Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know in my play group making deals and being political is a huge thing (one of our favorite games is Cosmic Encounters). 

Having it in the actual rules is awesome on how to deal with it, but I think a tiny bit of clarification might be needed. 

How long can/should the delegation last?

What can the third party do during the delegation? 

Main reason is I do not want the odd person out to be "forced" to sit there quietly and I do not necessarily want them to interrupt every other part.  I do still want there to be opportunities to jump in and stop said treaty as the the odd person out, but not be over obtuse about it.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One option may be to add a negotiation phase (say before dynasty phase) where players can negotiate for treaties but after that no new treaties can be negotiated until the next turn.  If you place a cap on the length of the treaties phase after which offers must be accepted or declined and than play proceeds may limit the hemming and hawing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The board game Senji (which is about feudal Japan, in fact) explicitly has a phase in which players can negotiate treaties and agreements, even leaving the table to do so. However, there's a little hourglass type timer in the game that times how long you have to do that...iirc, it's about 5 minutes or so. Once time is up, everyone has to come back to the table and the game proceeds, regardless of what they have/haven't accomplished diplomatically. Perhaps something like that would be worth considering (although not necessarily with an actual timer; I think using a clock/phone etc. is probably sufficient).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern about treaties would be situations where player A insists player B broke the terms of the treaty, but player B insists that they do not. The first solution that comes to mind is that the non-participating players make a decision about whether a treaty has been broken or not, but beta testing will determine if an official way to determine whether treaties have been broken is necessary.

That being said, they are an interesting addition to the game when all parties are dedicated to fun and fair play. I know at least a few players are going to laugh maniacally and gleefully throw their honor tokens away as they declare the attack the promised they wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

I know at least a few players are going to laugh maniacally and gleefully throw their honor tokens away as they declare the attack the promised they wouldn't.

What? No, I would never............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

My only concern about treaties would be situations where player A insists player B broke the terms of the treaty, but player B insists that they do not. The first solution that comes to mind is that the non-participating players make a decision about whether a treaty has been broken or not, but beta testing will determine if an official way to determine whether treaties have been broken is necessary.

That being said, they are an interesting addition to the game when all parties are dedicated to fun and fair play. I know at least a few players are going to laugh maniacally and gleefully throw their honor tokens away as they declare the attack the promised they wouldn't.

From the examples provided, treaties will need pretty concrete parameters to be used. Specific positive or negative action with a predetermined duration. If you are concerned the terms have a loophole, best to counter with a more concrete offer or decline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like treaties could be problematic in terms of potential for collusion (Example: Player A makes treaty with Player B, Player B intentionally breaks treaty to pay Player A the honor they need to reach 25 and win the game). But I suppose that's something that could be simply enough to call them out on. I would like to see multiplayer get some measure of competitive play, maybe not ongoing OP season support, but one-shot events or side events at koteis/Worlds. Actually, I think making the special event that we're picking 2nd roles for our clans for could be a good opportunity for a multiplayer special event. Maybe if some method of tracking clan/individual performance as well as treaties made/broken were implemented, it could lead to some interesting storyline developments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kaito Kikaze said:

I feel like treaties could be problematic in terms of potential for collusion (Example: Player A makes treaty with Player B, Player B intentionally breaks treaty to pay Player A the honor they need to reach 25 and win the game). But I suppose that's something that could be simply enough to call them out on. I would like to see multiplayer get some measure of competitive play, maybe not ongoing OP season support, but one-shot events or side events at koteis/Worlds. Actually, I think making the special event that we're picking 2nd roles for our clans for could be a good opportunity for a multiplayer special event. Maybe if some method of tracking clan/individual performance as well as treaties made/broken were implemented, it could lead to some interesting storyline developments. 

Not an issue as the honor is only lost by player B and doesn't go to A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These seem very open-ended and like they could be a major time sink.  While negotiations are generally a very integral part to multiplayers games, I think there should be some specific pre-determined options you can choose from.

"aid in military/political attack"

"aid in military/political defense"

"peace treaty or pact of non-aggression"

"trade fate for honor / trade honor for fate...........maybe?"

etc.

Just several preset options so player A can turn to player B and say I'd like to enter into a "treaty of military aid for attack" then player C knows that a military attack will be coming their way, so maybe they try to make some other treaty let's say, "non aggression" with player b.  This allows the players to try and use the treaties to manipulate honor/fate depending on which treaties are kept and which ones are broken, without a long drawn out process of negotiating all the specifics of the deal from scratch.

Maybe even have preset honor/fate costs to enter into the agreement.

Mostly to streamline the process.  I love playing the game, but, I'm not sure I'd be interested into spending upwards of 3 hours playing one game where most of the interaction is figuring out clever ways to word treaties so you can break them without penalties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I’m sorry, the more I think about treaties the more I’m disliking the idea..... no reinforcement mechanism other than “the word” of each player to uphold their part of the agreement? I have minor concerns there. 

EDIT: I typed enforcement but it came up as ‘reinforcement’ 

Edited by LordBlunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

I’m sorry, the more I think about treaties the more I’m disliking the idea..... no reinforcement mechanism other than “the word” of each player to uphold their part of the agreement? I have minor concerns there. 

Well there is the honor loss for breaking the treaty as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be not only honor, but also fate, cards from hand and potentially rings involved in treaties.

The bigger impact the treaty would have, the bigger the penalty for breaking it should be

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I think there should be not only honor, but also fate, cards from hand and potentially rings involved in treaties.

The bigger impact the treaty would have, the bigger the penalty for breaking it should be

 

 

8 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

These seem very open-ended and like they could be a major time sink.  While negotiations are generally a very integral part to multiplayers games, I think there should be some specific pre-determined options you can choose from.

"aid in military/political attack"

"aid in military/political defense"

"peace treaty or pact of non-aggression"

"trade fate for honor / trade honor for fate...........maybe?"

etc.

Just several preset options so player A can turn to player B and say I'd like to enter into a "treaty of military aid for attack" then player C knows that a military attack will be coming their way, so maybe they try to make some other treaty let's say, "non aggression" with player b.  This allows the players to try and use the treaties to manipulate honor/fate depending on which treaties are kept and which ones are broken, without a long drawn out process of negotiating all the specifics of the deal from scratch.

Maybe even have preset honor/fate costs to enter into the agreement.

Mostly to streamline the process.  I love playing the game, but, I'm not sure I'd be interested into spending upwards of 3 hours playing one game where most of the interaction is figuring out clever ways to word treaties so you can break them without penalties. 

I like your ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think treaties should be made before the dynasty phase, have a cost to them (ie cost being what the player not involved in the treaty gets to help offset getting gang banged) then there is a penalty for breaking treaty.

So player A and player b enter military aid treaty which allows player c to gain 1 fate.  Then move to dynasty. If either player breaks treaty then penalty is imposed of either loss of honor, fate, conflict card, or claimed ring

Also I think there should be a separate bonus for a player that gets teamed up in if they successfully defend against a tag team, but that's not really a treaty thing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely feel that Treaties need to have a bit more "crunch" to them than just "agreeing to something." It feels a bit bland. Honor loss from breaking a treaty is nice, but then again, it leaves it reeeeally open to interpretation as to what is defined as "breaking" a treaty - especially if the original treaty is very cleverly worded.

I like the idea of having at least some set things to agree on, such as military treaties, politcal treaties, ect.

I would still keep the option for open-ended "freeform" treaties like they are now, but I feel like it's a system that really could have a lot more meat on it's bone than it's current iteration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×