I've got a a few more designer/feature suggestions percolating, but this one is pretty straight ahead...

Intel Reliability: Default = 100%

Opposition unit counts shown on the board are only as reliable as the percentage set by the designer. In a manner similar to my Unit Count suggestion, Local (territory) settings trump the Global setting and could be used to conceal the strength of armies (in forests, castles, etc.).  Here's how it might work:

Given a Global IR of 75%..

• A territory's actual unit count of 12 would randomly appear to be as little as 9 and as much as 15 (within 100 - 75 = 25% of actual counts).
• A territory unit count of 3 would always appear to be 3 because 3/0.25<1, but consider that a unit count of 4 could appear to be 3. (4/0.25 = 1).

Here are a few considerations/options:

• True territory counts are revealed after the first roll of attack dice OR
• Territory counts are revised/recalculated after each roll of attack dice. (Inferential reasoning would enable players to more accurately estimate troop values with each successive roll).
• A territory with a Local setting of 0% automatically invokes the fog layer for that territory only (pretty cool, huh?).
• Local settings could be applied to borders instead of territories (I don't like this - I think it's too confusing for the user and conflicting views would need to be reconciled, but it's a valid possibility that would provide for even more flexible design options).

Honestly, this one seems like it might be a bit trickier to code; on the other hand I suppose it might be easier than I think to code a program to say one thing but mean another (Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure my bank does this to me a lot).

I think this is neat idea, but I think you also need some way to distinguish between true & estimated unit counts.  Maybe the estimated ones could be italicized?

Or you could come up with qualitative categories (anyone ever playerd Heroes of Might and Magic?):

A few

Several

Lots

A pack

A horde

Legion

ZOUNDS!

Ozyman wrote:

I think this is neat idea, but I think you also need some way to distinguish between true & estimated unit counts.  Maybe the estimated ones could be italicized?

Sure; you could, but in a manner not unlike my movement count idea..

1. hovering over a territory would reveal it's IR setting.
2. when attacking a territory, it's IR would be displayed in the pop-up.

There seems to be a developing double-standard where some of my territory specs ideas are concerned.   People feel that the conditions must be visible on the board.  Consider that dice mods, which have been around pretty much from the start of WG, and which are very important board conditions, are not subject to this standard.  In fact, the only way to determine a dice mod is to initiate an attack. That doesn't hold up to but one of the standards listed above.

I am all for figuring out ways to make these things more visible, but I wouldn't want to see the ideas discounted simply because this aspect of implementation proved too difficult.  I think Global settings should not need to be restated (or even italicized) for each territory, but O, I think italics is a great idea for Locally modified settings.

Kjeld wrote:

Or you could come up with qualitative categories:

Sometimes numbers are troops, but sometimes they're alien blobs, Mario dudes, ships, amoebas, or just checkers. I think that qualitative designations tend to be too restrictive in scope, but certainly board designers would be welcome to include this info on the board or in the about.

"Beware! Apparent troop counts in the Baltic Regions may be off by a few legions." 

Here’s another one.

Individual Player Strengths/Weaknesses

This makes more sense as WG implements more and more territory assignable attributes, so I would put it low on the list for now.  It would essentially involve but not be limited to additional modifiers at the territory level.  Whenever a player occupies a territory, that territory's attributes change or are modified uniquely for that player.  Additionally, the attributes of attacked territories could be modified for the attacking player.

Examples..

• Player A (Aggressive) = +1 Attack Dice, -1 Defense Dice
• Player B (Strong but Dumb)= +1 Attack Dice, -99% Intel Reliability (see above post #41) when viewing others
• Player C (Slow but well Armored) = +1 applied to Movement Count (also somewhere above on this thread), +1 Defense Dice
• Player D (Really Stupid but real strong)= -100% Intel Reliability when viewing others (everything appears fogged), +2 Attack Dice
• Player E (Stealthy) = Intel Reliability = 25% (when viewed by others)
• Player F (Ridiculously Stealthy)= Intel Relaibility = 0% (appears fogged to all other players)
• Player G (Generally Confused and Confusing)= 50% Intel Reliability for occupied territories, but also -50% IR when viewing other players.
• Etc..

Note of course that many of these attributes don't even exist yet.

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

I think this is neat idea, but I think you also need some way to distinguish between true & estimated unit counts.  Maybe the estimated ones could be italicized?

There seems to be a developing double-standard where some of my territory specs ideas are concerned.   People feel that the conditions must be visible on the board.  Consider that dice mods, which have been around pretty much from the start of WG, and which are very important board conditions, are not subject to this standard.

Well, I think the difference is that dice mods are constant through an entire game - so a developer should make them clear via the board image or some other way.  Something like the movement counts or Intel Reliability sounds like it could vary during the game, so I think the interface needs to make it clear.

As for the per-player bonuses, I think that is a neat idea, and I think we already talked about that at some point (probably hi-jacking some unrelated thread).  IIRC - another example included having one player earn double cards, while another earned no cards.  Lots of neat things you can do with that.

I also think that we need to pace ourselves as a community and not introduce new gameplay features so quickly.  There is already a ton of neat stuff that can be done with factory/barren that we've barely touched.  At this point I'd rather have Tom go back and polish/perfect some of the other stuff before adding more advanced gameplay options (things like the annoyances with scenarios, tournaments, etc.  Maybe a leveling or achievement system, etc.).

Ozyman wrote:

Well, I think the difference is that dice mods are constant through an entire game - so a developer should make them clear via the board image or some other way.  Something like the movement counts or Intel Reliability sounds like it could vary during the game, so I think the interface needs to make it clear.

I'm not sure what you mean. Intel Reliability and Movement Count as proposed would be constant throughout the entire game as well because they are assigned to territories, not players.  Global means global.   There is no difference between saying that attack dice is globally set at 7-sided v 6-sided, and saying that the Global Intel Reliability is 75%.  Additionally In such a game, a territory that is locally assigned an IR of 75% retains it in perpetuity, just as a border given an altered local dice mod of  8-v-6 would retain that border mod for the entire game.

There are a number of boards out there with local dice mods that have no indication anywhere on the board that they exist, much less indicators at each border.  You have to initiate an attack or read the about to know where they are.

As for the pacing of features, I could not agree more with you, but decisions related to this are in Tom's hands. Fixing things that break is doubtless a high priority, and last I checked there were close to 100 suggestions on the wish list.  It's a matter of where the community's and more importantly, Tom's priority's lie.  I'm under no illusions that my suggestions will see the light of WG day any time soon, but it doesn't stop me from coming up with them and documenting my thoughts as concisely as possible.

Personally, I'd put IR half-way down, and Individual Strengths much lower on the list, but I see MC as a major game-changer that goes hand in hand with Factory/Barren as a design tool, and I would like to see it much higher on the list.  Honestly, I've put all of my new board design ideas on hold in anticipation of that one.  I'm hoping to see it by next summer.

Ozyman wrote:

Something like the movement counts..

I see what you are saying here O. While the effect of the territory on MC is static (-1 in most cases), the apparent remaining MCs of the that territory's inhabitants will be variable, and yes, it would be nice to have a constant visual of this number, but IR is a territory attribute that is static as proposed.  It doesn't "follow" troops around.

Rereading this thread, I think there was a bit of confusion.  I guess I was assuming your suggestion: "True territory counts are revealed after the first roll of attack dice".  In which case at a moment in time, some territories on the board might show true counts, and other would show IR unit counts.  I don't think it is critical, just would be nice to know at a glance which unit counts are correct & which are just estimates. 

I wasn't suggesting that the IR value of a territory itself should be shown by the interface.  That can be done by the board image - like you said maybe a territory with forest in it has an IR of 50% or something.

But anyway, I think it is a very cool idea.

Ozyman wrote:

Rereading this thread, I think there was a bit of confusion.  I guess I was assuming your suggestion: "True territory counts are revealed after the first roll of attack dice".  In which case at a moment in time, some territories on the board might show true counts, and other would show IR unit counts.  I don't think it is critical, just would be nice to know at a glance which unit counts are correct & which are just estimates. 

An interesting point, and a good argument against option #1, where the true territory count is revealed at the moment of attack and then obviously for the remainder of that turn.  Of course, one might argue that players shouldn't forget which territories they have just attacked during their turn and therefore know which numbers are real ..but then, that argument has been known not to hold around these parts.

The "reality" premise of option #1 is that once you have stepped over the border you know what you're up against.

Option #2 is easier to maintain, understand, and much stronger in the premise department.  IR is always ON and apparent battlefield conditions change dynamically as player's intel struggles to keep up with changing battlefield conditions.  The only reason to italicize a unit count would be if it is not global (locally modified). It's very clean.  I really like your italics idea, O.  The wavy numbers convey the meaning perfectly.

I think it's overall a good idea and would bring benefit to the site. It's going to be a fair while down the track before anything like this gets implemented but it's certainly worth discussing.

Victory Conditions

Decisive, strategic, or tactical victory conditions are set by the designer. The game is won when a player:

• holds x% of the Units on the board.
• holds/controls x% of Territories (including non-occupied and neutral).
• holds/controls x% of Capitals (including non-occupied).
• holds/controls x% of Factories (including non-occupied).
• # of Above Conditions Required For Victory

Default:

• Units = 100%
• Territories = OFF
• Capitals = OFF
• Factories = OFF
• Conditions Required = 1

Under many conditions, it's possible to win when it is not your turn.  Many board designs that would otherwise be stalemate-prone could be "fixed".

I think some raw unit count that is not a % could also be useful for runaway games.  e.g. first player to 1000 units wins.

Ozyman wrote:

I think some raw unit count that is not a % could also be useful for runaway games.  e.g. first player to 1000 units wins.

+1,  It has other uses too.

Ozyman wrote:

I think some raw unit count that is not a % could also be useful for runaway games.  e.g. first player to 1000 units wins.

There are certainly some other games that could be created with this feature.  (Points)

I like all these - something similar was already in the feature request list, I have amended items 87,88,89 to include these suggestions.

tom wrote:

I like all these - something similar was already in the feature request list, I have amended items 87,88,89 to include these suggestions.

I know that some of my suggestions (including Intel Reliability and Movement Count) do not necessarily break new ground, but I'm trying to give them an overarching perspective. For example the "list" would suggest that 87, 88, and 89 are unrelated ideas,  but I think they need to be discussed as an integrated set of features that would otherwise not be served well tackled in line-item fashion. 

Of all of these suggestions, MC, IR and VC, I would like to reiterate my request to put MC as high in the list as you can (As I post this, I don't see MC and IR there at all).  I already have a board ready and waiting to go for the MC feature, and more would surely follow.  IMO, at least half of the existing boards on this site would be served by a scenario that incorporates this feature.

VC is nice but does not make as much of an impact, and IR is fluff ..cool fluff, but not a board changer in the designer sense.

Sorry what is MC, IR and VC?

My bad, I used the abbreviations.  Here they are with a post # reference to a more detailed description in this thread:

1. Intel Reliability (#41)
2. Victory Conditions (#53)  Ozy's addition (#54)
3. Movement Count (most of #12-36) wasn't thoroughly documented in a single post.   I'll go back and summarize in this thread if I get a chance.  It's the most complex of them but it's the "game changer"

Thanks.