Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dariush]

Well, I'd considered allowing everyone to do the channel action and allowing Aquatics to create any number of rivers around a hex for one action (which is essentially a more powerful version of Deluge, but requires a pre-existing river). But then they'd need a new second action.

Oooh, I like this. As for the second action, I propose temporarily (~three seasons) converting a tile up to two tiles away that neighbours an ocean into an ocean. Offensive flooding, if you will.

As for fishing, maybe permanently investing one population for two seasons to get two pop back, so long as a player owns an ocean tile. So a pop 2 player would go fishing in winter, reducing them down to 1 pop, then (so long as they didn't lose the ocean) they'd begin the following spring with +2 population. It's more costly in the short term to end up with the same results as farming, but you're under no risk of raiding, and it's difficult and costly to invade ocean tiles, so maybe it balances out.

(This could be the Aquatic's second action?)

Fishing as a special heresy action is a nope. I do like the mechanics, though, with the adjustment of one person going fishing in spring and returning in autumn with +1 pop. Not much fishing to be done in winter, IMO.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well, I'd considered allowing everyone to do the channel action and allowing Aquatics to create any number of rivers around a hex for one action (which is essentially a more powerful version of Deluge, but requires a pre-existing river). But then they'd need a new second action.

Oooh, I like this. As for the second action, I propose temporarily (~three seasons) converting a tile up to two tiles away that neighbours an ocean into an ocean. Offensive flooding, if you will.

1. How would that be tactically different than the current Deluge action?
2. Why temporary?

[Dariush]

1. Unlike lakes, this would either effectively shorten the enemy popcap a bit or create a barrier when used on your own territory.
2. Because allowing people to spam permanent three-defence popcap-denying oceans everywhere (since new oceans will make coasts for more floods inland) is rather OP. Also, Aquatics will already have a proper permanent terraformer (if we use NQT's idea).

[notquitethere]

To clarify a point: oceans don't deny pop-cap: they count towards your max population, they just don't count towards victory total (the OP is pretty clear on this point). I envision it like sending some of your people back on the ships to float just off the island.

[darkpaladin109]

Turn: Embark to 78.
             Expand to 92

[Dariush]

To clarify a point: oceans don't deny pop-cap: they count towards your max population, they just don't count towards victory total (the OP is pretty clear on this point). I envision it like sending some of your people back on the ships to float just off the island.

...That makes no sense. People can float off the coast, sure, but they can't do so for seasons in a row and they still have to come ashore to get food and stuff. Also, I'm preeeeeeetty sure that the text under the Ocean entry said the exact opposite not so long ago. >_>

[notquitethere]

Turn: Embark to 78.
             Expand to 92

Eek, I'm sorry Dark Paladin but that's not a legal move: your embark point has to be on the coast. If you don't say otherwise I'll interpret it as 'embark 93' 'expand 92'.

Dariush, I definitely haven't changed that today (I'd have no qualms with saying if I did). You're quite right that a population couldn't live on ships for years and years. I guess gamist rather than strict simulationist reasons motivate this rule. This way it's not completely useless to hold ocean tiles. I'll consider changing it for the next iteration, we'll see how it shapes up.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Wouldn't that make the merfolk's power useless again? It's already use-impaired as it is...

[notquitethere]

Well I'll see what happen this game either way.

Your turn is next, GWG.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I was waiting to see what darkpaladin said, but then I realized he's probably going to be on the opposite side of the world from me.

Embark 100.
Grow 100.

[Dariush]

Embark 134
Grow 134

Does (Brutal) Raiding across a river cost additional actions?
If a tile is fortified and the fortification is then destroyed, can it be fortified again in the future?

[notquitethere]

Given that there's still some free slots and I want to get this play-tested from lots of different angles, would anyone object if I roll up some Heterodox Humans to play? There's no random element and there'll be no more rules updates in-play, so I'm essentially just updating the map, providing clarifications and sending out prompts. The only conflict of interest is when I play missing player's turns, but hopefully there won't be much of that and I can assure you, I'll always submit a good move for their alignment. Playing 'Heterodox' as well would give me an incentive to play a moderating role on the island, which might lead to a longer game than last time.


Dark Paladin

Turn: Embark to 78.
             Expand to 92

Eek, I'm sorry Dark Paladin but that's not a legal move: your embark point has to be on the coast. If you don't say otherwise I'll interpret it as 'embark 93' 'expand 92'.

Double-eek! I didn't take into account the fact that, as a troll, mountains still cost you 2 actions to expand into, so both parts of your turn were illegal. If I don't get a legal turn from you by the time everyone's posted, I'll take it charitably and put you somewhere fairly unoccupied, where you can grow, next to a mountain.

Dariush

Does (Brutal) Raiding across a river cost additional actions?

As raiding isn't hindered by rivers, apparently not. Rivers only defend against conquest, not raiding or expansion. (This might change in future versions so exploit it while you can!)

If a tile is fortified and the fortification is then destroyed, can it be fortified again in the future?

Yep, no reason why not. Tiles don't have a memory of what has gone on before.

[monk12]

Embark 52
Tower 52

Am I correct that building a city to start will raise my base population to 2 (giving me 2 actions next turn?)

Spoiler: If I'm misunderstanding then use this instead (click to show/hide)

Embark 152
Grow 152

I've got no objection to the GM playing; as he already pointed out, there's no real conflict of interest barring severe ambiguity in the rules, and we can burn that bridge if/when we come to it.

I will ask, is it legal to expand multiple times in the same direction in one turn? For example, if I have 2 actions next turn and own 52, would I be able to expand to both 53 and 54, or would I be restricted to tiles adjacent to 52 at the start of my turn?

Also, what is the difference between the Builder's Deforest ability and the regular deforest action under Improve (there doesn't seem to be one; I'm not complaining, Tower is awesome, just making sure I didn't miss something.)


RE: Oceans and pop cap, I imagine staking a claim to an Ocean tile involves sending out many patrol ships to combat the horrible monsters living there, making it safe to traverse (since really, why would you claim Ocean if there's an easier way to the land on the other side?) That's why it's such a population sink to claim in the first place, unless you're Merfolk, and if you're Merfolk then you are perfectly justified in having underwater villages/cities.

As far as Aquatic Channel being underpowered, GWG, as far as I can see there's nothing in the action description saying you have to be adjacent to the border you want to channel; it's already a potent offensive power that reaches across the map. This also suggests that the non-Aquatic equivalent should specifically require you to be adjacent to the border you want to Canal, making it mostly useful for extending irrigation instead of terrain destro. I'm also assuming that turning a tile with a city on it into a lake would destroy the city unless that's your favored terrain; if that's the case, are Towers immune (since they can be built anywhere?)

As a side note, on the topic of rules lawyering the Arid heresy's Shore Up ability also doesn't specify "owned or neighboring," which may not be how the rule is intended, since it can nuke lakes from across the map.

As far as Deluge being overpowered, it's nothing that scares me as much as potential cross-map Channeling. It turns non-mountains into Lakes, yeah, which messes up fields and most likely cities, but it also gives you a slight defense buff, and it can't affect fortifications on that tile, so you get a nice little wall out of the deal. Merfolk don't ignore lake movement penalties, just ocean, so it's not like they can cheaply Deluge their way into the heart of your civ and wreck everything. A war with Aquatic involves losing your borders to lakes, at which point the borders are slow and easy to defend if your population density is comparable; hardly worse than the other aggressive heresies.

[notquitethere]

Am I correct that building a city to start will raise my base population to 2 (giving me 2 actions next turn?)

Yes, it raises your minimum and maximum population by one, and so can move your current population up.

I've got no objection to the GM playing; as he already pointed out, there's no real conflict of interest barring severe ambiguity in the rules, and we can burn that bridge if/when we come to it.

Aces.

I will ask, is it legal to expand multiple times in the same direction in one turn? For example, if I have 2 actions next turn and own 52, would I be able to expand to both 53 and 54, or would I be restricted to tiles adjacent to 52 at the start of my turn?

You can chain-expand (and chain most other actions unless they've been specifically ruled out), so going 53-54 is perfectly legal.

Also, what is the difference between the Builder's Deforest ability and the regular deforest action under Improve (there doesn't seem to be one; I'm not complaining, Tower is awesome, just making sure I didn't miss something.)

Oops, I thought I'd changed that. During the revisal process in between games, I'd temporarily made Deforest a Builder only power, but then I thought better of it. Builders now have a one additional improve in Summer and Winter.

As far as Aquatic Channel being underpowered, GWG, as far as I can see there's nothing in the action description saying you have to be adjacent to the border you want to channel; it's already a potent offensive power that reaches across the map. This also suggests that the non-Aquatic equivalent should specifically require you to be adjacent to the border you want to Canal, making it mostly useful for extending irrigation instead of terrain destro. I'm also assuming that turning a tile with a city on it into a lake would destroy the city unless that's your favored terrain; if that's the case, are Towers immune (since they can be built anywhere?)

No, cities aren't destroyed. Just as you conquer and occupy cities on non-favoured terrain, the terrain changing doesn't destroy the city. Perhaps this should change for the next iteration, but as it it stands I think it's OK. I don't think I'd intended to make Channel so wide-ranging, but you're quite correct that that's the wording of it, so that's how it stands for this game.

As a side note, on the topic of rules lawyering the Arid heresy's Shore Up ability also doesn't specify "owned or neighboring," which may not be how the rule is intended, since it can nuke lakes from across the map.

That's true, it wasn't quite how I intended, but that's the wording of it (for this game).


Just a1s now.

[a1s]

embark 44
expand 30

Just a1s now.

I thought you were going to play too?