Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Eclipse» Forums » Variants

Subject: Military Support rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Maciej Welc
Poland
Wrocław (Vratislavia)
Lower Silesia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rules say that when players have exchanged ambassadors they cannot enter each other's hexes. If any of them does then the exchange expires.

Assume players A and B have established embassies. Player I invades a hex under influence of player A.

Military Support variant would allow player B to move his ships to the A's hex being invaded without becoming a traitor unless any of B's ships stays in the hex after the hex battles finish.
Notice that B's ships enter the hex after the I's ones so the battle B vs I is resolved before I vs A.

To put it another way B has to:
1) sacrifice (lose) all ships sent to hex being invaded,
2) retreat all remaining ships after eliminating all opponents.

Of course after eliminating all the opponents B may decide to shoot A's population and take over the hex - which would result in becoming a traitor.

It could also happen that B is not able to retreat his remaining ships because of not having a hex available for that purpose. Again B would become a traitor.
(I would disallow voluntarily ships sacrifice to allow other players to force the Military Pact cancellation - to steal these 1 VP from the allies which can be important before the final scoring).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Straight

Covington
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Great idea, although I suppose it's possible the potential for non-aggressive / cooperative "teaming up" like this was explicitly left out of the game for a reason.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Purple Paladin

California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After playing several games, I see now why they did not make diplomacy "deeper". It would be just too easy to make 3v1 type pacts. The moument you are allowed to move through another players hexes, borders pretty much disapear; your just one big "blob" of 2 or 3 players.

I'm not saying it's a bad variant or anything, but I beleive it would lead to who'mever has the most teammates = wins. If your the odd man out with this type of variant, you lose.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Straight

Covington
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Purple Paladin wrote:
After playing several games, I see now why they did not make diplomacy "deeper". It would be just too easy to make 3v1 type pacts. The moument you are allowed to move through another players hexes, borders pretty much disapear; your just one big "blob" of 2 or 3 players.

I'm not saying it's a bad variant or anything, but I beleive it would lead to who'mever has the most teammates = wins. If your the odd man out with this type of variant, you lose.



This type of variant isn't a border-remover, though... it just says if your "ally" is attacked by a third-party, you can move in as temporary reinforcement. You still can't move through their territory [or even stay there after the fight].
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jean Comeau
Canada
Laval
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmb
That's an interesting idea indeed, but I see a big problem if the ally's invaded hex is far away from any of your own hexes. It could become very costly to move to that hex and then get back to one of your own hex (think of all the actions you'd spend...).

And if you decide to turn coat after combat you would already be entrenched deep in your former ally's territory, something I am sure he would not enjoy!

A lot of people have raised the "light diplomacy" issue. Perhaps we still have to ponder a bit about how to deepen its rules in a way that's rewarding (and safe!) for all (allied) parties. How about including ships in the diplomacy exchange (not just cubes), ships that would be immediately available to your ally if he's attacked? Such exchanges could be repeated on demand (not a real action) and of course the borrowed ships would carry their owner's current blueprint.

Jean
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maciej Welc
Poland
Wrocław (Vratislavia)
Lower Silesia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
comeauj wrote:
That's an interesting idea indeed, but I see a big problem if the ally's invaded hex is far away from any of your own hexes.

Indeed I was thinking about galactic center hexes - that are close to everyone, worth many points, with lots of planets to be populated.

On the other hand I don't see a problem you mentioned because:
- variant is meant to counter attack the strong invader rather (I agree there could be a problem of "teaming up" signaled by NateStright),
- actions that are not profitable are not likely to be executed,
- late game engines can allow reach even distant hexes with ships destined to be sacrificed (can be built again instead of moved).

BTW of "teaming up" two Supporters would have to still battle each other before any of them could engage the Invader.
The game is not safe from teaming up because of table talk.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff A
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So I did some thinking on this Allied military support etc, this is what I came up with. It includes a section on Allies attacking together, however like most of you I am fairly sure that mutual attacking would be bad.

Allied hex occupying

When two or more players are allied, they can move their ships into their allies hex without it causing a battle as long as both parties agree not to attack the other.

As soon as a player moves his ships into an Allied controlled hex for the first time, the player must declare whether or not he will be attacking his ally at any point, with any fleet (even those not in an Allied Hex yet), during that turns combat phase. If the moving player declares he will not attack then the Ally must declare whether or not they will attack the infringing fleet. The defender must also declare again for every group of ships that moves into a their controlled hexes.
At the start of the next turns action phase you need to declare once again whether you are going to attack that turn or not.

-Moving your ships into an allied hex / start of action phase - one chance, first infringement to declare an attack.
-Your Hex being infringed on, Every time they infringe with an action you decide to attack or let them occupy.

This eliminates the possibility of your ally moving multiple fleets into your sectors, and then, after you have passed, moving one more in and declaring that they will attack you. Instigating a major wipe out of your empire. However it keeps the diplomacy tense as helping defend your ally could land you in a trap if your usefulness runs out.
One thing I would say is that maybe you can only be in a Hex directly adjacent to a Hex you influence so you can't go deep into your allies territory and you can only help them against mutual threats.

2 or more Allies in a Hex, attacked by a Third party.
Combat of Enemy vs 2 Allies in a single hex fought as if 2 players were attacking the same ancient occupied hex. If one of the Allies controls the Hex, his fleet will sit back and wait for the other two to battle, Should his ally win, he is fine, if the enemy wins, he then combats the enemy.

2 or more Allies attacking a Third Party
Combat of Allies vs Enemy works a bit different. The first Ally into the hex attacks first, if successful, the 2nd Ally has no combat. If Ally 1 is destroyed Ally 2 takes over, destroyed ships are obviously gone, all damage points on the Defenders ships are wiped.

Ally defended retreat
If two allies attack a defender together the first ally in attacks first. Should the first ally decide to retreat, the second ally can choose to defend their retreat. The defended retreat means that the first allies ships do not take a volley of shots from the defender as they leave, instead the defenders volley goes at the 2nd ally. The defenders damage points are then wiped and the 2nd Ally's combat begins as normal.

Heh sorry long post. Lots to think about but it might make for interesting games in the future.
For now I am only instituting my Diplomatic Trading Variant as a house rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Straight

Covington
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Yikes, man.

The best part about the OP's suggestion is that it doesn't introduce any additional overhead, politics, or rules into the game... everything works exactly the same as before, with the single exception concerning whether allies can move into each other's hexes without breaking ties. That one tiny change accomplishes the desired effect of having "military support" be one more thing abstracted into the ambassador relationship like "resource trade" already is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maciej Welc
Poland
Wrocław (Vratislavia)
Lower Silesia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kingsix wrote:
So I did some thinking on this Allied military support etc, this is what I came up with. [...]

As NateStraight wrote it's overcomplicated...
Please note that my proposal does not guarantee that hex owner will get any military support. If the hex is central then the resolution of the outer hexes [or even the supported hex battle(s) with invader(s) with little or no casaulties] may change supporter's mind so he does not retreat and become traitor.

My idea allows some betrayal delay and/or double face behavior under the cover of military support.

I do not like teaming up to be introduced. As NateStraight wrote it was intentionally left out of the game.
 
 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.