Vittor Costa
Brazil
flag msg tools
Hello!

One of our players (wife) really hates direct conflict games while the others (and me) want to play it to it's full potential. So I wanted to ask you veteran players how broken would it be if one of the players were in "peaceful mode".

That is: We can't play agressions or declare wars on her, but she also can't do it to us and will get stuck with military cards that do nothing. Military Pacts are also prohibited to her. We also thought about including the Global Wars variant to reward military players even more.

I can see a few problems, specially with colonization and not being afraid of being attacked after weakened by it, for example.

So I'm asking for advices before even trying it since it's a very long game and it might end up being a complete crap variant. Should we all stick to peaceful mode then? Or is there anything else I could try if only one of our players doesn't want to engage on agressions and wars?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vic R
Spain
Tomares (Seville)
flag msg tools
badge
Pure mathematics is the world's best game. It is more absorbing than chess, more of a gamble than poker, and lasts longer than Monopoly. It's free. It can be played anywhere - Archimedes did it in a bathtub
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think is better for all to stick to peaceful mode, because the advantage of going all the way for culture points is too large. ie if you play as suggested she is going to win by a very large margin, easily just playing culture buildings while everybody else have to divide resources between military and culture.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ggg ggg
Greece
Athens
flag msg tools
You could implement an additional rule: At the end of her turn, if she is way behind in military strength, she looses culture points. f.e. for ages I/II/III if she is more than 3/6/9 points behind from the strongest player, she looses culture points equal to the difference from the lowest point.

Example: On Age II at the end of her turn she is 10 points behind the strongest player. She will then loose 4 culture points. If she was 6 points behind she wouldn't loose any culture points.

It's just an idea without playtest so the numbers i provide may need fine tuning...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LudoH LudoH
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Have you thought about the variant suggested somewhere here that would allow her (and you) to loose points instead of suffering the consequence aggressions/wars => you still have aggressions but your civ does not suffer

nb of points to loose is a bit subject to discussion, but when I use this variant I opt for: 2(resp. 3) points per age for an aggression(resp. war), plus some points depending on the number of MA it costs (eg 1 point per MA). I sometimes play this way and I find it a good compromise a bit less punishing. Note: the winner wins as if he had won the aggression/war normally.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cedh
France
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Have you considered to play a modified version of the Global Conflicts Variant (last page of the Handbook)?
For example, no aggression/war against the peaceful player (but allowed between other players), and everyone will score culture points at the end of each age according to the rules of the Global Conflict Variant.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TonyKR
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
I'd start with the peaceful variants in the back of the Handbook. And then maybe also try giving her a perma-Gandhi.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vittor Costa
Brazil
flag msg tools
First of all, thanks a lot for all the answers

vica8081 wrote:
I think is better for all to stick to peaceful mode, because the advantage of going all the way for culture points is too large. ie if you play as suggested she is going to win by a very large margin, easily just playing culture buildings while everybody else have to divide resources between military and culture.


This is exactly what I fear. She still is vulnerable to events and having a bad military will actually mean she will get hurt every time a military card is drawn, but I don't know if one could live with that and still score a lot more than the others.

LudoH wrote:
Have you thought about the variant suggested somewhere here that would allow her (and you) to loose points instead of suffering the consequence aggressions/wars => you still have aggressions but your civ does not suffer

nb of points to loose is a bit subject to discussion, but when I use this variant I opt for: 2(resp. 3) points per age for an aggression(resp. war), plus some points depending on the number of MA it costs (eg 1 point per MA). I sometimes play this way and I find it a good compromise a bit less punishing. Note: the winner wins as if he had won the aggression/war normally.


This is interesting, but I see some problems. What if my agression lets me steal a blue cube? Fine, I get one from stock and she doesn't lose it. But what if I were to steal a colony? But I see the point of it: Making pacts and wars less punitive, thanks.

Cedh wrote:
Have you considered to play a modified version of the Global Conflicts Variant (last page of the Handbook)?
For example, no aggression/war against the peaceful player (but allowed between other players), and everyone will score culture points at the end of each age according to the rules of the Global Conflict Variant.



Yea, I even mentioned that on the post. If I were to do something like that I wanted to use these rules I'd want to use it in case she just fell behind everyone in military. However if I think a bit out of the box she actually MIGHT go for military too if she doesn't want to lose stuff to events, so she could actually get some extra points from global wars but not being afraid of getting attacked could be too OP.

Pugnax555 wrote:
I'd start with the peaceful variants in the back of the Handbook. And then maybe also try giving her a perma-Gandhi.


Yea, we've actually already played a few 2p games with peaceful mode, but I really want to play the game with wars and 99% of my free time she's with me.

However the perma-gandhi idea is probably the best one suggested. Instead of making her invulnerable to attacks, just make them cost twice military points. That would effectively make her invulnerable in early game but she might actually get attacked later in the game if she's really ahead of the others.

She's the kind of person that not only hates being attacked but she won't attack anyone at all. On other games she gets the nasty cards and refuse to use them on people simply because she doesn't like attacking anyone, and when she's forced to steal some kind of resource she always goes for the one who has most resources of that kind. So if we were to play TTA with agressions and wars she actuall would never ever attack anyone, that's why I'm trying to figure out a way to balance this out that's not playing the peaceful mode.

I'm really torn between perma-gandhi (with no culture bonus, of course) or lowering penalties from agressions/wars for everyone. Thanks a lot for all the answers!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LudoH LudoH
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Interesting, but I see some problems. What if my agression lets me steal a blue cube? Fine, I get one from stock and she doesn't lose it. But what if I were to steal a colony? But I see the point of it: Making pacts and wars less punitive, thanks.

Indeed you might have to be a bit inventive in some cases. For colonies you can always pick the effect of the colony and then you just need to remember the number of colonies you have (find another colony/put another card among your set of colonies ...). I believe the main issue is if you steal a blue tech, but again you might find a discarded one or find a marker to indicate that you hold a copy of this blue tech (this never happened in my games)
 
 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.