Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Clash of Cultures» Forums » Variants

Subject: One army unit in starting city? Defensive Siegecraft? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Greg Purcell
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Master Turtler
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Love this game.

I've seen a few suggestions as to how to balance military aggression in the game for us Eurosnoots who just want to build obelisks and dance beneath a rain of victory points.

In all seriousness, it's not so much that Military is unbalanced--I find the game very beautifully tuned. It's rather that once someone starts playing the martial tune, the nearest competitor has to drop their engine, and therefore always be militarily one step behind the guy who started the tune. This can start a vicious cycle in which one player becomes the standard for second place, particularly if the third/fourth player decides not to participate.

However, I agree with commentators that all the proposed variants suggested so far tend to unbalance the delicate chemistry of the game.

I'll propose two modest variants, then:

1. How about if starting cities began the Sid Meier's way: with one Settler and one Infantry? That way, all starting cities start with an inherent defensive advantage at first; a small, temporary nudge toward a defensive engine, that cancels out somewhere halfway through the game. I'm sure the military people wouldn't mind the option, either.

I bet the playtesters tried this at first. I wonder, if so, why it was eliminated?

2. I wonder (in addition or alternatively) if cities with both a prerequisite of Siegecraft and a fortress might not also a.) pay wood and ore to defend their fortresses? Or add those defensive Siegecraft abilities only if they've built within a Forest or on top of a mountain, respectively? And/or b.) add +1 to their Army stacking limit within the city, if the city's at level 5?

Any thoughts?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Purcell
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Master Turtler
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Variant 3: Successful use of Siegecraft is, thematically, a "total war" option that destroys the Fortress it's used against.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Purcell
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Master Turtler
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Variant 4: Can't use gold to replace wood or ore during Siegecraft. Can't buy your way to victory, soldier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rafael Ramus
msg tools
designer
Deus Vult
badge
Gloria in excelsis Deo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GorillaGrody wrote:


1. How about if starting cities began the Sid Meier's way: with one Settler and one Infantry? That way, all starting cities start with an inherent defensive advantage at first; a small, temporary nudge toward a defensive engine, that cancels out somewhere halfway through the game. I'm sure the military people wouldn't mind the option, either.


I'm not a playtester, but I am a tweaker (I like to mod my games), and I have done exactly that. What it makes is the opposite of what you want: more agression. Say, you are not the military type and decides to keep the soldier in your city. I am the military guy sitting next to you. I send the soldier along my settler, the soldier towards your settler.

You'll have to start worrying with military earlier than you would if no soldier was allowed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Purcell
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Master Turtler
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rafael Ramus wrote:
GorillaGrody wrote:


1. How about if starting cities began the Sid Meier's way: with one Settler and one Infantry? That way, all starting cities start with an inherent defensive advantage at first; a small, temporary nudge toward a defensive engine, that cancels out somewhere halfway through the game. I'm sure the military people wouldn't mind the option, either.


I'm not a playtester, but I am a tweaker (I like to mod my games), and I have done exactly that. What it makes is the opposite of what you want: more agression. Say, you are not the military type and decides to keep the soldier in your city. I am the military guy sitting next to you. I send the soldier along my settler, the soldier towards your settler.

You'll have to start worrying with military earlier than you would if no soldier was allowed.


I figured that was likely, but figured also that both defensive and offensive tracks would start on a more equal footing. The building of Tactics or a new troop from an opponent wouldn't necessarily derail your own engine, since you'd have at least one troop for defense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GorillaGrody wrote:
Rafael Ramus wrote:
GorillaGrody wrote:


1. How about if starting cities began the Sid Meier's way: with one Settler and one Infantry? That way, all starting cities start with an inherent defensive advantage at first; a small, temporary nudge toward a defensive engine, that cancels out somewhere halfway through the game. I'm sure the military people wouldn't mind the option, either.


I'm not a playtester, but I am a tweaker (I like to mod my games), and I have done exactly that. What it makes is the opposite of what you want: more agression. Say, you are not the military type and decides to keep the soldier in your city. I am the military guy sitting next to you. I send the soldier along my settler, the soldier towards your settler.

You'll have to start worrying with military earlier than you would if no soldier was allowed.


I figured that was likely, but figured also that both defensive and offensive tracks would start on a more equal footing.
Not really. Without this mod, the aggressor had to spend resources to build the Army, now you've given them a cost-free option to start waging war. Sure, the non-aggressor also has an Army, but because it all starts earlier, Any setback can be more severe.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Purcell
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Master Turtler
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
GorillaGrody wrote:
Rafael Ramus wrote:
GorillaGrody wrote:


1. How about if starting cities began the Sid Meier's way: with one Settler and one Infantry? That way, all starting cities start with an inherent defensive advantage at first; a small, temporary nudge toward a defensive engine, that cancels out somewhere halfway through the game. I'm sure the military people wouldn't mind the option, either.


I'm not a playtester, but I am a tweaker (I like to mod my games), and I have done exactly that. What it makes is the opposite of what you want: more agression. Say, you are not the military type and decides to keep the soldier in your city. I am the military guy sitting next to you. I send the soldier along my settler, the soldier towards your settler.

You'll have to start worrying with military earlier than you would if no soldier was allowed.


I figured that was likely, but figured also that both defensive and offensive tracks would start on a more equal footing.
Not really. Without this mod, the aggressor had to spend resources to build the Army, now you've given them a cost-free option to start waging war. Sure, the non-aggressor also has an Army, but because it all starts earlier, Any setback can be more severe.


Good to know someone's tried it out. Thanks!
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.