Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Nations» Forums » Variants

Subject: Variant proposal: Timed warfare/conflict rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Sean O'Brien
msg tools
I am new to BGG and to Nations, so i wanted to receive a little feedback about an idea that i had for the game. In reviews for Nations, I find players (especially those playing with close family or SOs) often choose not to force conflict on others. I personally love the concept and my friends and I would definitely build plenty of military simply to interact with one another, but i can also imagine myself playing differently with my girlfriend or my family. Would it make sense to have conflicts on a timer? The timer would have to be set to the ages or some other form of game time at which increasingly more severe conflicts would occur. This could placate a sore-losing girlfriend and prevent visits to the couch on board game nights. I know this would take away quite a bit of player interaction, but it still provides a reason to build military and to keep it strong. Once again, I know very little about this game and what i have seen from it i truly enjoy. I can just picture my family and some others disliking the wars. Does this idea merit conversation and is it even feasible within the games natural rules and constraints?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
arnaud roussel
Canada
st Leonard
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmb
ScruffMcGruf wrote:
I am new to BGG and to Nations, so i wanted to receive a little feedback about an idea that i had for the game. In reviews for Nations, I find players (especially those playing with close family or SOs) often choose not to force conflict on others. I personally love the concept and my friends and I would definitely build plenty of military simply to interact with one another, but i can also imagine myself playing differently with my girlfriend or my family. Would it make sense to have conflicts on a timer? The timer would have to be set to the ages or some other form of game time at which increasingly more severe conflicts would occur. This could placate a sore-losing girlfriend and prevent visits to the couch on board game nights. I know this would take away quite a bit of player interaction, but it still provides a reason to build military and to keep it strong. Once again, I know very little about this game and what i have seen from it i truly enjoy. I can just picture my family and some others disliking the wars. Does this idea merit conversation and is it even feasible within the games natural rules and constraints?


I don't understand your idea.

This game is already pretty friendly when it comes to wars:
-Low military players can buy wars to not be impacted by it.
-War effects can be mitigated by stability (you'll still lose some point though)
-There is no direct confrontation for wars. Everyone is affected by it. Each time someone buys a war it just puts a military threshold people have to pass in order to not be affected. That's it. No mean in your face stuff.

I don't see how the game could be more friendly with wars. As long as people counter it with at least a decent stability the wars while removing some points aren't much more mean than in 7wonders.

However, a common issue for new players is the harshness of events, especially at 2 players. If you want a more gentle game it would be better to work around that.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, this already has incredibly friendly conflicts that are easy to avoid and mitigate. Compare it to Through the ages or similar for example.

If you want to reduce the wars any more, to be honest you remove them altogether.

It's already one of my concerns (as a typically non-militaristic player) that the aggression side is already a little too hamstrung.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Olesen
Denmark
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ScruffMcGruf wrote:
I personally love the concept and my friends and I would definitely build plenty of military simply to interact with one another,...

Then you probably won't like Nations. Wars and Battles are abstracted and not at all personally directed. Wars hit everyone, including the person who bought/initiated it (if you lose military strength before it is resolved), and battles are abstract plunder exercises where you effectively exchange the gold you use to buy the card with some resources from the resource pool (not from another player).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Olesen
Denmark
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In fact, Natíons is a resource management game with a Civilization theme, it is not a Civilization game in the 4X genre.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rafael Hannula
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
The probabilistic nature of being
badge
Truthful speech, proper understanding, unselfish action
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ScruffMcGruf wrote:
I am new to BGG and to Nations, so i wanted to receive a little feedback about an idea that i had for the game. In reviews for Nations, I find players (especially those playing with close family or SOs) often choose not to force conflict on others. I personally love the concept and my friends and I would definitely build plenty of military simply to interact with one another, but i can also imagine myself playing differently with my girlfriend or my family. Would it make sense to have conflicts on a timer? The timer would have to be set to the ages or some other form of game time at which increasingly more severe conflicts would occur. This could placate a sore-losing girlfriend and prevent visits to the couch on board game nights. I know this would take away quite a bit of player interaction, but it still provides a reason to build military and to keep it strong. Once again, I know very little about this game and what i have seen from it i truly enjoy. I can just picture my family and some others disliking the wars. Does this idea merit conversation and is it even feasible within the games natural rules and constraints?


I wouldn't even play games with people who are sore losers (exception 0-15 year old players). Before long it just always ends in tears.

If I play a game I want to play it trying to win. In the end winning/losing isn't even important to me but the journey doesn't make any sense if I don't play as effectively as I can. (A bit offtopic, sorry blush )

Like the previous posters have said Nations isn't very harsh game. Good luck ! meeple
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Durst
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If your girlfriend is making you sleep on your couch because of conflict in a game, then you need to either:

a. Get a new girlfriend

or

b. Stop playing games with your girlfriend/SO since they are sore losers
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Nelson
United States
Draper
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Start everyone with a base of 20 culture(books), then play normal. Wars in the first few rounds should be less likely to kill off a player's shot at having fun, especially if they don't understand taking a war early so it isn't their problem that round if they don't want to go up on military.
 
 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.