Variant Rule Games: What Would You Like?

Let's presume for a second that Richard decides that mythical "game 11" is going to run with modified rules. What rules would you suggest?


I wonder if bringing back one of the early variants might be fun.

Players pick their primary position, but are assigned a random (or GM stipulated) second position. You get to play both. You can decide how connected they are.

What crazy idea for changing the game rules in some way do you have? How would it make it a different, more interesting game to you?

Some of the earlier versions of the rules had special rules for grain surpluses and saltpetre, in that certain nations had a clear advantage in producing. So much so that other nations basically didn't produce but could suffer shortfalls. This gave some nations, some of them smaller more political and diplomatic influence. Maybe too many players felt this disadvantaged their own positions, or desire to develop and improve but I think it encouraged contact and deals between players.

So for example, if you couldn't secure a deal to be supplied with saltpetre your nation could, at best only produce poor gunpowder. This could cause problems in campaigns.

I also think the position of Pope should have more teeth than it does. In Catholic nations the Church would be an important factor, and that Church would look to Rome first and foremost. Perhaps through some significant honour hits - eg ignoring the Pope decrees would be a five point hit, ex-communication ten point hit and one hit per turn thereafter ? Maybe that's too powerful, I don't know but would like to see the Pope influencing European Courts more.

I'm trying to think back to the LAOK ideas as well, there was also not only an honour table but also a Commoners & Clerical table as well, albeit they were not Public( Newspaper) knowledge.

I know it has been said before, but maybe each position could have a "fund" that can be used to set up Institutions /Palaces/Fortifications etc before game turn 1, a sort of preliminary turn, so that you have an initial base to work from any of these initial funds not used would be lost, but it would allow for a couple of universities/Army camps/ Naval yards to be in existence. Same could be said of a national grain reserve, not huge but maybe enough to counter some of the hardships of an early famine.

Maybe some of the smaller positions could also be tied together as was historically the case either prior or after the period, so that Hanover- Brunswick, of the two Hesse positions could be combined, Or Baden with Bavaria, to make them more attractive( & Playable) to players.

Also something to limit the number of horses, in game you can slaughter horses to act as part of a famine relief, but suffer EH problems, you can however raise large numbers of Cavalry, artillery & other units without this having a detrimental effect. Or would this complicate matters too much? Most probably the answer is YES.

The Original honour rules whereby Honour reflected how many troops you could expect to fight in a good manner may also be worth revisiting.
The yearly Economic report was also something I enjoyed getting my hands on, I wonder if that could also be resurrected.

This happened in one game. But what I liked was before turn one, you could position your forces in any town you wished and in what numbers you wished. Saved a lot of moving around early doors.

Sorry Deacon. Didn't like your idea. Two positions equals two payments. One position could be abused to promote the other main position. Not sure it's very practical. A great thread though.

J flower and the Counts ideas seem too much hard work for me. Remember, the game is supposed to be fun. Sounds like recipes for players to get fed up and drop early. Remember more work equals more cost. Richard is trying to avoid this. Too complicated rules equals more work and money.

Just my take on matters. But certainly a great subject to debate.

I did like the way you could position troops in the setup. Seem to recall there was a limit on the number of locations.
I also like the idea that, as part of the setup, you have a 'bank' of some many institutions you can deploy, just like with troops. Would make some of the nation building aspects easier. Also, I do like the idea of having an initial grain supply.

Must admit, not too keen on anything that makes the logistics of campaigns any more complicated than they are now. I think we have the balance right at the moment, enough planning required so you just don't send armies off on a whim but enough freedom to play it without getting bogged down in micro-planning.

I'm not too keen either on the second position idea as Deacon describes it. I can imagine that if you don't like the random second position, you could ignore it (or even work to destroy it) and that could affect the wider game play.
I do like the idea of linking some of the minor states, to make them more playable (though I still would like to see smaller nations being playable) but there might need to be a few rules put in place so you don't asset strip one nation to develop the other?
A similar development I would like to see is the option to be able to take on a second position in a 'caretaker' role. It could be limited to 'team' positions (like China or the Ottomans) where the majority of positions are often vacant. You would have your primary position but you could take on one of the other team positions to move it forward. There would be limits such as not transferring recruits or money from the caretaker position to the primary position, and if someone came along who wanted to play the caretaker position, you would have to surrender the position. There would be limitations on the number of military orders, etc you could do for the caretaker position (like in the old days of the game). Of course you would have to pay (a reduced rate) to do it and it wouldn't be for everyone but if you're in a team position and you did want to try and move the inactive parts of the team forward a bit...it is an option I would use for China.

Liked the first two paras alot. Agree.

The last big para looks alot of work for Richard. Not sure he could work with a reduced fee. Playing all the china or Ottoman positions could prove very expensive. Then all of a sudden a new player arrives and you have to give one away after spending on it for possibly years.?

Could not see it working myself.

In LOK you could raise static garrison units at a fortress make up of fortress guns, Infantry and perhaps a few mounted scouts and engineers.

If these could be raised at a fortress and direct from the central recruit pool without the need to move manpower around this would save players esp those with colonial positions a lot of the time, orders and cost involved in shipping & building multi unit Colonial & Island Garrison's which then clog up  position lists but then do not do anything for years.

From my reading on English, French & Spanish campaigns in North America it seems that most locations garrison forces were mostly made up of local's with some officers and specialists like the Fortress Engineers and Fortress Gunner appointed by the central Government.  But offensive operations were mostly undertaken by Royal Regiments sent out for the purpose.  Such units could also be used to reinforce certain key positions.

The same situation applied in many European countries with Danzig the strongest fortress in the Polish Commonwealth famously guarded by units provided by its Trade Guild's each with their own section of wall which they also paid to look after

Guess at the end of the day it comes down to are you a wargamer who wants to see:

- Garrison Unit Danzig

So you can get on with leading your Hussars and Cossacks against the Turk etc..........knowing your main Port is protected.

Or do you want to spend your time designing uniforms for the Butchers Battalion & the Bakers Battalion and sorting out the Rifle drill for your newly raised Candlemakers Light Infantry?

Ref the two position idea perhaps like in scabble players could be allowed a Country and a second non national position like a Trade Company or a Pirate position.

This means that rather than paying NPC's to try and annoy your rivals you can pay yourself to do your own dirty work.

Or players who want to play odd Japanese & Chinese positions can also take on the Dutch East India Company for instance and not only make pots but enjoy all the fun of Typhoons, Piracy, Insurance rates in the shipping and sale of said pots.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Ref the two position idea perhaps like in scabble players could be allowed a Country and a second non national position like a Trade Company or a Pirate position.

This means that rather than paying NPC's to try and annoy your rivals you can pay yourself to do your own dirty work.

Or players who want to play odd Japanese & Chinese positions can also take on the Dutch East India Company for instance and not only make pots but enjoy all the fun of Typhoons, Piracy, Insurance rates in the shipping and sale of said pots.  

How does it work in Scramble? Is the second position linked to the country in some way or is it completely separate? And are there any rules that stop the two positions from helping each other?

jamesbond007 wrote:Liked the first two paras alot. Agree.

The last big para looks alot of work for Richard. Not sure he could work with a reduced fee. Playing all the china or Ottoman positions could prove very expensive. Then all of a sudden a new player arrives and you have to give one away after spending on it for possibly years.?

Could not see it working myself.

Fair enough. It's possibly a reaction to playing China in various games where most/all the other positions have been vacant for the whole time. I'm always concerned that if someone does attack China I'm going to be lumbered with four NPC allied provinces that are still stuck at 1700 in terms of technology and organisation; in some games I have even stockpiled modern weapons to send them if such a thing happened.
Frankly for those reasons I'd happily pay a few extra pounds a turn even if at some stage I had to hand over the second nation to someone else

I suppose if players are paying two fees out for one game. Then they will drop from another game. Which has a knock on effect.

It's very tricky with `China. There is often only one province played. Any more than that is a real bonus. Perhaps the best way to reunite China would be through conquest.? Assassanating the Emperor and his offspring. Blaming it on a European power. Gaining power that way. Maybe worth a try in a game.

It's awkward for `Richard. The Chinese and Ottomen positions. If united they could become too powerful. But split as they are. Perhaps they are too weak.?

Maybe a game where someone gets to play the Protestant faction in the HRE & another the Catholic minor states, you could probably keep Saxony & Prussia on the sidelines as they have potential as Major positions, but a grouping of Bavaria-Leige Köln, would be historically viable as they were united by Family ties.

Or twist History a little & let the Elector of Bavaria inherit the Spanish throne as per the initial will of the king of Spain( Historically the claimant died in 1699, so it's not too far fetched to have him live a few months longer)

The main problem with Multi player positions is that sometimes, not always that the player who is playing Viceroy or basically second fiddle to his master turns on the other player & attempts to up spur them, Not saying it cannot work but it can all go pear-shaped fairly quickly.

Or maybe we as players should look in more depth at some of the pre-history, not so much the battles, but maybe a whose who of whom is married to whom, this may give us more reason to act in diplomatic fashion to certain NPC position if for example they just happen to be the Father in law is also a Prince, king of Emperor of a certain position, maybe there is a way of getting your bottom on the throne of another state without all that mucking about in the mud of the battle field.

I would also like to see the HRE & the Papacy more active in General in all games, as both give a spring board for more game depth, most games seem to concentrate solely on the Emperor( Austria) trying to coax troops out of the Reich Circles, & the Pope being bombarded for Papal Bulls to give some side or other a moral advantage, that both the Electors & those who are Subject to the Papal Bulls feel free to ignore their respective Earthly & Heavenly superiors is just not Cricket.

On Variant Rules I also think there should be an upper limit to the size of military forces a Nation can support, can probably be based on % of population in a similar way to recruits, Basic reasoning is that people in the military grow old & retire, sickness & illness also take their toll, however this is never reflected in loss of recruits, there should come a point whereby a nation has to draft it's recruits into the armed forces just to maintain a level rather than expand it further, maybe this would help to encourage the use of mercenary units from other countries as was historically the case, it would also have the add on effect of making some of the smaller states an important player in this market, we all dive on the Swiss units when they are available, but many of the German states "hired" out manpower to various powers in various conflicts.

I like the idea of being able to position garrison troops at important locations before the 1st turn.

I like the idea of being able to establish 'major' institutes such as universities/cathedrals before the 1st turn.

I like the idea that state's can only support a certain number of military units, in relation to their own size or population.

Anything that speeds up the process of getting garrisons to where they would have been in 1699, I'm in favour of. It saves player's time and effort, and surely, also, the GM.

jamesbond007 wrote:I suppose if players are paying two fees out for one game. Then they will drop from another game. Which has a knock on effect.

It's very tricky with `China. There is often only one province played. Any more than that is a real bonus. Perhaps the best way to reunite China would be through conquest.? Assassanating the Emperor and his offspring. Blaming it on a  European power. Gaining power that way. Maybe worth a try in a game.

It's awkward for `Richard. The Chinese and Ottomen positions. If united they could become too powerful. But split  as they are. Perhaps they are too weak.?

I feel you're right, it is tricky. I've never played an Ottoman position so can't comment but perhaps less divided China would work better. Perhaps Korea as it is (it has more independence than the rest of the empire anyway) and the rest of China into two?

Jason wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Ref the two position idea perhaps like in scabble players could be allowed a Country and a second non national position like a Trade Company or a Pirate position.

This means that rather than paying NPC's to try and annoy your rivals you can pay yourself to do your own dirty work.

Or players who want to play odd Japanese & Chinese positions can also take on the Dutch East India Company for instance and not only make pots but enjoy all the fun of Typhoons, Piracy, Insurance rates in the shipping and sale of said pots.  

How does it work in Scramble?  Is the second position linked to the country in some way or is it completely separate?  And are there any rules that stop the two positions from helping each other?

In Scramble Trade companies and missionary societies start out linked to Countries and pay 10% tax.  But some companies have got up and moved their Head Office to other Tax Area's.

Money, the results of R & D & even units can be freely exchanged between Companies and Countries.

Due to the limit of 12 Characters (with specific abilities) in scabble and only one bureau to carry out R & D its an advanatage for players of National Positions with a wide geographic spread to take on a second position if they need extra R & D or Characters.  The British player was saying that with so many Governors in his start up he needed to hand over the Engineering to private industry.

As none of these limits apply in Gloire Due Roi it would not make much sence for a player to play both England & the HEIC or France & the French Corsairs.  But I think possible double options would be something like:

I) Japan & the Dutch East India Company or an Indian Power and the French or English East India Company

- This is reasonable on a historic basis since European merchant/adventurers and Princes from outside of Europe could be very close allies.  I suspect its major use would be transfer of European tec to other areas.............."I liked the Lineship so much I bought the Company" but it could lead to interesting situations back in Europe if a English/Dutch/French trade company starts a war with local allies against its rivals.


II) A European Power and a Pirate position like the "Barbary Corsairs"

- Rather than trying to bribe a bunch of unhelpful Agema NPC's to do nasty things to your rivals........pay yourself to do it!  Of course questions may be asked if captured Pirate ships are found to be carrying Austrian Drill Bored Cannon or large sums in French Money.

What I also think could work well in Glori is that in Scabble their is a a upper limit on how many units a Country can raise and support from its own population.  This keeps powers in proportion and means that merc's and new colonies/conquests have real value as these are the only way to provide units above this limit (Once you have reached your upper limit new Home Country units can only be raised if other units are disbanded or destroyed and take 12 months to raise).

In scabble colonial units are very inferior to Home Country Units but given time and training then can become very effective indeed.  Think Robert Clive's Sepoy's or Rogers Rangers in America.

Thanks for that Stuart, clears it up for me and those are some good ideas of how it could work in Glory.

Do you think the double-positions could work for unrelated positions...say China/African nation and Hudson Bay Company/Barbary Pirates?

Thanks Stuart. Interesting to find out how Scramble works. But i don't think the model of mixing two positions or limiting military sizes would work in lgdr.

Firstly cost and Richards workload. One position is costly, two would be very costly and players would either be put off with the cost or cutback on Agema games elsewhere. Either way it would be expensive and more work for Richard.

Secondly, how would wargamers feel having a limit to their military size.? the idea of the game is fun. Limitations are never fun. More is fun.

With any double position, players could use one position to make their other position much greater than in reality it should be. Also, it would place players playing only one position at a disadvantage, both historically and currently in game.

Personally the scramble type of rules discussed would not be for me and put me off.

Jason wrote:Thanks for that Stuart, clears it up for me and those are some good ideas of how it could work in Glory.

Do you think the double-positions could work for unrelated positions...say China/African nation and Hudson Bay Company/Barbary Pirates?

Think the theory behind allowing players x2 positions in early versions of the game was that it was very much a Wargame and it was expected that some positions would get wiped out. So if a player had two seperate positions he was kept in the game even if one of his positions got crushed.

Most people esp those who take up smaller and more odd positions no longer longer play for pure wargame purposes to the fall back unrelated position is not really needed.

In theory you could play x2 small unrelated positions like the Hudson Bay Company & the Barbary Pirates in one game just to explore the positions. But with 4 games active I think most players who want to run more than one position would prefer to run UNRELATED positions in different games and get x2 Newspapers etc.

Something I have always meant to ask and this seems as good a time as any...

Some have (I think) played trading companies in Glory. How does that work? Is there enough going on to make it a satisfying position? and do you have trading outposts/small colonies or is it a case of a head office somewhere and administering the company?

jamesbond007 wrote:Thanks Stuart. Interesting to find out how Scramble works. But i don't think the model of mixing two positions or limiting military sizes would work in lgdr.

Firstly cost and Richards workload. One position is costly, two would be very costly and players would either be put off with the cost or cutback on Agema games elsewhere. Either way it would be expensive and more work for Richard.

Secondly, how would wargamers feel having a limit to their military size.? the idea of the game is fun. Limitations are never fun. More is fun.

With any double position, players could use one position to make their other position much greater than in reality it should be. Also, it would place players playing only one position at a disadvantage, both historically and currently in game.

Personally the scramble type of rules discussed would not be for me and put me off.

I dont think the intention was ever to allow players to stitch up the game by running two two large and related positions.  No one wants to see the Spanish succession sorted out by the same player playing both Spain and France or Swedish Armies in central Europe filled with 100,000 Russian recruits.

Rather the intent of Jason and others behind allowing two small interesting positions in the same game to be played by one player is at least partly aimed at padding the game out in certain geographic areea like China so the Lord Fong's dont go mad due to having no one to talk too.

Suspect running two small positions in Glori du Roi is probably about the same time and cost as running one large one and has a lot less resouces.  But with x4 games of Glori going on plus its huge flexibility I think most people would prefer to have positions in different games if they want to run multi positions and explore odd positions like the Hudson Bay Company or in my case the French Corsairs.  Though in the later roll I seem to have been French Player to run the Propaganda Department, Privateering Branch & Naval Int Service of the otherwise too huge and costly French Position.

Where I totally agree with you is that such is the flexibility of Gloire that if you are going to put the time and effort in to run two small positions you may as well run one large one.  Or if you really want to run two seperate small positions its more fun to spread them over two seperate games which you can do with x4 games going on.

Disagree on the subject of number of units.........basically Gloire is at its best early on when powers are historically balanced.  But if for example Russia is getting 50,000 recruits to Sweden's 10,000 its not going to be that long before Russian Armies are going to be vastly larger than Historic forces.... which you can say is not a problem in a game.  But more damaging to game balance is that Russia gains x5 as many new units as the Swedes and instead 50,000 V 100,000 becomes 70,000 V 200,000 in two years.  And a historic balance of 1-2 becomes 1-3 and so on.  Which in my view spoils the game balance in later stages.

But if you have for example Russia starting with 60 Units and a max of 200 units and Sweden 50 out of a possible 100 you still have room to build the Russian Navy but its never going to be 500 Lineships by 1720 and 10 times as strong as the Swedes.  So medium sized powers retain a sporting chance and the player who wants to build a bigger army is actually going to have to get out and capture the extra lands needed to provide recruits, funds, etc.  Or he is going to have to reply on allies and mercenary formations.  
The

If I'm being honest, if I was to run x2 positions I'd rather play them in Game 10. Why? Since I've been in the game since turn one I know what is what, and who is who, and have all the papers to help me understand things. I'd also want to keep the game being profitable and so keep allowing me to play my main position, which I'm rather enjoying.

If I was allowed, and did take, a second position in Game 10, then it would have to be a small position and I'd keep a price limit on the turns (in other words, not fund extra orders). Since my main area of interest in the game is Africa - and I won't be straying from that geographical area, ever - I'd be looking at a smaller position somewhere distant, or as insignificant and not likely to have any dealings with my main position. Such a second position being, say, The Knights of Malta or something tailor-made to allow me, basically, to run a limited resources position but with a fair bit of roleplayed diplomacy with other neighbouring players. Such as that could be seen to be similar as running a Mission Society or single character in Scramble.

Or, another alternative, for me, being, since I've a Swashbuckler character in Game 8 I'd pick up a TGOK state position in a geographic location where there's no chance of crossover between my English trader character - such as somewhere in the Far East, which would only look internally or in it's own geographic specific area.

I'd rather stick with a game that I was already familiar with and have the newspapers for, then jump into a totally new game and then come up against past events and 'characters' who I've no experience with.

If you have caps on military forces it lessons the fun. Restriction is not fun. If you play the game as a wargamer instead of a diplomatic game then the last thing you would want would be restriction.

Stuart uses the example of Russia and Sweden. In reality there is no comparison. But with a tight restriction you would get situations where it would be difficult to ever wage war. Due to lack of numbers and the difficulty in taking on foes with not much to choose between militarily. War is not easy now, in lgdr. Limitations on forces will make it very difficult to play a wargame.

In my opinion with restricted forces you turn the game from a wargame / diplomatic game into a purely diplomatic game.

Well, my suggestion for two nations was at least partially to try to figure out a way to get more nations "into play". Games are so much better when there are more players in them, in position both large and small.

>>I'd rather stick with a game that I was already familiar with and have the newspapers for, then jump into a totally new game and then come up against past events and 'characters' who I've no experience with.<<

I do think this is one of the real challenges of the game. As positions don't get played, and as history accumumlates in game (and therefore isn't that accessible to new players), people are less inclined to want to step into a game.

My first game was game 3 as the Pope and the year was 1735, I think. It was a great opportunity to learn the ropes, (and I made, in restrospect some real blunders), but the other players had years with each other and you're getting jousted at for things that the player before you (or maybe 2 before you!) did. It's fair in a sense, since the position did them, but it is also a bit of a drag.

I wonder if positions that haven't been in play for a while should get some kind of extra bonus to encourage people to try out positions in existing games? What bonus would encourage players not in an older game to step into one? More cash? More recruits? Some new technology? Some intelligence on other positions in the game?

jamesbond007 wrote:If you have caps on military forces it lessons the fun. Restriction is not fun. If you play the game as a wargamer instead of a diplomatic game then the last thing you would want would be restriction.

Stuart uses the example of Russia and Sweden. In reality there is no comparison. But with a tight restriction you would get situations where it would be difficult to ever wage war. Due to lack of numbers  and the difficulty in taking on foes with not much to choose between militarily. War is not easy now, in lgdr. Limitations on forces will make it very difficult to play a wargame.

In my opinion with restricted forces you turn the game from a wargame / diplomatic game into a purely diplomatic game.

While everyone has their own view on what makes a good game my game theory is that:

a) In games more it not aways better since if it was everyone's favourite board game would be "Battle of the Nations".........a infamous Napoleonic game with over 1000 pieces each and a playing time of 24 Hours plus a 100 page role book.  

Personally, I think may players find it more fun & easier to manage a Glori campaign based around say a siege force, a covering army and perhaps some light cavalry raids and a supply colums ie something which looks like the Swedish Invasion of Russia in 1709.  Rather than a huge campaign of with a huge number of Army Corps which looks more like 1812 than the WSS.

b) Any semi-realistic game based on the period 1700 to 1750 is going to have some military restrictions ie no bolt action rifles, machine guns, tanks, Ironclads & Aircraft but this not make it a worse game than a game based on the first world war.  Indeed if we are talking tabletop wargames for instance I prefer Ancient Period games with massed ranks of pikes etc Vietnam.  So If you are happy to accept semi realistic equipment for the period why not semi realistic troop/unit numbers?

c) I would also say that its actually easier for a war gamer to stage a successful campaign early in the game than after the a decade or more of build up.  For example in G10 Savoy seized the Duchy of Milan by "coup-de-main" against a small force in the City of Milan and nothing at all in the rest of the Duchy.  After a decade or more of Spain getting 50,000 recruits per year any attempt by Savoy on the Milanese is probably going to look more like C19 Italian Campaigns against Austrian Forces with a Frontier Patrols taking word to a Field Army and super strong fortresses as soon as the Invaders cross the border.

Ok that may be not be a bad campaign but basically without limits on the number of units eventually every city on the map starts to look like Vuban Masterworks with massive garrison for the size of the place.  Which rather spoils the worry/concerns & doubts we all get in the early days when trying to figure out how best to deploy more limited forces.

If you had a scabble max number of units from home territory this would keep players historic concerns about say Army or Navy?  Deploy to this frontier or another?  Which if turn allows some real Generalship to come through.  If everywere is equally strong and defended it becomes a WW1 style slogging match.

And if scabble is anything to go by it might stop some players from doing nothing but sitting  at home building huge armies (which historically their territory & population could not support).......and actually get out on campaign in order to capture the new territory/population needed to support Army/Naval growth.  Something which I thought both James & myself were in favour off    

c

I agree with Stuart that for many smaller nations, clever early action in war is better.

In Game 8, I originally joined as a "team" with my wife. She was playing Burma and I was playing Portugal.  In about the first year, she did a blitz invasion of Arakan, completely conquering the small neighboring nation. I'm sorry after we had some financial tightness when I was out of work for a while that I couldn't talk her into picking it back up. She's a crazy enough roleplayer that I think it would have made southeast asia really fun.