$10.00
Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

The Republic of Rome» Forums » General

Subject: Optional Concessions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jim Temple
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Would someone who has played both ways please elaborate on the effects on the game if you make it optional to take concessions, vs the Valley Games change to make them mandatory?

It seems like optional concessions would make money a lot tighter, and make minor prosecutions more rare.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Basiliv wrote:
Would someone who has played both ways please elaborate on the effects on the game if you make it optional to take concessions, vs the Valley Games change to make them mandatory?

It seems like optional concessions would make money a lot tighter, and make minor prosecutions more rare.

Optional concessions avoids the gamey tactic of assigning a Concession to a high influence Senator in order to force a minor prosecution on him.

Mandatory concessions takes away a decision point for players.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Temple
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Excellent point. I suppose the two effects I mentioned will depend upon the players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Ellis
United States
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmb
We play with mandatory concessions. We view it as a deal you made with underhanded people, and if you made the deal, you have to do it.

The decision point for the player is still whether to play the card. Concessions are a double edged sword, so if you need the money, you risk getting it and being prosecuted. The pay off is, risking influence (in the case of being guilty for a minor prosecution) for money. I like when senators are stuck with a concession that they have been milking for turns and turns, and just when they are in the weeds, it gives a reason to take them down a notch. If they can "hide" by suddenly being "good", it isn't as fun, in my opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bedlamboy wrote:
We play with mandatory concessions. We view it as a deal you made with underhanded people, and if you made the deal, you have to do it.

The decision point for the player is still whether to play the card. Concessions are a double edged sword, so if you need the money, you risk getting it and being prosecuted. The pay off is, risking influence (in the case of being guilty for a minor prosecution) for money. I like when senators are stuck with a concession that they have been milking for turns and turns, and just when they are in the weeds, it gives a reason to take them down a notch. If they can "hide" by suddenly being "good", it isn't as fun, in my opinion.

Doesn't really work for the Concessions being assigned during the Senate Phase. Those can be assigned against a player's wish leading to a prosecution the following turn. Where's the player's decision point there?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Ellis
United States
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmb
Not everything is in the power of the controlling player. Being sent to war or governing a province isn't the decision of the deciding player either, but if the senate wants them to do it, they must. Make friends, have more votes, or save a veto if you can get one. A concession can only be voted on once per senate phase, so you only have to veto it once.
1 
 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.