$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 115.38

7,035 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
44.3% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Runewars» Forums » Rules

Subject: [SOLVED] - Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Day Life
msg tools
There is a card (I think it is strategize) that allows you to activate and move into an area and for supremacy you can do a 2nd move. Still there is a caveat saying that if you were in combat during the 1st move you can not do a 2nd move that puts you into combat. (so even though you can move twice you can only ever have 1 combat that season)

The question is if you do a diplomacy, dose that count as a combat? Also if you do a combat on the 1st move from a failed diplomacy or just a strait up combat move for your second move can you choose diplomacy and if so what happens if you fail and are forced into combat? (as you have already had a combat that turn)

Thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Hanna
United States
New Smyrna Beach
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
Diplomacy does not count as combat unless you fail the diplomacy

I think you can try diplomacy on the second move but if you fail, you must retreat (in the case of having already started a first combat), because as the card says (it's not Strategize but Mobilize) you can't initiate a second combat.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
To add to the above, diplomacy itself is never combat. A red result may lead to combat, but it's optional. Even if you attempt diplomacy and get a red result as your first move, you can choose to retreat instead of fighting, and that won't count as combat (so you could make an attack with your second action).

Grey results are not combat either, even though the neutrals retreat.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davy Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
What is the thematic reason that you aren't allowed to initiate two combats with a Mobilize order? I had thought that it was a timing issue -- that combat takes so much more game time than just moving to an empty area. Like, there's only enough time to have combat once each season.

But then I think that would apply to diplomacy, too. Surely, that also takes a lot of time. And if diplomacy results in combat, the active side just says, "Well, we don't have time to fight. Let's just retreat."?

If time is the thematic reason, I think I would rather have it say that you can move a second time as long as you don't start another combat or another diplomacy. So then you would never be in this weird situation where you have to retreat if combat is called for and you have already fought this turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
randomlife wrote:
What is the thematic reason that you aren't allowed to initiate two combats with a Mobilize order? I had thought that it was a timing issue -- that combat takes so much more game time than just moving to an empty area. Like, there's only enough time to have combat once each season.

I don't think it's a thematic reason as much as a balance reason, to prevent Mobilize from becoming too powerful an order compared to Conquer.

For instance, if you were able to make two battles in one season, you could punch through the opponent's outer defense and then immediately attack inside the breached perimeter, without the opponent having any way to react. This could end up being very swingy.

Also, with Favor of the Spies Guild, you could do four attacks in 2 seasons, which could be VERY swingy.


Sometimes game balance needs to trump thematics a little; this is a case where I think that applies.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
Most games of that size have a "1 combat per order" restriction. I think it also fights downtime to a certain extent since combat is usually a big time sucker. And if one player attacks not only once but twice, fighting with the same player, the other people on the table can only sit around and look at the clock for half an hour.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davy Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
I know that being able to fight two battles in one turn would vastly change the game, I'm just saying that most game designers have at least some thematic reason for each rule of their game. The game may be more balanced or challenging if you say that players can pick up their pigs and move them to any spot in the countryside every turn, but most game designers wouldn't do that because it doesn't really make any sense. Unless the game is about flying pigs.

There are so many other rules in Runewars that are clearly there because it makes some kind of thematic/physical sense, that I just thought that maybe the designers had some thematic reason in mind for the situation where someone has already done one battle and then they have a failed diplomacy, which would normally end up in another battle. Did they designers just say, "Oh. We don't want to allow two battles in one turn... let's just say that you have to retreat in that case." Or did they follow it up with, "Maybe units just get too tired to fight more than one battle per turn. So even if another opportunity for battle arises, they just give up and retreat."

I always find that I remember rules better when there is some thematic reasoning involved -- then I have to look up rules less often. Plus, it helps to find issues with the rules that the designers may have missed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
randomlife wrote:
I know that being able to fight two battles in one turn would vastly change the game, I'm just saying that most game designers have at least some thematic reason for each rule of their game.

I'm not sure I agree that "most" designers have thematic reasons for EVERY rule. Some rules in pretty much every game are implemented for balance reasons or mechanical smoothness.

The whole concept of "turns" in strategic games really makes no thematic sense at all - and it's common to almost every such game. In reality, sides don't "take turns" moving, nor would moving an army prevent you from, say, harvesting crops or fortifying a stronghold, either.

Why can heroes only go questing in the summertime? Why does an area only become flooded if a hero happens to explore it? Why do troops only need to care about food supply in the winter? Why can't you recruit troops and heroes simultaneously?

Thematics are important for me, but gameplay is more important. I'd say there are more "unrealistic" bits of this (and most) games than there are perfectly thematic elements.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davy Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
Very good points, and I love your examples. My "most" was definitely an exaggeration -- there are definitely a lot of completely abstract games out there.
The thing I was mostly trying to say was that thinking about the thematic reasons for rules can be a good tool to use when someone has questions about the rules of a game. Certainly not perfect, though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Is diplomacy is still a "type" of combat?
I can't really think of any thematic reason behind the one combat per order rule. Especially since this rule can include different armies. Same goes for "no activation of an area more than once a turn"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.