|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Nov 16, 2019 22:43:51 GMT
I think you would be well-pleased with two new rules regarding Neutrals and Build Sites, Transfermium.  Tripartite Division of Greek TribesA new Greek-flavored rule regarding Armed Neutrals and using Diplomatic Points. It's similar to the religions rule found in the A&E variant. It doesn't make sense for Phokaians to order Lydia to support an attack on the fellow Ionian polis of Miletos, nor would it make sense for Lacedaemonians to successfully urge barbaroi rabble to expell another fellow Dorian-speaker, Corinthians from a colony. Thus, the Tribal Dialect rule comes into play for this reason. The Rule: Within the same branch of a Greek tribal grouping, a power cannot order a neutral to support an attack upon another power who shares the same dialect. Ordering a Neutral to support an attack on a different tribal Greek power is permitted. Ordering a Neutral to support a hold of an unit you own against an incoming attack from a fellow Tribal member is permitted. This rule doesn't applies to the Phoenicians who doesn't belong in any of three tribal dialects. A Greek power may order supports for an attack on them, and in vice versa, they may order supports for an attack on a Greek. Tribal Dialect Groupings Ionic - Athenians, Milesians, Phokaians Dorian - Lacedaemonians, Corinthians Aeolic - Boeotians, Macedonians None - Phoenicians Note that there's a strong tendency for members within a grouping to cluster closely with each other on the map. This rule would have some considerable effect on many power vs power dynamics. Also, historically speaking, it is unknown how closely the Ancient Macedonian language is related to the Ancient Greek languages, or where it should be classified in. For sake of gameplay and simplification, Macedonians are grouped with the Boeotians in the Aeolic branch. Special Build RulesPartially based on the Aberration's rule on allowing a build anywhere on an owned SC long as one of the original SCs were still owned. Modified because it's a bit too OP on this map. The Homelands and Colonies Rules: Colony SCs As Greek colonies were under sway of the mother metropolis back in Greece, likewise in this game the colonies prosper and falls, sharing its fate with the motherland. All owned colony SCs are available as build sites for that power long as it still has at least one of its Homeland SC. Original ownership of the colony does not confer special benefits (other than positional advantages for their units at the very start). Hostile Homeland SCs Foreign conquerors usually faces the native population bristling with resentment and even though they hold dominion over the polis, yet the polis does not serve its master well. As so it is, in here: An enemy's homeland SC doesn't permit a power build a new unit even if it's owned and vacant during a winter season. The enemy homeland SCs also does not contribute toward that power's SC count. The only purpose in capturing an enemy's home is to deny him the ability to construct new units, and just to spite him vindictively. However, in the event that the enemy power is completely wiped off the map (zero SCs remaining, zero units remaining), then in the next following winter season the enemy homeland SCs start contributing toward that power's count, but he still cannot build new units in those SCs. Friendly Homeland SCs Naturally, the homeland SCs that belongs to you at the start of the game counts toward your SC tally for a win, and when vacant serves as a build site for you to place a new unit on the map. These conditions applies only during the winter seasons that you maintain ownership of those SCs, of course. List of Homeland SCs for each power: Athenians - Athens (nothing else can compare to their favorite city) Lacedaemonians - Sparta (Pylos is a helot city, not a true Spartan city) Corinthians - Corinth Milesians - Miletos, Ephesus Phokaians - Phokaia, Smyrna Euboians - Chalcis, Eretria Boeotians - Thebes, Larissa Macedonians - Thermae, Pella, and unnamed (All 3 starting SCs are in Macedonia) Phoenicians - Tyre, Sidon, Carthago (Carthago is considered as a Homeland SC for this map) What do you think? EDIT: I forgot to assign Euboians to a tribal branch. *facepalm* Okay, historically speaking, they're Ionic, but I'm not too comfortable with the idea of putting so many powers within the Ionic group (4!) while leaving only 2 each in other groups. Now I'm wondering if I should leave the Macedonians out of the Aeolic branch and put Euboia into there instead.  EDIT: I'm changing the Phokians to Smyrnaeans (which are Aeolic instead of Ionic), then putting Euboians into the Ionic group. Making the groups distribution at 3, 2, 3. Quite nice and even. Still works, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Nov 17, 2019 11:30:35 GMT
Question: As to how many SCs can we expect in the Aegean Sea? As many important nations, most notably Sparta and Athens are also in this general area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Dec 12, 2019 4:04:12 GMT
Question: As to how many SCs can we expect in the Aegean Sea? As many important nations, most notably Sparta and Athens are also in this general area. To answer your question: I would say about 25, which sounds pretty high. But it's not high as the Aegean Variant (38). The reason why is... If you look at number of players in the Aegean region itself, it's 8 (only the Phoenicians wouldn't be starting with anything in there). So just about every single player in the game will be in there, except for one, ofc. Starting with the list of the Homeland SCs (minus the 9th player) Athenians - Athens (nothing else can compare to their favorite city)
Lacedaemonians - Sparta (Pylos is a helot city, not a true Spartan city)
Corinthians - Corinth
Milesians - Miletos, Ephesus
Smyrnaeans - Cyme, Smyrna
Euboians - Chalcis, Eretria
Boeotians - Thebes, Larissa
Macedonians - Thermae, Pella, and unnamed (All 3 starting SCs are in Macedonia)That's 14 already listed above (then add the mentioned Pylos) (1) Note: I think for the current draft, I've decided that the 3rd Macedonian SC would be Krestona, btw. There will be neutral Delphi and Troy with armies sitting on them. (2) The entire area of Eprius/Ateolia is relatively empty between Corcyra and Pella & Larissa, so I would like to put Dodona + Ithaca on the map but not Ambracia. (2) Corcyra itself will be a Corinthian SC (non-Homeland), Cyzicus was occupied by the Boeotians for some time (2) Cyclades (or Delos basically) + Amphipolis (the famous Pangaion silver mines) + Hellespont, all 3 for Athenians (3) Next to both Asia Minor powers (Smyrnaeans and Milesians), would be two more neutral SCs (Mytilene + Samos) where they can both pick up one extra each (2) Of course, the famous Knossos in Crete (1) However... Rhodes might or might not make the cut (0?) Byzantium (1), good ol' Byz would never forgave me if I took it off the map!  So that's 28 in the current tally. There's plenty of SCs that I'm leaving out of my map like Pergamum or Argos even though I would really like to keep them in. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Dec 13, 2019 12:59:22 GMT
I think you would be well-pleased with two new rules regarding Neutrals and Build Sites, Transfermium . Tripartite Division of Greek TribesSNIP What do you think? EDIT: I forgot to assign Euboians to a tribal branch. *facepalm* Okay, historically speaking, they're Ionic, but I'm not too comfortable with the idea of putting so many powers within the Ionic group (4!) while leaving only 2 each in other groups. Now I'm wondering if I should leave the Macedonians out of the Aeolic branch and put Euboia into there instead. EDIT: I'm changing the Phokians to Smyrnaeans (which are Aeolic instead of Ionic), then putting Euboians into the Ionic group. Making the groups distribution at 3, 2, 3. Quite nice and even. Still works, I suppose. A minor but important update: I had a quick look at the Ionia (and Aiolia) positions in Asia Minor. It became apparant that my origial rule regarding the division of Greek tribes wouldn't protect either of those two from a sneak attack (while ordering a support from Lydia) anymore. Smyrnaeans was formerly placed in Ionic (as the Phokaians) which meant that such a sneak attack was prevented by the rule at that time. But when I had to readjust the groups to properly incorporate the Euboians and changed the Phokaians into the Aeolic Smyrnaeans, suddenly... it's like my Greek tribes rule wasn't in effect anymore. So... I'm adding those new lines into the gameplay rules. Ordering a Neutral to hold (which means the unit is simply not supporting) is entirely permitted in purposes of nullifying another player's DP expenditure. [...] Hostility of LydiaDue to historical tensions, the Lydian empire has no interest in assisting neither Symrnaeans nor Milesians in their squabbles, therefore those two players cannot spend their DPs in influencing Lydia toward supporting an action (either a hold or an attack), but may spend DPs to order Lydia to hold (which means standing in place without supporting anyone). The top single line is for clarity regarding general use of DPs. The section about Lydia reapplies the protection of the Greek tribes rule back onto those two players. It's important to me because those two are pretty vulnerable in their homelands rubbing so closely to each other and both are bordering Lydia itself. Fixed at last! (I hope...) |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Dec 21, 2019 1:43:27 GMT
 Ugh... the pink color and the red color looks almost exactly the same in this photo. Supposed to be 10 different colors, using the basic markers set I have. Anyway, the key: Solid colored paper = homeland SC Color dot paper = starting colony SC Blank, white paper = neutral SC Black X paper = occupied neutral SC The purpose of this is that I wanted an easier way to take a step back and look at the whole picture, but also rearrange the SCs easily when I need to. Also need some more of the neutral SCs to be occupied too. EDIT: I'm now more than ever certain that I would like to change 4 SCs into colonies (one each for the vulnerable Corinthians and Athenians and the slightly less vulnerable Euboians and Lacedaemonians). Most likely one in Black Sea, one on the Cypriot island, one on southern shore of Asia minor, one in the far western Med. I haven't really figured out which goes to which though. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Dec 21, 2019 23:31:08 GMT
Deso, I do have to remind you, as a friend, to KISS.
I think in the quest for balance and accuracy, especially with the tribes system and that, you're losing track of simplicity.
While I do love me a nice, complex board game that takes time to learn, if that's the direction you're going in (Dippy is a solid foundation to build on), Vanilla Dip's beauty was in the simple, almost banal mechanics that enable diplomacy and grand strategy.
Food for thought, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Dec 22, 2019 0:48:48 GMT
Deso, I do have to remind you, as a friend, to KISS. I think in the quest for balance and accuracy, especially with the tribes system and that, you're losing track of simplicity. While I do love me a nice, complex board game that takes time to learn, if that's the direction you're going in (Dippy is a solid foundation to build on), Vanilla Dip's beauty was in the simple, almost banal mechanics that enable diplomacy and grand strategy. Food for thought, nothing more. Might as well... If I'm leaning further toward complexity even more than as it is right now, then I suppose it's far more beneficial to not even bother call it a variant of Diplomacy. I appreciate the nudge. If I'm sticking to Diplomacy, I don't want to exceed the level of complexity found in the A&E variant (even though we're hosting something even more complicated, the 1812 Overture, lol). So that's the rough approximation of the upper limit. Not a wrong time to reconsider the particular genre of this game. Thank you for pointing out both possibilities. It IS food for thought, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Dec 23, 2019 19:30:41 GMT
Btw, Random news: I was in a random mood, and started working on a possible Diplomacy variant map of the Mediterranean Sea region (Ancient Greek theme). I'm hoping to be able to create some feel of being spreaded out all over the coasts of the Mediterranean with Greek colonies and have a clash in diverse places at the same time. A revaluation moment... Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger, I'm curious to hear what you would think serve best to recreate the general feeling of this above. Thematic elements I'm trying to not use the 1870 imperial colonization rush. Overdone and boring to design as a Dippy variant (and not to mention that most global variants were total crap anyway). Far as I know, the ancient Greeks & Phoenicians had that sort of widespread distribution of peopling a region in a haphazard mix. Romans were more of a monolithic steamroller, as a contrast. Which is definitely not what I was aiming to establish in starting positions. Design elementsHowever whichever the era would be placed or where the setting would be... how would one gp about in designing such a variant that force players to contend with split, multiple positions? I know I'm onto something but it's entirely possible that I've gone off the deep end and ended up on a misaligned track that isn't leading me to where I wanted it to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Jan 3, 2020 18:53:41 GMT
Btw, Random news: I was in a random mood, and started working on a possible Diplomacy variant map of the Mediterranean Sea region (Ancient Greek theme). I'm hoping to be able to create some feel of being spreaded out all over the coasts of the Mediterranean with Greek colonies and have a clash in diverse places at the same time. A revaluation moment... Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger, I'm curious to hear what you would think serve best to recreate the general feeling of this above. Thematic elements I'm trying to not use the 1870 imperial colonization rush. Overdone and boring to design as a Dippy variant (and not to mention that most global variants were total crap anyway). Far as I know, the ancient Greeks & Phoenicians had that sort of widespread distribution of peopling a region in a haphazard mix. Romans were more of a monolithic steamroller, as a contrast. Which is definitely not what I was aiming to establish in starting positions. Design elementsHowever whichever the era would be placed or where the setting would be... how would one gp about in designing such a variant that force players to contend with split, multiple positions? I know I'm onto something but it's entirely possible that I've gone off the deep end and ended up on a misaligned track that isn't leading me to where I wanted it to go. *tags nopunin10did* This is sort of a side project that I was working on just purely for fun. At that time when I began, I was stuck in the bed and running a high fever. It was quite helpful at the moment. But I would like to try to at least bring it toward completion. Care to have a look through my design notes and share your thoughts perhaps? *also retags Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger* |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Jan 3, 2020 19:10:43 GMT
Btw, Random news: I was in a random mood, and started working on a possible Diplomacy variant map of the Mediterranean Sea region (Ancient Greek theme). I'm hoping to be able to create some feel of being spreaded out all over the coasts of the Mediterranean with Greek colonies and have a clash in diverse places at the same time. A revaluation moment... Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger , I'm curious to hear what you would think serve best to recreate the general feeling of this above. Thematic elements I'm trying to not use the 1870 imperial colonization rush. Overdone and boring to design as a Dippy variant (and not to mention that most global variants were total crap anyway). Far as I know, the ancient Greeks & Phoenicians had that sort of widespread distribution of peopling a region in a haphazard mix. Romans were more of a monolithic steamroller, as a contrast. Which is definitely not what I was aiming to establish in starting positions. Design elementsHowever whichever the era would be placed or where the setting would be... how would one gp about in designing such a variant that force players to contend with split, multiple positions? I know I'm onto something but it's entirely possible that I've gone off the deep end and ended up on a misaligned track that isn't leading me to where I wanted it to go. Oof. Got caught up in the Hanukkah season and forgot to respond. My bad. I think the main way to contend with a split position is to have players start with 1-2 units in one region (i.e. Greece proper), 1-2 in another (i.e. Black Sea region), etc, up to 4-6 SCs total (up to you) for each starting country. This also helps you avoid having to cram too many provinces into tiny little Greece. And for balance, you can have, say, the Romans, Egyptians, or whomever, start with less units, but all clustered together (say, each Greek player has 5 units scattered around, but Egypt has 3 all together) |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Jan 3, 2020 19:34:41 GMT
A revaluation moment... Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger , I'm curious to hear what you would think serve best to recreate the general feeling of this above. Thematic elements I'm trying to not use the 1870 imperial colonization rush. Overdone and boring to design as a Dippy variant (and not to mention that most global variants were total crap anyway). Far as I know, the ancient Greeks & Phoenicians had that sort of widespread distribution of peopling a region in a haphazard mix. Romans were more of a monolithic steamroller, as a contrast. Which is definitely not what I was aiming to establish in starting positions. Design elementsHowever whichever the era would be placed or where the setting would be... how would one gp about in designing such a variant that force players to contend with split, multiple positions? I know I'm onto something but it's entirely possible that I've gone off the deep end and ended up on a misaligned track that isn't leading me to where I wanted it to go. Oof. Got caught up in the Hanukkah season and forgot to respond. My bad. I think the main way to contend with a split position is to have players start with 1-2 units in one region (i.e. Greece proper), 1-2 in another (i.e. Black Sea region), etc, up to 4-6 SCs total (up to you) for each starting country. This also helps you avoid having to cram too many provinces into tiny little Greece. And for balance, you can have, say, the Romans, Egyptians, or whomever, start with less units, but all clustered together (say, each Greek player has 5 units scattered around, but Egypt has 3 all together) So you're saying that the concept itself is still viable but needs to be executed a bit differently. Hmm... Oh seperate note: Doesn't really sound that different... Also for Greece proper itself, I really should at least post my current initeration up here so you will see where I was at. Hope that would lead to more specific discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Jan 3, 2020 20:04:13 GMT
Oof. Got caught up in the Hanukkah season and forgot to respond. My bad. I think the main way to contend with a split position is to have players start with 1-2 units in one region (i.e. Greece proper), 1-2 in another (i.e. Black Sea region), etc, up to 4-6 SCs total (up to you) for each starting country. This also helps you avoid having to cram too many provinces into tiny little Greece. And for balance, you can have, say, the Romans, Egyptians, or whomever, start with less units, but all clustered together (say, each Greek player has 5 units scattered around, but Egypt has 3 all together) So you're saying that the concept itself is still viable but needs to be executed a bit differently. Hmm... Oh seperate note: Doesn't really sound that different... Also for Greece proper itself, I really should at least post my current initeration up here so you will see where I was at. Hope that would lead to more specific discussions. Sure, if you can put it up, I'll come up with specific points. Also, apologies for missing certain points. Between my RP site on the one hand, dip on the other, and life, there's only so much focus I can give. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Jan 3, 2020 22:42:44 GMT
No problem, Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger. Here's the hideous first draft (just so you get the general idea of what sort of geographic shapes would be for those spaces, but there's some ample undocumented changes such as Argos being a non-SC and Ithaka mergering into Cephalonia, etc) I'm warning you, it's not meant to be viewed upon, lol. And a quick draft of the current situation... shown as the topographic links (only land to land links are shown, water spaces are missing from this image btw, so islands will appear to be isolated) EDIT: D'oh, Acarnania and Pelagonia is linked, but I've left it out. So just mentally add a link between pgo and aca in your head.
But I've also accidentally added a link where there isn't one. Pagasa and Pieria looks like they're cutting off Larissa, but pag and pie isn't touching each other. Larissa has access to the sea. Fixed quickly. As for Euboia (cha+ere), I have gone back and forth between a direct bridge link or not having one to the Greek mainland. It might be two bridges from lok to cha, pag to cha, if there's any direct linkage going on. Aetolia and Achaea are definitely linked to assist the maneuvering btw. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Jan 4, 2020 3:40:11 GMT
Aet-Ach linking is definitely needed, to avoid a severe bottleneck.
Anyway, I'd say you need to control the number of powers with presence in Greece proper, to 3, 4 tops.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Jan 4, 2020 4:41:03 GMT
Aet-Ach linking is definitely needed, to avoid a severe bottleneck. Anyway, I'd say you need to control the number of powers with presence in Greece proper, to 3, 4 tops. Right now, 6 different powers are in there. Yikes lol. That is, if counting Northern Modern Greece as 'Greece Proper' which Ancient Greeks didn't back then, or just 5 but with Macedonia lying right outside Greece Proper. And across the Aegean, on the coast of Asia Minor, there's two more powers not too far off. (The two Phoenician factions are fairly further off in the opposite directions, so it doesn't bear discussing) |
|
Tripartite Division of Greek Tribes
