Northerner
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 264
Prof. Garfield, I'm going to admit that I don't understand your system well enough to trust myself to go with it. Are you and economist?
Imperialism II PBEM
- Thread starter McMonkey
- Start date
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,041
Possibly just a general statistician.
I'm working on a map to divide the world up into territories for my 'limited wars' concept. To answer Patine's question about aircraft. I think they should be treated the same as naval units and not be limited in number. Range will be the big issue for them. Will there be a close enough airbase for them to get involved?
I think this could work. For example, the Germans want to fight the British over South Africa. The size of the region is 27 cities. That is the maximum number of ground units allowed within the warzone at any one time. There could be a five square exclusion zone for other ground units. You can use as many air and naval units as you like. Any ship within this exclusion zone is a legitimate target as is any air unit. Trade embargos can be enforced for the duration of the conflict, perhaps prompting both parties to get things over and done with as quickly as possible. The idea is that the war is limited to this territory and there does not have to be a global or European German-British war, unless one or both parties wishes to make it so. The same for Japan-Russia in Korea, Russia-Britain in Afghanistan and so on. The smaller the territory being fought over, the smaller the number of ground troops involved. It will be up to the warring parties when to end the fighting, but economic considerations may force one to concede first when the cost to trade begins to outweigh the benefit of owning the territory.
As always I think we should put this to the vote:
Option 1 - Play as normal with no special rules
Option 2 - Prof Garfield's scoring system
Option 3 - McMonkey's limited wars system
My vote is for option 3
The sooner we make a decision, the sooner we can crack on and get playing
I think this could work. For example, the Germans want to fight the British over South Africa. The size of the region is 27 cities. That is the maximum number of ground units allowed within the warzone at any one time. There could be a five square exclusion zone for other ground units. You can use as many air and naval units as you like. Any ship within this exclusion zone is a legitimate target as is any air unit. Trade embargos can be enforced for the duration of the conflict, perhaps prompting both parties to get things over and done with as quickly as possible. The idea is that the war is limited to this territory and there does not have to be a global or European German-British war, unless one or both parties wishes to make it so. The same for Japan-Russia in Korea, Russia-Britain in Afghanistan and so on. The smaller the territory being fought over, the smaller the number of ground troops involved. It will be up to the warring parties when to end the fighting, but economic considerations may force one to concede first when the cost to trade begins to outweigh the benefit of owning the territory.
As always I think we should put this to the vote:
Option 1 - Play as normal with no special rules
Option 2 - Prof Garfield's scoring system
Option 3 - McMonkey's limited wars system
My vote is for option 3
The sooner we make a decision, the sooner we can crack on and get playing
voltar
Drunken Russian
3
I got the MA in economics about a year ago, but decided against getting the PhD.
I didn't realize my proposal was more complicated than keeping track of where exclusion zones are and the number of units in them and trying to use house rules to limit the scope of wars. My idea was that the unit killed penalty would make everyone think twice about escalating a war, and that this would achieve (at least some of the time) the limited war idea within the game instead of being directly imposed from outside. Building food caravans for points give people something to do other than build troops after they max out commodity deliveries.
Core cities would make Europe more important (as it was at the time), and mitigate the advantage of starting with a large empire.
The system can be made simpler. Give everyone 10 core cities at the start of the game, only count food caravan deliveries for points from those cities, and eliminate the "rebellious city" mechanic. Also, eliminate wanting to hold your original core cities more than getting others. Then we have
Final score = (core cities/10)*food caravan deliveries - dead troops
Or, how about this:
Final Score = (10*number of cities + food caravan deliveries - dead troops)/number of starting cities
No core cities. At the end of the game, cities are worth 10 points, you get extra points for food caravan deliveries, and you divide your score by the number of starting cities to compensate for the size of a starting empire. Or, we could do
Final score = ((10*cities+food caravan deliveries)/number of starting cities) - dead troops
(This means that countries that start out with large empires don't have a reduced dead troop penalty)
If this kind of scoring system really is that difficult to understand or keep track of, I'm happy to go along with the system where placing extra units in an exclusion zone is "breaking the rules" instead of "provocative" or "frowned upon by the international community."
I didn't realize my proposal was more complicated than keeping track of where exclusion zones are and the number of units in them and trying to use house rules to limit the scope of wars. My idea was that the unit killed penalty would make everyone think twice about escalating a war, and that this would achieve (at least some of the time) the limited war idea within the game instead of being directly imposed from outside. Building food caravans for points give people something to do other than build troops after they max out commodity deliveries.
Core cities would make Europe more important (as it was at the time), and mitigate the advantage of starting with a large empire.
The system can be made simpler. Give everyone 10 core cities at the start of the game, only count food caravan deliveries for points from those cities, and eliminate the "rebellious city" mechanic. Also, eliminate wanting to hold your original core cities more than getting others. Then we have
Final score = (core cities/10)*food caravan deliveries - dead troops
Or, how about this:
Final Score = (10*number of cities + food caravan deliveries - dead troops)/number of starting cities
No core cities. At the end of the game, cities are worth 10 points, you get extra points for food caravan deliveries, and you divide your score by the number of starting cities to compensate for the size of a starting empire. Or, we could do
Final score = ((10*cities+food caravan deliveries)/number of starting cities) - dead troops
(This means that countries that start out with large empires don't have a reduced dead troop penalty)
If this kind of scoring system really is that difficult to understand or keep track of, I'm happy to go along with the system where placing extra units in an exclusion zone is "breaking the rules" instead of "provocative" or "frowned upon by the international community."
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,041
I think the class has revolted, Professor.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Nice to see you guy negotiating like Victorian heads of state!
Just thought I'd chime in with a Imperialism tip or two for when you get started:
*Don't forget that once you discover Fertilizers and Explosives, you can tranform Grasslands into a super tile, "Cultivated".
*And if you want the top city to trade with in the whole map...It's Port Stanley (243,221) - Once it reaches size 6 or more, amazing trade profits can be gained.
*Grab Paris early on for the ability to gain the advanced governments, which will help you get far ahead in commerce, war mongering or tech searching.
Have fun, fellows!
Just thought I'd chime in with a Imperialism tip or two for when you get started:
*Don't forget that once you discover Fertilizers and Explosives, you can tranform Grasslands into a super tile, "Cultivated".
*And if you want the top city to trade with in the whole map...It's Port Stanley (243,221) - Once it reaches size 6 or more, amazing trade profits can be gained.
*Grab Paris early on for the ability to gain the advanced governments, which will help you get far ahead in commerce, war mongering or tech searching.
Have fun, fellows!
Prof. Garfield,
I like this system the best:
Final Score = (10*number of cities + food caravan deliveries - dead troops)/number of starting cities
No core cities. At the end of the game, cities are worth 10 points, you get extra points for food caravan deliveries, and you divide your score by the number of starting cities to compensate for the size of a starting empire.
However, from past experience, I have found that games based on scoring systems just don't play out well. I think deep down that most people are less worried about final scores and victory than they are just playing, building up their empires and plotting against their opponents. The result of the game is decided by each player based on their own criteria. A player could lose badly on points but still be very happy with the empire they built or a successful campaign fought.
The idea for limited campaigns is to have a mechanism whereby wars can be fought for limited objectives without them necessarily escalating into a world war. Like a mutual agreement between the warring parties that they will fight for control of South Africa without fighting in Europe. Having a predetermined map would mean players can plan these limited wars and if their opponents agree not to escalate then that's how the war will be fought.
We could simplify it even further by scrapping the unit limit which is the complex aspect to keep track of, and simply have a warone around the territory of, for argument's sake five squares. Any unit within that radius is considered a combatant. Then there would be the following diplomatic states:
- Peace
- Limited war in a territory (which could include a trade embargo, including willing allies - IE enemy trade not allowed to enter cities)
- Unlimited war
Thus the players have options to limit the scale of a war if it suits both parties. I can see this working as players might wish to hold onto a territory without having to derail all of their plans and trade in the rest of the world. Trade embargos may make a prolonged war unattractive and other world powers join in the embargo to force one or both parties to the negotiating table. Also, when a player declares a limited war there is a chance that their opponent will reject that proposal and take it as a declaration of war between the two empires on a world scale, so it is a risky business.
I would propose that to begin a limited war the attacking player must give one turns notice before attacking (IE cannot initiate any combat on the turn they declare the limited war). It will then allow the defending nation one turn to ship in reinforcements and hit back at any troops that may have been landed or other units within the exclusion zone. If the defending nation decides that they reject the limited war they can, if they so wish, fight back with unlimited warfare. Thus trying for a limited war can be a risky undertaking as you don't know for sure how your opponent will react. There is a chance you will find yourself in a global conflict.
I think to make this work we need a rule that any war must be declared the turn before any combat begins (Limited or Unlimited) IE No sneak attacks. You can more your units into place, thus giving you an advantage, but the defender always gets to fire first and gets to send reinforcements to the warzone. Thus declaring any kind of war becomes a risky business and one must be fully prepared to launch their campaign. This seems a realistic step for the period where armies had to be mobilised. The attacker will have the advantage of knowing when and where they plan to attack and will have concentrated their forces, but the defender has one turn to prepare and launch spoiler attacks.
This may all sound complex, but I think it can be boiled down to a few, easily understood house rules. It's up to the players then to use their human (as opposed to AI) intelligence to weigh up the pros and cons of war.
The one turn delay after declaring a war also gives the opposing parties an opportunity to try diplomacy. Perhaps other nations could be persuaded to impose sanctions (embargos) that might encourage the attacker to desist. Perhaps some agreement over territory can be reached without a shot being fired, the mere threat of war being enough to make the both sides see sense.
I like this system the best:
Final Score = (10*number of cities + food caravan deliveries - dead troops)/number of starting cities
No core cities. At the end of the game, cities are worth 10 points, you get extra points for food caravan deliveries, and you divide your score by the number of starting cities to compensate for the size of a starting empire.
However, from past experience, I have found that games based on scoring systems just don't play out well. I think deep down that most people are less worried about final scores and victory than they are just playing, building up their empires and plotting against their opponents. The result of the game is decided by each player based on their own criteria. A player could lose badly on points but still be very happy with the empire they built or a successful campaign fought.
The idea for limited campaigns is to have a mechanism whereby wars can be fought for limited objectives without them necessarily escalating into a world war. Like a mutual agreement between the warring parties that they will fight for control of South Africa without fighting in Europe. Having a predetermined map would mean players can plan these limited wars and if their opponents agree not to escalate then that's how the war will be fought.
We could simplify it even further by scrapping the unit limit which is the complex aspect to keep track of, and simply have a warone around the territory of, for argument's sake five squares. Any unit within that radius is considered a combatant. Then there would be the following diplomatic states:
- Peace
- Limited war in a territory (which could include a trade embargo, including willing allies - IE enemy trade not allowed to enter cities)
- Unlimited war
Thus the players have options to limit the scale of a war if it suits both parties. I can see this working as players might wish to hold onto a territory without having to derail all of their plans and trade in the rest of the world. Trade embargos may make a prolonged war unattractive and other world powers join in the embargo to force one or both parties to the negotiating table. Also, when a player declares a limited war there is a chance that their opponent will reject that proposal and take it as a declaration of war between the two empires on a world scale, so it is a risky business.
I would propose that to begin a limited war the attacking player must give one turns notice before attacking (IE cannot initiate any combat on the turn they declare the limited war). It will then allow the defending nation one turn to ship in reinforcements and hit back at any troops that may have been landed or other units within the exclusion zone. If the defending nation decides that they reject the limited war they can, if they so wish, fight back with unlimited warfare. Thus trying for a limited war can be a risky undertaking as you don't know for sure how your opponent will react. There is a chance you will find yourself in a global conflict.
I think to make this work we need a rule that any war must be declared the turn before any combat begins (Limited or Unlimited) IE No sneak attacks. You can more your units into place, thus giving you an advantage, but the defender always gets to fire first and gets to send reinforcements to the warzone. Thus declaring any kind of war becomes a risky business and one must be fully prepared to launch their campaign. This seems a realistic step for the period where armies had to be mobilised. The attacker will have the advantage of knowing when and where they plan to attack and will have concentrated their forces, but the defender has one turn to prepare and launch spoiler attacks.
This may all sound complex, but I think it can be boiled down to a few, easily understood house rules. It's up to the players then to use their human (as opposed to AI) intelligence to weigh up the pros and cons of war.
The one turn delay after declaring a war also gives the opposing parties an opportunity to try diplomacy. Perhaps other nations could be persuaded to impose sanctions (embargos) that might encourage the attacker to desist. Perhaps some agreement over territory can be reached without a shot being fired, the mere threat of war being enough to make the both sides see sense.
PROPOSED HOUSE RULES:
1 - War must be declared the turn before any combat takes place (For both limited and unlimited war. The defender strikes first. The attacker can move units into position the turn they declare war but cannot fire any shots)
2 - If both attacker and defender agree to a limited war there will be a five square exclusion zone around the territory outside of which any units are considered neutral.
3 - The defender can declare unlimited warfare the turn that war is declared on them if they choose to
4 - If engaged in a state of limited war the same one turn warning applies to either party to escalate to unlimited warfare (except for in the case of point 3 above)
5 - Trade embargos must be respected (IE You may not send Trade to any nation that has declared an embargo on you)
I think these house rules are pretty straight forward and are not open to misinterpretation, They will give the players options, both to limit wars if convenient to their grand plans and leaves room for diplomacy. If you guys agree I will crack on and finish the territory map (based loosely on modern countries and regions). We currently have 3 votes for (presuming Patine and Voltar still agree). If Northerner could please cast his vote and Pat and Voltar can confirm whether they still prefer the territories option (as amended above) we can get on with the game.
1 - War must be declared the turn before any combat takes place (For both limited and unlimited war. The defender strikes first. The attacker can move units into position the turn they declare war but cannot fire any shots)
2 - If both attacker and defender agree to a limited war there will be a five square exclusion zone around the territory outside of which any units are considered neutral.
3 - The defender can declare unlimited warfare the turn that war is declared on them if they choose to
4 - If engaged in a state of limited war the same one turn warning applies to either party to escalate to unlimited warfare (except for in the case of point 3 above)
5 - Trade embargos must be respected (IE You may not send Trade to any nation that has declared an embargo on you)
I think these house rules are pretty straight forward and are not open to misinterpretation, They will give the players options, both to limit wars if convenient to their grand plans and leaves room for diplomacy. If you guys agree I will crack on and finish the territory map (based loosely on modern countries and regions). We currently have 3 votes for (presuming Patine and Voltar still agree). If Northerner could please cast his vote and Pat and Voltar can confirm whether they still prefer the territories option (as amended above) we can get on with the game.
Here is a rough draft of territories: http://sleague.civfanatics.com/index.php?title=File:Territories.png
It can be refined, but it's a starting point and something I think we can work with for now.
It can be refined, but it's a starting point and something I think we can work with for now.
I think the class has revolted, Professor.
Fair enough. I think I've made my case adequately enough, and if it isn't convincing, then we won't use a variant of my proposed system. The real objective is, of course, an enjoyable playing experience.
Point 3: So, the turn a limited war is declared, the defender can escalate to a global war and attack units anywhere on the board, if I understand your rules. Can they add territory to the limited war and attack immediately? E.g. Britain declares limited war on France in New Caledonia, can France immediately attack New Zealand and Australia without declaring total global war?
Thanks Prof. It's not a criticism of the mechanism itself which seems really well thought out. I just doubt the majority of people will be playing the final score in mind. I know I play for my own set of goals. Even when I play single player, world domination is not necessarily my goal.
Good point. I think we could amend that s the defender can respond in the attacked territory but has to declare unlimited war and wait a turn before launching attacks anywhere outside of the territory. This way they may not get to strike first (except within the territory itself) but they have a turn to get their units into order to attack elsewhere.
A cynical player could use this to their advantage, declaring a limited war in the hope of provoking a global war in which they got to strike first. This, however, can also be seen as a good reason for the player initially attacked from NOT escalating to a global war, especially if they do not have the forces in place to take advantage of their first strike advantage,
Hopefully, this will encourage players not to escalate unless they're at a point where they planned a major conflict anyway!
Good point. I think we could amend that s the defender can respond in the attacked territory but has to declare unlimited war and wait a turn before launching attacks anywhere outside of the territory. This way they may not get to strike first (except within the territory itself) but they have a turn to get their units into order to attack elsewhere.
A cynical player could use this to their advantage, declaring a limited war in the hope of provoking a global war in which they got to strike first. This, however, can also be seen as a good reason for the player initially attacked from NOT escalating to a global war, especially if they do not have the forces in place to take advantage of their first strike advantage,
Hopefully, this will encourage players not to escalate unless they're at a point where they planned a major conflict anyway!
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,041
But, but... the Falkenhayn Plan...
This sounds reasonable. We'll wait for voltar to post. Even though he can't outvote us, he might have an amendment in mind.
This system does preclude the use of sneak attacks, but in this period they were not the norm. Vast armies require time to mobilize and deploy, giving their opponents time to prepare. It wasn't really until Pearl Harbour (unless anyone can think of an earlier example) that a real bolt out of the blue attack occurred.
voltar
Drunken Russian
I'm fine with these rules.
The no first strike rule will make for interesting combat.
The no first strike rule will make for interesting combat.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,041
Though they weren't a major power of the period, Bulgaria's aerial bombardment of a Turkish fort (only the second aerial bombardment from a heavier-than-air aircraft in military history) that started actual aggression in the First Balkan War (though tensions were definitely building and unofficial preparations were being made) was quite out of the blue (much more literally than was typical of the day), but it is a pedantically-pointed-out corner case. The rules seem reasonable. I'll have my first turn put up by Friday, preferably, tomorrow, MST.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Does Fort Sumter count as a sneak attack?
Similar threads
