Hosted Projects - Standalone > WoD Forum Game

[Ideas for Future Rules] "Influence" scoring & Discussion

(1/2) > >>

So this is growing out of an idea I had in the CRF Forum, because there seems to be very little Minister play since war broke out in the Test Game. Every student of game design knows that an player that cannot engage with the game or recieves feedback from it, will cease to engage with the game as a whole even if other players are still engaged - causing that player to drop out and quit playing. Considering the WoD Forum Game is a team-vs-team game, having players loose interest and drop out is detremental not only to them but also to their team.

This idea comes from an earlier draft of the Forum Game 2.0, in which the establishment of the League Star Forces (LSF) - a joint defense effort of the [Spoon, what do you call all the territories settled by Terrans?] nations - was  a major game event. Instead of making it a game event, let's put it as the games end point: When the final turn concludes, the LSF is founded. But in which state and with who exacting just how much influence over the new organisation is one outcome of the game (beside which faction made their faction leader happy and "last man standing" of course).

Influence is meant to simulate the public media tug-of-war between the factions to build a reputation that can sway the hearts and minds, not just of their own citizens' but of Terrans everywhere. Influence is free of moral judgement - wheter you gain your Influence through military might, diplomatic cunning or economic promise is up to you as faction-team to decide.

For Scoring I prupose a competetive scale (hopefully the right word), which is to say, a scale of (for the sake of argument) 100 on which every faction starts with an equal share but as the game develops said share increases or decreases.

okay, not really ellegant but I hope you get were I am going

Scoring occurs turn by turn, that mean after every turn which faction did best and worst is measured (more on that later). The faction which has the highest score at it's chosen objective (see below) this turn gets a bonus to it's score relative to the performance of the others (rubberbanding it a bit so there is no runaway development *point of concern*), while the other factions get their score subtracted by an ammount relative to their performance.
(Alternatively, multiple factions can score negatively but that would allow for a snowball effect *point of concern*)

As for how to measure the turn by turn, I prupose the following:
The Minister of each Faction chooses an Objective (give it a fancy name, pls) CATEGORY from those avalible to their factions (see below), each Category has a specific set of conditions for gains and loss. (The Faction Leaders might also develop a preference for a certain Category)
At the end of the turn how each faction has scored in their category is then tallied and translated into a score (example follows) and then the Influence scale is adjusted accordingly. Factions that score 0 in a turn, do not get their scores adjusted unless there is no faction with a negative score - at that point their portion on the scale is deducted as if they had a negative score. If there are only positive scores the faction with the lowest two scores are considered loosing and have their portion of the scale deducted.

Example (for the example all gains are +1 and all losses -1; turns are reduced to notable events):
SU is neutral to everyone
CRF is at war with UGC, neutral with DD and SU
DD is at war with the UGC, neutral with CRF and SU
UGC is at war with DD and CRF, neutral with SU

Influence Scale: CRF 40, UGC 30, SU 15, DD 15

Intrigue PHASE:
 SU choose the category Inspirational
 CRF choose the category Nobility (for sake of the example)
 DD choose the category Might
 UGC choose the category Excellence
 SU performs the project "Build Starbase" at Earth, Sol
 Tactical Combat @ Aldebaran Refineries (1st DD vs 1st UGCR); 2nd DD is hit by the 1st UGCR at R1 (optimal range); 2nd DD survives
 Tactical Combat @ Serpents Starlance (1st & 2nd CRF vs 2nd UGCR); 2nd UGCR fires first at R2 (suboptimal range), 1st and 2nd CRF destroy 2nd UGCR

Strategic PHASE:
 1st DD doesnt retreat

SU scored +1 (Inspirational, build a starbase at a core holding)
CRF scored -1 (Nobility, outnumbered an enemy in combat)
DD scored +1 (Might, sustained combat)
UGCR scored 0 (Excellence +1 & -1, one optimal combat result, one suboptimal one)

SU and DD equally gained, UGC maintained, CRF lost. -> SU and DD equally gain lost points, UGC holds steady, CRF looses.
Average Gain: 0.25 -> percentage of points lost by loosing factions with negative scores (rounded down)

=> Changes: CRF -10, SU & DD +5 each

New Scale:
CRF 30, UGC 30, SU 20, DD 20

Sol Union:
 - Inspirational
 - Might
 - Promise

Commonwealth of New Britannia:
 - Nobility
 - Inspirational
 - Might

Delest Dynasty:
 - Secrecy
 - Inspirational
 - Might

United Guild of Commerce:
 - Excellence
 - Might
 - Promise

Category descirptions:
What ever your troops do, they are best at what they do and it shows throught their every move. The ability of your Troops will be what people percieve you for.
(Effect: Gain X points for everytime your Admirals perform to the best of their fleets abilites, e.g. a fleet executes a fire order at the best possible range. Loose X*0.y points if your Fleets perform less then optimal.)

Past and present can serve as guideposts for the future. You can count on great personalities of both or either to let your actions appear in the best possible light. The achivements of your culture and science shine most brightly and you know how to use that.
(Effect: Gain X points for maintaining and improving your core holdings. Loose X points for damage to your holdings.)

Ideals and policy are fine but in the end it comes down to numbers: Ships deployed, Calliber of their guns, Rounds per minute. The achivements of your military at the forefront of your public image campaign.
(Effect: Gain X points for successfully combat, e.g. every ongoing combat turn with a fleet that is not retreating. Loose X points for loosing combat, loose X*0.y for retreating from combat.)

Your Admirals are more than Soldiers; they do not fight because they are paid but because it is right and noble. The manner in which your military behaves is your greatest asset when fighting for recognition.
(Effect: Gain X points for ongoing combat in which your Admirals are evenly matched or ournumbered (Garrison Fleets and Starbases included). Loose X*0.y points for every combat in which your Admirals outnumber the enemy)

You can draw a roadmap to a brighter tomorrow, even if it requires you tear down what was build. The achievments you strive for and the projects that you being will define your public perception.
(Effect: Gain X points for expanding your holdings. Loose X points for loosing one of your holdings.)

Your enemies will never know you like you know yourself, and thus in fighting you they can only fail. Fear of the unknown may drive some away from your faction but in turn you can promise salvation from hidden strength.
(Effect: Gain X points if no fleet of another faction is within your holdings. Loose X points if your territory has been breached this turn.)

Points of Balancing:
- Gain/loss per turn
- Effect of alliances
- Internal Balance (of the categories against each other)

Add to Minister Gameplay by providing a mechanic that is rooted in the current progress of the game, so that Ministers are further called upon to engage with their faction and the game state as a whole.

So now, what do you think?

Of course, I don't have all the fine gears in place but that's why I put the idea before you. I am also making this up as I go along, but I am pretty sure this mechanic might have been done before (I might have seen it and don't remember right now) and it would be cool if someone could cite precedent.

I'll read it in finer detail and comment later.

I think the idea is interesting, and I'd love to have some way to keep the ministers more involved throughout the whole game. It's just that this single idea requires an explaination that is almost just as long as the rest of the rules combined. I think it'd work great for a boardgame, but for a forum game, I think it adds too much complexity.
I'd love to add more depth to the game, but without adding too much complexity.

I'd also like to hear from other players about this, but nobody has replied yet. Is everyone going tl;dr here?  :p

No, not everyone. Just traveling back to Uni for term start.

The system is interesting and it certainly gives the Ministers something else to do, beyond the already existing orders. But.

THe way I see it, it is the interaction between ministers that gives the minister position its 'spark'. If I am not mistaken, the whole point of each player role is to engage / challenge your opposite numbers. Admirals engage in strategic maneuvering and tactical battles with other admirals - ministers do... what exactly?

I mean, the first five turns or so were brilliant for me, with behind the scenes politicking and Diplomacy-like grand strategy and RP-ing until I had my fill. But then the Alliance 'crystallised' and I'm feeling I've only been giving the necessary orders for the admirals to do the dirty work. I haven't been engaging with other ministers, because it's no longer necessary - the alliance with the UGCR works on its own right now.

This system does not promise to prevent this crystallisation in the final game. IT gives me another ruleset to dabble with, but it does not encourage me to engage in talks with other ministers - only select the option that better fits what my faction will be doing that turn and earning the Influence points.

You need to find a way to force diplomatic interaction between factions, even when they're at war. You need to find a way to prevent the forming of monolithic alliances, such as the two giants that have been slugging it out for the last four turns - or make the forming of such monolithic alliances something that requires constant effort to maintain.


--- Quote from: Enioch on January 13, 2016, 01:58:26 pm ---You need to find a way to force diplomatic interaction between factions, even when they're at war. You need to find a way to prevent the forming of monolithic alliances, such as the two giants that have been slugging it out for the last four turns - or make the forming of such monolithic alliances something that requires constant effort to maintain.

--- End quote ---
Well that's easy then, and pretty much already solved. The npc faction leaders would do all of this.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version