an average of 2 VP between the two kind of possible outcome.
2) trade agreements:
the concept of different rates of earnings is feasible with the game.
It only crashes with the re-writing of the rules where, for easiness of managment, I was thinking of introducing a minimum fixed amount of money and its multiple to be exchanged (25 ducats, 50, 75, 100 ..)
Maybe we could think about maintaining a 50% - 50% when two nations are of the same size and otherwise a 75% - 25% in favour of the bigger nation.
3) tactical/strategic victories:
though strange it may seem, the rule was designed in order to prevent stronger player from easily conquering the provinces of weaker opponents, and fortifications had the same goal.
A balanced solution could be that of lowering to 10% the difference in BGs which constitutes the threshold between the two kind of victories.
4) cost of attacks
though the proposal is really sound from a practical point of view it doesn't consider the fact that attack actions have an inherent heavy cost in term of time consumation.
A normal action last 4 days and normally gives a sure advantage, whereas an attack may last from about 6 to about 12 days and could end in a defeat.
Applying to them a cost in ducats would mean to dishearten every player from making attacks, which should remain the real core of the game.
5) joint attack:
I totally agree with you that the actual rule is flawed (it was an attempt and clearly didn't work).
Re-writing the rules I was thinking of giving an advantage of 10% in army pts. for a player making an attack in a region where one province at least was owned by an allied player (for example 440 pts army vs 400, 600 vs 550 and 825 vs 750) but also your idea seem very interesting and could be tried.
6) alliances:
the idea of giving 1 prestige pt. to the proponent was devised in order to make diplomatic actions suitable, given the fact that initially nobody was interested in them.
But anyway it doesn't seem senseless, because an accepted proposal means that the proponent has gained on the diplomatic stage a higher level of consideration (the Romans expanding their influence in Germany and otherwise the German tribe showing their capacity of being the party of a diplomatic agreement with a great power)
7) armies
It's a really debatable question that about army strength (for example I really prefer DR-AV-KN instead of UN-SUP-KN), but - instead of giving more resources and provinces to determined nations, I would prefer to intersperse weaker and stronger player (based on the LOEG rankings) in order to have a more stable and balanced map, trying to give better armies to weaker players.
