Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Virgin Queen» Forums » General

Subject: Just an idea....... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bob Miller
msg tools
The game is already set so this idea is just a "what if" that may have made the game a tad more realistic and/or interesting.

Give bonuses (or penalties) to the current controlling power of the independents in future Diplomacy checks (like the controller of Edinborough gets a +1 for Scotland) if that major power represents the minor power's interest well.

So for example..... the controller of Venice would get a bonus if the Venetian fleet in intact (three or more NS in existence) Maybe another if all the fortresses are still owned by the Venice major power ally. Also perhaps a -1 to Diplo checks if all the Venice boats are at the bottom of the sea.

Pope's interests could be measured as total number of Catholic spaces and no Ottoman control of Italian spaces (maybe Malta too) Bonus to the controlling ally if they do well on these measures, a negative Diplo modifyer if they are representing the Pope's interests poorly.

Other three minors could have similar interest modifiers named as well.

Just a thought. The game has been published and I am NOT recommending a change or anything, just for discussion. Thumbs up or down?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Carroll
United States
Urbana
Illinois
flag msg tools
Soli Deo Gloria!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sounds interesting . . .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven
United States
Spokane
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
"The mystery of life isn't a problem to solve, but a reality to experience"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cool idea... but really complicated. Diplomatic status checks would become a mess of modifiers! surprise

That being said if someone wants to come up with historical modifiers to use for each power, I would probably be interested in following along with their developement.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Forster
United States
Pleasant Prairie
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Hey! Institute THIS!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see how this is realistic. However, in addition to adding complexity, this would also tend to create (or to strengthen) a natural "frontrunner" in diplomatic status checks (e.g. the power holding Edinburgh would have a natural advantage for keeping it). This "frontrunner" phenomenon would reduce the payoff for investing in the purchase of diplomatic influence. And that in turn would further reduce the diplomatic turnover rate. So you might see the whole diplomacy mechanic greatly reduced in importance even as you increase the amount of effort it requires.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Ferguson
Ireland
Cork
Cork
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Greg, you seem to assume that the modifiers will always (or will generally) favour the player currently in possession, but the OP explicitly provides for them (also) being penalties.

The added complexity needn't be that high; compare with the existing fiddliness with Scotland's assorted mods, for example. But is it a game one wants to be adding any additional computational crunch to?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven
United States
Spokane
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
"The mystery of life isn't a problem to solve, but a reality to experience"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FergusWindbag wrote:
Greg, you seem to assume that the modifiers will always (or will generally) favour the player currently in possession, but the OP explicitly provides for them (also) being penalties.

The added complexity needn't be that high; compare with the existing fiddliness with Scotland's assorted mods, for example. But is it a game one wants to be adding any additional computational crunch to?


I think what Greg was getting at is this (and I agree with him): by adding any additional modifiers, players will manipulate the system in such a way to guarantee that they can never lose a minor power diplomatically. They would simply avoid amassing any of the negative modifiers (leaving all the minor regulars and fleets in the keys, not allying certain powers etc), while trying to meet every positive modifier possible.

This would then deter anyone from putting any influence on the minor power, because there is no way any other power could strip the minor away from its alliance, unless they assualted it.

Eventually minors would become very similar to their state in HIS, essentially always allied to one power, unless taken by force by another power.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Ferguson
Ireland
Cork
Cork
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
SW_Cygnus wrote:
by adding any additional modifiers, players will manipulate the system in such a way to guarantee that they can never lose a minor power diplomatically.

I don't see how it's possible to argue that in the complete abstract, absent any specifics about what the abstract would be. Case in point: only negative modifiers.

The one area this seems attractive (off the top of my head) is the AMPs. That seems to me to be one area that adding some "AI" for the "natural interests" of those powers might be worth some added complexity. (Admittedly the VPs tracks this to a significant degree already, so one would want to focus on areas that weren't already already captured.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SW_Cygnus wrote:
FergusWindbag wrote:
Greg, you seem to assume that the modifiers will always (or will generally) favour the player currently in possession, but the OP explicitly provides for them (also) being penalties.

The added complexity needn't be that high; compare with the existing fiddliness with Scotland's assorted mods, for example. But is it a game one wants to be adding any additional computational crunch to?


I think what Greg was getting at is this (and I agree with him): by adding any additional modifiers, players will manipulate the system in such a way to guarantee that they can never lose a minor power diplomatically. They would simply avoid amassing any of the negative modifiers (leaving all the minor regulars and fleets in the keys, not allying certain powers etc), while trying to meet every positive modifier possible.

This would then deter anyone from putting any influence on the minor power, because there is no way any other power could strip the minor away from its alliance, unless they assualted it.

Eventually minors would become very similar to their state in HIS, essentially always allied to one power, unless taken by force by another power.


Perhaps, but the modifiers could be set up to discourage multiple minor alliances (-1 to all rolls if allied with two minors, -2 if three, etc.), as well as modifiers requiring (for instance) the major power to be at war with a specified other major power (such as Scotland, +1 if at war with England, -1 if not) . . .

My only complaint is that I think the game has enough moving parts already without piling more considerations for a limited benefit.

Cheers!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Miller
msg tools
The original thought behind this was the Spanish player letting the Venetian navy take all the hits in a sea battle. Yellow fleet is fine but the ally's are all down at the bottom of the sea. I can't imagine the local Venetian power brokers (merchants, bankers, insurance guys, women who just lost sons/husbands) will be happy with the way their ally looked out for their interests. Riots in the street.

So in this case being the current controlling power could be a NEGATIVE factor in keeping control of the city state unless they do it right.

Sure you could then play it safe with your minor ally's boats but I would imagine that Spain (or whomever) would actually want to USE those boats in combat to hunt Corsairs and the other mean Greenies. Dilemma, keep the minor ally happy and get your butt kicked by the Ottoman or risk alienating your ally by risking his boats (or other assets) in combat.

THIS is what I tried to get across on my original post. I appreciate the interest and conversation though. Some very good points, especially the obvious.... added complexity.
2 
 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.