Think there was some talk of a communication variant game some time back. Wondered if there was any interest in 2950 GB style diplomacy (none) with 3 player teams. Pretty much like GB but there would be four 3 player teams per side and you could plan/talk within your team only.
Being that the 2950 player pool is small, I am guessing this may not have a lot interest. I miss the old days when there was not yahoo group for every game. I think a limited communication, fog of war game would be a nice change.
I started that thread a while back so you can keep me in mind if you get enough guys together. After the thread died i didn’t pursue this variant any further because i decided that i didn’t need to piut another game on my plate. But maybe my present game will be closing by the time we get this variant up and running.
I think i can interest at least a couple mates from my present game. What about a WOTR version of this variant? Would that interest you as much?
So you’re thinking gunboat style but with 3 person teams?
I’d be interested in this and I may be able to drag in a couple of others as well. I’m currently on the waiting list for the next 1650 GB game but it may be a while yet.
I’m in my 3rd WOTR game now. It is very different that standard 2950.
The DS have a huge starting gold advantage over standard 2950, which greatly increase the market and their ability to do market manipulations. If the DS can keep their gold reserves up, they can field armies every bit as large, or possibly larger than the FP.
1650: Big starting armies and large FP recruiting advantage. Initial slug fest followed by the DS having to hold on until their character advantage kicks in.
2950: Tiny starting armies and economic base. Market is depressed the whole game. Takes forever to really get a military game going. Better character balance.
WOTR: Tiny starting armies, but improved economic base and market conditions means the military game goes to those that recruit the hardest and get armies in the field the soonest. Character balance as in 2950.
Yeah, one nation per person. Your “list of allies” would only have two names on it. drop outs to be filled within each team (or from outside the game?), not between teams, right Celebion? The point is to limit communication without killing it, as gunboat does, without the high expense of gunboat, due to playing multiple nations, or the instability of gunboat, due to 2-nation-drop-outs that tend to be hard to fill and instability due to missing orders (cuz no one can shadow in gunboat and as we know life does happen).
What about the GB rule that you can’t take offensive action on your allies? I’m not a big fan of this one. I like being able to double my side’s agents or challenge our own characters (instead of retiring for example) or stealing from friendly pop centers or friendly characters. Likewise, when a nation collapses I think its allies should be allowed to influence away the pop centers, which can’t happen in GB if I’m not mistaken. What do you guys think? Do you like the rule about no offensive actins on allies? Myabe offensive actions should be limited to one’s own 3-man team?
Likewise, when a nation collapses I think its allies should be allowed to influence away the pop centers, which can’t happen in GB if I’m not mistaken.
Incorrect. If a friendly nation is dead you can do anything to it you want to. Your second nation (or 3rd if you pick up another) in GB you are allowed to do anything you want to as well it’s just ally nations you can’t do.
Feedback on WOTR format - our GM team just played it and some of our team almost revolted when we realised how strong the DS are in this game. 3 MTs for the Dragon Lord (2 very hard to get to, one of which virtually impossible). WK has a town in Mordor ready to made into a MT and a very strong position. Ditto the rest.
I’d upgrade the WW somewhat as well as he virtually gains nothing (not sure what format you are thinking of here). FPs economy is fine, DS is relatively awesome especially with the 15k gold extra per nation they get.
I’d personally power down the DS in the game to give the FP a decent chance. I’d keep the BS’s changes as they worked well and enabled a defence (and aggression with the KE) in the East though. No offence intended to our opposition (they had some team issues) but I’d say that all things being equal the DS should win 90% of the games.
Thanks for clearing that up Clint. In that case I have no objection to applying the GB rule to actions against allied nations that are not on the same team.
