Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
I seez u be makin ur beeg move
-
This is just something to throw out here in case anyone chooses to discuss it, because I don't even think I'll try it in a game. But, what do you think of giving an army which has lifted its siege in order to evade or intercept a -1 to its evade or intercept roll? Seems like it might sort of balance the movement penalty for lifting a siege.
Edit: since writing this I've realized that a siege doesn't have to be lifted in order to attempt Evasion; in that case it's only lifted if the Evasion succeeds.
-
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
-
It would make sense thematically (a besieging Army would not be prepared to move as quickly as a non besieging one) It would also give another reason to perhaps wait to place a siege marker rather than place it immediately.
The only issue I have is that it may become sometimes become very hard (1 in 6 chance) to evade or intercept. I think this would reduce the desirability of sieges, which therefore reduces the threat of them. I think in this game the threat of what an army can do is as important than what is actually does. So I would be worried that although your idea makes sense it would adversely change the game.
Currently it can be very hard to siege certain areas purely because it is easy for it to be interrupted before completion, especially if the Navy is not on the besiegers side. I would be concerned your change would mean some areas may never be besieged at all.
-
Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
I seez u be makin ur beeg move
-
The other idea we had after several games is we feel it might be best to have a non fortress enemy space flip when an army evades out of that area. For various reasons, including simulation, balance, and just general pain reduction related to giving your opponent free moves.
-
James Woodall
United States
Houston
Texas
Look like a guy with a plan?
-
If using the "Wotten Woyalists" rules, I suspect the balance will swing back closer to even, making the initiative swings after evasion less damning for Parliament, especially after NMA.
*shrug*
Possible Vasey intends for there to be very few battles started by cards and more done with blocking and interception. In which case, no flip after evasion might be a design intent.
-
James Woodall
United States
Houston
Texas
Look like a guy with a plan?
-
It is quite strange to hold the West, East, South, Midlands, and 5 economic areas the turn before last - then lose with 8 points in the last turn. Something there seems a bit off.
-
Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
I seez u be makin ur beeg move
-
Btw James I just took a look at the Wotton Woyalist variant and that would indeed make it a quite significantly different game, even from the get go.
> It is quite strange to hold the West, East, South, Midlands, and 5 economic areas the turn before last - then lose with 8 points in the last turn. Something there seems a bit off.
Montrose in the last Royalist hand is kind of an "I win" card, especially since all the rest save one were ops cards.
-
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
-
chargetheguns wrote: The other idea we had after several games is we feel it might be best to have a non fortress enemy space flip when an army evades out of that area. For various reasons, including simulation, balance, and just general pain reduction related to giving your opponent free moves.
What simulation element would this contain? Evasion can be running away, but it also includes movement occurring at the same time on both sides, I often use evasion as an opportunity to move into or towards enemy territory - a free move as the close proximity of both sides energises both.
Can you give me a historical example to look at?
-
Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
I seez u be makin ur beeg move
-
Our feeling about the simulation value is honestly one of the least considered and most superficial thoughts I've ever posted about a game design. It's just an off the top of our heads view that the effects of an evasion could or perhaps should be similar to that of a dispersal (i.e. impressing or suppressing the locals with general pre-battle military activity for harboring the enemy army). We were only considering evasion as a slightly quicker form of dispersal, instead of simultaneous movement. If, as James mentions, the intent of the evasion rules is to discourage attacking, they work very well as they are. Our motivation in the above suggestion was to make attacking more worthwhile, the simulation consideration was only an after thought.
-
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
-
chargetheguns wrote: Our feeling about the simulation value is honestly one of the least considered and most superficial thoughts I've ever posted about a game design. It's just an off the top of our heads view that the effects of an evasion could or perhaps should be similar to that of a dispersal (i.e. impressing or suppressing the locals with general pre-battle military activity for harboring the enemy army). We were only considering evasion as a slightly quicker form of dispersal, instead of simultaneous movement. If, as James mentions, the intent of the evasion rules is to discourage attacking, they work very well as they are. Our motivation in the above suggestion was to make attacking more worthwhile, the simulation consideration was only an after thought.
Let me explain how I saw them (not of course that that matters since you bought the game and you may make of it what you will). The areas in UKC are reasonably large in some cases several days march across. I saw the concept of advance to combat something like:
The earl of Foppington (at Whitby): I have received reports of Sir Charles Vasey at York, but these reports referred to two of three days ago, so I'll push in the general direction and see what happens.
Sir Charles Vasey (at York): that silly man Foppington is moving this way, I'll give the slip and move to the North. I wonder where he is now, probably Thirsk but maybe not yet, he'll have to swing roubd the hills. [Officers all rub chins and looks non-commital.]
As the two advance towards each other in the state of mutual ignorance over lightly mapped terrain amidst the partisans of the other side it is very possible that one will side-step the other deliberately, or, more likely, by simply missing each other. "Well they were here last Wednesday, sir".
Because we move sequentially I sought to introduce simultaneous movement by means the Evasion rule; only in reasonably close proximity of course.
If you wanted to change the rule somewhat I'd suggest that the size of the evading army should be a factor. 6,000 men can hide in the Yorkshire Moors easily, 16,000 on the other hand would have much more impact and easier to detect if you wanted to attack them.
It is an important lesson of the game not to spend effort in just closing for combat. Ensure you do so where if the enemy evades you have still achieved something - perhaps limited his freedom of movement or taken territory. I do not see the armies of the time as seeking battle unless there was a serious reason. When a BGGer claimed it was an area control game I must say I saw what he meant (though it had not occurred to me before).
-
James Woodall
United States
Houston
Texas
Look like a guy with a plan?
-
I had never considered it to be simultaneous march. I figured evasion meant evasive manuevers in order to avoid an army (which is what you're doing in game terms). So I was thinking, okay - whatever political influence they may have exerted by being in the area is lost when they are running off like a group of Frenchmen (much like dispersal), and an evasion in that sense would bolster the people's support of the pursuing army.
Then I figured that perhaps you just really didn't want combat in the game and were designing your mechanics around that to make an attempt at combat being very dangerous from an efficiency standpoint when initiated by the card player. Especially considering most combat results in drawn or indecisive battles.
I do agree with whoever said that about area control. This game is much closer to Twilight Struggle type op efficiency than I expected. It is in some ways more interesting than I initially thought (certainly different than most CDGs) as a simulation/learning experience, but also not my type of game - because I treasure blood and excitement! I know nothing about the history of this war so I'll defer to your design intent being more towards the simulation, though it sounds like your playtest balance more accurately reflected the historical outcome. Regardless, I'm glad it exists and enjoyed most of my 2.5 sessions with Alan. 
-
Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
I seez u be makin ur beeg move
-
Charles Vasey wrote: Let me explain how I saw them (not of course that that matters since you bought the game ...
Your views are of the utmost importance and interest. I knew almost nothing about the game before I opened it, besides that it was your design. I wanted to explore a Charles Vasey creation and it has been all I hoped for in terms of historical nuance, clever design, excellent use of cards, impressive artwork, and most of all variety from the conventions of other CDGs. Groking the rules (esp. without a living rules file) was a significant effort, but I find the whole easier to remember than most. I' m playing it with 2 or 3 other guys now that I've burned out James' desire to take down the Man of Blood.
I was talking with Berg years ago about one of his games that I like, and his comment was that it was more of a simulation than a satisfyingly competitive game. I feel that applies to UKC as well, which is not a criticism, just an observation. It contrasts with say Napoleon's Triumph, a game you do not like apparently, which is hugely abstracted and often a-historical, but which is always (for most of us) tremendously fun to play [edit: and the outcome depends on choices alone rather than the luck of dice or cards - whether that's a good or bad thing]. UKC just has a different feel because its a more realistic challenge. Regardless of how a game of UKC turns out, I've learned to enjoy watching the historical narrative unfold. And anyway, I've only played it 4.5 times.
Btw I didn't buy it, instead Gene gave it to me along with Here I Stand as a gift for writing the living rules for 1805:Sea of Glory.
-
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
-
chargetheguns wrote: Groking the rules (esp. without a living rules file) was a significant effort, but I find the whole easier to remember than most.....
I was talking with Berg years ago about one of his games that I like, and his comment was that it was more of a simulation than a satisfyingly competitive game. I feel that applies to UKC as well, which is not a criticism, just an observation......
It contrasts with say Napoleon's Triumph, a game you do not like apparently, which is hugely abstracted and often a-historical, but which is always (for most of us) tremendously fun to play. .....
Btw I didn't buy it, instead Gene gave it to me along with Here I Stand as a gift for writing the living rules for 1805:Sea of Glory....
1) We have no living rules because the team regard there as being little errata; and we look on livimg rules as being for that purpose.
2) Then you are playing it differently from me, my games of UKC are all vicious competitive clashes with eye-gouging and hair ripping, a perpetual horror story of less responses than threats. It is a game that changes depending on those playing it.
3) You are right about NT, I find it like reading a piece of capital allowance legislation. I do that for money not for fun. Oddly enough I know very few players who like NT: birds of a feather flock together.
4) That Gene! Always dumping slow moving stock...
-
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
-
jwoodall wrote: I had never considered it to be simultaneous march. I figured evasion meant evasive manuevers in order to avoid an army (which is what you're doing in game terms). So I was thinking, okay - whatever political influence they may have exerted by being in the area is lost when they are running off like a group of Frenchmen (much like dispersal), and an evasion in that sense would bolster the people's support of the pursuing army.
I detected little of that from the texts, armies wombled about in the fog of war. Dispersing was a different matter (some minor battles are what I see as dispersal). The clue on simultaneous (this type of rule is in other games) is that the evasion movement is not "retreat-constrained". Facing an overly-aggressive player you can sometimes get a couple of free-moves for Rupert by evading; thanks pal!
jwoodall wrote: Then I figured that perhaps you just really didn't want combat in the game and were designing your mechanics around that to make an attempt at combat being very dangerous from an efficiency standpoint when initiated by the card player. Especially considering most combat results in drawn or indecisive battles.
That too is part of it, I ran storyboards on battle numbers (amongst other things) aiming to get roughly the historical level of activity.
jwoodall wrote: I do agree with whoever said that about area control. This game is much closer to Twilight Struggle type op efficiency than I expected. It is in some ways more interesting than I initially thought (certainly different than most CDGs) as a simulation/learning experience, but also not my type of game - because I treasure blood and excitement! I know nothing about the history of this war so I'll defer to your design intent being more towards the simulation, though it sounds like your playtest balance more accurately reflected the historical outcome. Regardless, I'm glad it exists and enjoyed most of my 2.5 sessions with Alan.
As I note above I find it gives a lot of excitement but we play a "2 Minute Offense" with constant movement, terrain capture and attempts to make the other guy waste his cards on attacking, and hardly any sieges. Our "fronts" are mixed up. I think some gamers play a much tidier game.
-
|
|
Posted Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:36 am
