[GO] Ninja Spoils/Espionage Spoils

[plurple]

Some more options for a name as I am not a fan of turncoat, but lets not argue over a name. The idea itself is a great one and would make life a lot of fun.

defector, betrayer, deserter, judas, rebel, renegade, spy, treason.

the name is all that is left

spy and treason won't work for the same reason espionage won't. judas i'd avoid for religious reasons. betrayer is a judas without the religious connotations but still doesn't imply ownership of a region's military.

the image rebel & renegade give is of someone working independent against the current system. a deserter is someone who flees battle.

that leaves defector - someone who seeks protection within their enemy's region

Turncoat is what this suggestion is. A spoil where the troops change allegiance to their new master.

what was wrong with traitor?

[koontz1973]

Turncoat is what this suggestion is. A spoil where the troops change allegiance to their new master.

But a turncoat is a person who shifts allegiances and is used in the singular only. As armies are more than one, it does not fit.

How about resistance spoils? But even this is not 100% correct as you would not resist in your own country (you hold the region you have the card for).

[agentcom]

I was going to say "rebellion spoils" but I like "defector spoils," too. I don't like so much "rebel spoils" but it is OK. Obviously "defect spoils" is out because of the dual meaning of that word. Agree with the criticisms of the other names given thus far.

[greenoaks]

Turncoat is what this suggestion is. A spoil where the troops change allegiance to their new master.

But a turncoat is a person who shifts allegiances and is used in the singular only. As armies are more than one, it does not fit.

How about resistance spoils? But even this is not 100% correct as you would not resist in your own country (you hold the region you have the card for).

actually it does fit.

In political and social history, the switch mostly takes place under the following circumstances:

• In groups, often driven by one or more leaders.
• When the former cause driving and benefitting the person becomes inviable or too fraught with danger.
• When a Commander in Chief cashes a set of Turncoat spoils containing the name of the relevant region(s)

Yes 'a turncoat' refers to an individual but 'they are turncoats' refers to a group. In other words the group turned their coats (of arms) from one lord to another, hence turncoat.


ps. i added the third point

[DoomYoshi]

The first time this suggestion was defeated, it was because of disagreements over the name and the actual limitations of the cards. The second time, the least balanced gameplay limitation is favored, but the name is still contentious.

I support the name "new spoils" if only for the reason that we can get back to discussions about the specific mechanics.

[greenoaks]

The first time this suggestion was defeated, it was because of disagreements over the name and the actual limitations of the cards. The second time, the least balanced gameplay limitation is favored, but the name is still contentious.

I support the name "new spoils" if only for the reason that we can get back to discussions about the specific mechanics.

we all seem to be in agreement about what the spoils do. that is -

no impact if you own the region, all troops become yours if you do not.

[koontz1973]

The first time this suggestion was defeated, it was because of disagreements over the name and the actual limitations of the cards. The second time, the least balanced gameplay limitation is favored, but the name is still contentious.

I support the name "new spoils" if only for the reason that we can get back to discussions about the specific mechanics.

we all seem to be in agreement about what the spoils do. that is -

no impact if you own the region, all troops become yours if you do not.

agree with greenoaks here.

To break the deadlock, plurple do you agree to suggestions followed by a poll? Once that is concluded, we should have our name.

[plurple]

The first time this suggestion was defeated, it was because of disagreements over the name and the actual limitations of the cards. The second time, the least balanced gameplay limitation is favored, but the name is still contentious.

I support the name "new spoils" if only for the reason that we can get back to discussions about the specific mechanics.

we all seem to be in agreement about what the spoils do. that is -

no impact if you own the region, all troops become yours if you do not.

agree with greenoaks here.

To break the deadlock, plurple do you agree to suggestions followed by a poll? Once that is concluded, we should have our name.

sure i was about to suggest this

[koontz1973]

sure i was about to suggest this

Glad to see great minds think alike.

My suggestion then is the original.

Espionage Spoils

[greenoaks]

sure i was about to suggest this

Glad to see great minds think alike.

My suggestion then is the original.

Espionage Spoils

the original is Ninja put Turncoat in the poll for the rest of us.

[kizkiz]

Rebellion spoils - your agents have turned the locals to your cause and they have risen up to fight against their former masters

[Dukasaur]

Sounds like fun.

[plurple]

my suggestion would be traiter

[DoomYoshi]

The first time this suggestion was defeated, it was because of disagreements over the name and the actual limitations of the cards. The second time, the least balanced gameplay limitation is favored, but the name is still contentious.

I support the name "new spoils" if only for the reason that we can get back to discussions about the specific mechanics.

we all seem to be in agreement about what the spoils do. that is -

no impact if you own the region, all troops become yours if you do not.

It won't be fun. Have you ever played a game where everyone only has stacks of 1? When nuclear games turn out like that, it just becomes whoever gets the highest roll a few turns in a row. Anyone who has thought this suggestion through, or playtested it, should agree that that part of the option doesnt make any sense at all from a gameplay perspective.

My job is to make sure that when this setting gets submitted, it is fun for a wide variety of players, not just random-fanatics.

[kizkiz]

Nuke games with no troops are because they've all been nuked. You would still have to put your troops somewhere with these spoils, so it wouldn't be the same, surely?

[greenoaks]

The first time this suggestion was defeated, it was because of disagreements over the name and the actual limitations of the cards. The second time, the least balanced gameplay limitation is favored, but the name is still contentious.

I support the name "new spoils" if only for the reason that we can get back to discussions about the specific mechanics.

we all seem to be in agreement about what the spoils do. that is -

no impact if you own the region, all troops become yours if you do not.

It won't be fun. Have you ever played a game where everyone only has stacks of 1? When nuclear games turn out like that, it just becomes whoever gets the highest roll a few turns in a row. Anyone who has thought this suggestion through, or playtested it, should agree that that part of the option doesnt make any sense at all from a gameplay perspective.

My job is to make sure that when this setting gets submitted, it is fun for a wide variety of players, not just random-fanatics.

this doesn't make sense to me. please explain.

[DoomYoshi]

Nuke games with no troops are because they've all been nuked. You would still have to put your troops somewhere with these spoils, so it wouldn't be the same, surely?

It would be worse because instead of only 4 or 5 enemy territories to destroy, you have to destroy 8-9; for example.

@greenoaks: which part do you want an explanation of?

[kizkiz]

Nuke games with no troops are because they've all been nuked. You would still have to put your troops somewhere with these spoils, so it wouldn't be the same, surely?

It would be worse because instead of only 4 or 5 enemy territories to destroy, you have to destroy 8-9; for example.

@greenoaks: which part do you want an explanation of?

I'm not being awkward, but i don't get what you mean.
Are you saying that the board would end up with singles everywhere?
I get the nuke games with all singles, that happens a lot.
In this version though, i forsee people stacking and attacking when the opponent can't cash (0-1-2 spoils) and spreading the troops out a bit more when they could cash.
Troops will only dissapear if the oppo has that spoil and plays it, which won't be that often. Smaller maps would also add the element of preventing your oppo from even getting a spoil, so would encourage stacking.

[greenoaks]

Nuke games with no troops are because they've all been nuked. You would still have to put your troops somewhere with these spoils, so it wouldn't be the same, surely?

It would be worse because instead of only 4 or 5 enemy territories to destroy, you have to destroy 8-9; for example.

@greenoaks: which part do you want an explanation of?

the bit where you are talking about all ones. i don't see the connection to this option.

[Donelladan]

I think DoomYoshi think that traitor spoils ( I prefer traitor :p ) would have a very similar gameplay that nuclear spoils :

In nuclear spoils, you put a stack on the region you have the card, so that you are sure no one can nuke it. Then everyone has a stack and single troops everywhere else because everywhere else can be nuke.

With traitor spoils, same things, basically any regions you dont have the card can be lost - even worse can become ennemy - so you stack on the region whose you have the card. Plus, in nuke sometimes you have to move because you will have to or may have to nuke the region you were stacking. With traitor spoils it doesnt matter if you cash the regions you have, so it really encourage stacking on one region at first glance.

I think we need to test to really see how it changes the gameplay and if there is better strategy than simply stacking where you have the card.

[koontz1973]

I think DoomYoshi think that traitor spoils ( I prefer traitor :p ) would have a very similar gameplay that nuclear spoils :

In nuclear spoils, you put a stack on the region you have the card, so that you are sure no one can nuke it. Then everyone has a stack and single troops everywhere else because everywhere else can be nuke.

With traitor spoils, same things, basically any regions you dont have the card can be lost - even worse can become ennemy - so you stack on the region whose you have the card. Plus, in nuke sometimes you have to move because you will have to or may have to nuke the region you were stacking. With traitor spoils it doesnt matter if you cash the regions you have, so it really encourage stacking on one region at first glance.

I think we need to test to really see how it changes the gameplay and if there is better strategy than simply stacking where you have the card.

The difference between this and nukes would be that no one would be able to stack. Nukes tend to get stacks from round 2 on wards as that is when cards have been won. This is a viable strategy for the nukes game but a flawed one as cards can be handed out more than once. With the extra players that now come, with small-mid sized maps, this will and does happen a lot. If you have 12 players, all with 5 cars each, a map with less than 60 regions, a card will be handed out twice. As maps with 48 regions are playable with 12 players, 12 cards will be doubles. Stack if you want to, I will take the stack of you.

Another difference in games, you would no longer get defined borders. Even in nukes, you can get areas owned by players, repairing nuked out regions. This would stop that as a region can get troops turned with more added. If you leave one, I get to attack a large area. You would need to defend more, maybe lose more, but defence will be key to play.

I believe that the difference between these two types of spoils (espionage / nukes) is big enough to get different strategies into play. Just like flat and escalating spoils.

[DoomYoshi]

Nuke games with no troops are because they've all been nuked. You would still have to put your troops somewhere with these spoils, so it wouldn't be the same, surely?

It would be worse because instead of only 4 or 5 enemy territories to destroy, you have to destroy 8-9; for example.

@greenoaks: which part do you want an explanation of?

the bit where you are talking about all ones. i don't see the connection to this option.

a wide amount of 1s and a few stacks (which are not big enough to knock out all of an opponent's 1s) is effectively the same gameplay

[DoomYoshi]

although i am thinking an effective strategy would be to keep a 4-stack on every territory so nobody can collect spoils

[Metsfanmax]

Nuke games with no troops are because they've all been nuked. You would still have to put your troops somewhere with these spoils, so it wouldn't be the same, surely?

It would be worse because instead of only 4 or 5 enemy territories to destroy, you have to destroy 8-9; for example.

@greenoaks: which part do you want an explanation of?

the bit where you are talking about all ones. i don't see the connection to this option.

a wide amount of 1s and a few stacks (which are not big enough to knock out all of an opponent's 1s) is effectively the same gameplay

I don't think this would be a viable strategy in this format. If you did that, a well-placed spoil cash deep in your territory would be devastating, since they could just steal that territory, immediately deploy on it, and then eat all of your 1 troop territories in one turn.

[DoomYoshi]

So what is the viable gameplay? A stack on every territory?