Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Imperial» Forums » Variants

Subject: Unit change status ( from "friendly" to " hostile") ...? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mr. Grace
Australia
Adelaide
SA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I played a two player today, a lot of fun but we couldn't agree on one aspect ...

My opponent insisted that units sharing a space could only change status ( from "friendly" to " hostile", or vice versa) during the turn of their "flag" .... while I argued that the unit could change any time - not "attack" out of Maneuver, just change..

An example might help : as Italy I had entered AH and was occupying two of AH's factories as "hostile", thus disabling them ( not destroying, just disabling !) but then managed to take AH's government, so wanted to restore the factories to working order, so I could Tax with AH. I wanted to do this as AH's turn, but my opponent insisted the factories remain disabled until Italy's turn ...

Any ideas ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The FAQ (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/22252) states the decision is taken whenever the nation owning the army (armies) takes a Maneuver action.

Anytime I have questions about a new game, the first thing I do is go to the page for that game, and see if there are FAQs or Rules questions that answer my questions. (Heck, I generally download any FAQs before even sitting down with the rules.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Grace
Australia
Adelaide
SA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hm...! I see that threads elsewhere have answered this question to say one can only change status during one's own Manuever - even the designer says so !

I gotta say tho, I find that very wooden & clunky ...my house rule will be, "Change status anytime, but only attack in your own Manuever"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Flood
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It ensures a bit of certainty about the length of time your unit might occupy someone else's factory region, regardless of any change of presidency that might occur.

If you ever play on the "taking over" side of things, it's pretty clear why this in in place, otherwise occupying a factory is a rather silly move at any time, particularly if you're under threat of a change.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Giglia
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
One reason why that house rule might not be that great is that you would be signaling immediately that you have hostile intentions towards the country in that ocean or province, like showing your hand in cards before you bet.

If you create a house rule, "friendly until i feel like being aggressive, but only attack on maneuver" then you create a situation where people trust each other even less when playing as friendly. What would stop me from telling you I was going to be friendly in your country so as to protect it's factories from some third player just before taxation, but then, just before you do tax, i change my mind and say I'm not friendly, now you can't tax your factory like you planned on. That rule would add some significant back stabbing into your game.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bigney
United States
Kingston
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Capn Hook wrote:

I gotta say tho, I find that very wooden & clunky ...my house rule will be, "Change status anytime, but only attack in your own Manuever"


Wooden, perhaps; clunky, no. It ensures that the game plays as quickly as possible, only determining the status of armies when you take a maneuver action. It would be far clunkier to change it.
Additionally, as others have noted, changing the rule as you describe would significantly increase the uncertainty of the game in some instances. I would see this as a problem, others might not. To each their own.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Grace
Australia
Adelaide
SA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fragilehalos wrote:

If you create a house rule, "friendly until i feel like being aggressive, but only attack on maneuver" then you create a situation where people trust each other even less when playing as friendly.


I guess I just don't believe you can "legislate" for "trust", at least not in this period ( early 20 th century). If a player uses so-called backstabbing, well she/he will need to bear the consequences ie loss of trust from other players.How much backstabbing you want to do is a decision for the player, not [IMO] for rule books.

For interest, the game Campaign, set in the Napoloenic era , features an "alliance card" which, when offerred to & exchanged with another player, precludes attack ; it's a legislated friendly relationship - or at least a firm non-aggression pact.Il gioco dei Medici set in the Renaissance, and a woeful game overall, also features binding treaty processes, in its case the "exchange of ambassadors". I like both of these mechanisms ( if not the games themselves), so I am not opposed to "mandatory friendship" in itself, just in this period I think it's not the best way to go ...just my opinion, though !
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As mentioned, if you don't like the rules as they are, feel free to enforce whatever rules you want. Just know that they are different than how the designer intended them. In my opinion, it makes perfect sense why you cannot change the status of units on a whim, it would affect the game greatly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
You've posted three questions/confusions regarding Imperial, all stemming from one game. The apparency is that you are advocating that the game match the conception you had of the game before you played it. Before you go too far down that path I suggest you go back and look at the game as it is actually designed. There are good game-design reasons for each of the three items you've called out. They may not match your preconceived notions, but they are there for a reason, they deliver an excellent game and they are worth understanding.

One aspect you may consider in this, is that barriers (things players can't do) are just as if not more important than the things they can do. The fact that it requires an explicit maneuver action to render forces hostile or pacific not only enforces a pacing on the game, but also forces a commitment cost for the players making those changes. They get to to do what they want, they get to change the state of their units, but only at a cost: they have to spend an action on it. Similar is true of the railway movement limitations. The limitation of what can't be done is just as important as what can be done. Invading foreign lands requires a commitment in maneuver actions, possibly over multiple turns and if movement were more fluid as you advocate, that commitment cost wouldn't be required and the hard decision as to whether to pay the action penalty or not would be lost. The current movement ruleset forces a variance in value between armies and fleets, as well as a geographic difference in value between coastal and inland regions. These value differentials, these commitment costs, these barriers to player free choice are just as critical to the interesting game decisions as the things the game actually does let you do, and in many ways they're even more important. Both are needed, barriers and abilities, to make a good game. Willy nilly removing barriers is typically not a good way to make a game better.
7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 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.