This use of Mods has been discussed before. How close does the board need to be to be placed as an additional mod rather than a separate board? This is a tricky question, definitely not black and white, but I would have thought that Go-Geared and Go-Diced would have simply been two mods for the same board. Thoughts?

Go see:  http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2012/New_board_not_showing_up_on_Boards_page

Start at post #7

I also think Go-Geared and Go-Diced should be the same map. 

And they still can be - retire Go-Diced and make it scenarios on Go-Geared.

Amidon37 wrote:

I also think Go-Geared and Go-Diced should be the same map. 

And they still can be - retire Go-Diced and make it scenarios on Go-Geared.

I'm willing to do this if people think it's a good idea..

My sense is that that they are quite different games..  "Geared" is a pure skill game; while the strategies you can use to win at at "Diced" are more varied and nuanced.

I've only played one Go-Diced game and I hear what you are saying, but I don't think the difference is that great to warrant a separate board.  I've considered a diced version of Octagons, but I wasn't going to do it as another board.  

Maybe this is a good way to think of it - the farther we get from standard RISK, the less nuances matter.  Since Go-Gear is far, far from standard RISK, the difference from Go-Diced isn't that big - so they should be one board.

I'm just making sure that people understand how different these boards play..

It's like me making a 1v1 player game with a map of the US, Calling it GOP v DEMs, and making one scenario play like regular risk and the other like anarchy.. The maps may looks the same,  the borders are the same, and the dice are the same, but as anyone whose played anarchy can tell you, the games are different.

Diced and Geared are mechanically VERY different.. in one you can attack your opponent's armies and in the other you can't.  Different players are likely to climb to the top of the leader boards if they are kept separate.

 the farther we get from standard RISK, the less nuances matter

I'm not sure that I agree with this, but I understand where you're coming from.

I'm tempted to join them because that way the board may "appear" to be more popular and players of one will more likely be exposed to the other. My concern is that if I join them, players may think their joining one when in fact they're joining the other.  Having them as two boards builds-in an extra layer of protection against that mistake.

I generally just mod based on the map appearance. This does cause the problem of ranking when boards are very different. Hordes vs. classic mods play quite differently. But I've actually thought about adding an "anarchy" mod to some of my future boards.

starting to sound like the consensus is to join 'em.

What would people like the overall name of the board to be?

Keep it Go-Geared?

Go-X

Go

I think Hugh wasn't a big fan of using the name Go at all; he argued it's quite dissimilar in play.

Stones  ??  I'm drawing a blank.

..a little help please.

M57 wrote:

I think Hugh wasn't a big fan of using the name Go at all; he argued it's quite dissimilar in play.

Stones  ??  I'm drawing a blank.

..a little help please.

Get Stoned, Stoners, Rainy Day Women

Okay, maybe those aren't appropriate :)

Stones, Gothello (intentional association/disassociation), Children of the Stone... Gothello, I like Gothello.

I think Go-Gear is a fine name.   Hugh doesn't have to get his way all the time.

Hugh wrote:

Stones, Gothello (intentional association/disassociation), Children of the Stone... Gothello, I like Gothello.

Play (and scoring) is more Go-like but the stones are placed more in Othello fashion (i.e., in the spaces and not at the intersections.  The name has a good ring to it. 

It could work.  Any other ideas?

I wonder.  .Tom, Is there any chance that you could combine the scenarios and current stats under one board name?  -- I could amend scenario names.  Or is it best if I just retire one?

Amidon37 wrote:

I think Go-Gear is a fine name.   Hugh doesn't have to get his way all the time.

Go-Gear was my first try -- I forgot to rename it before retiring it and now I can't use it.. I'm stuck with Go-Geared. 

Problem is that the base game is already Geared and the new game is Diced.

Hmm... Geared and Diced

Amidon37 wrote:

I think Go-Gear is a fine name.   Hugh doesn't have to get his way all the time.

Definitely not, as Wargear would be much worse off! But I'm not going to shy away from giving my opinion. It is my opinion as a Go player that it is very dissimilar to Go. But, I'll play it no matter what you call it :)

OK - I've found some nice one-sided dice -- and I'm planning on putting everything under one name. 

I think I prefer Go-Geared to Go-Diced.  The dice are the "Geared" part.  Gothello is interesting, but then we'd be usurping two names instead of one.  Besides, Go was the inspiration for the board, and the "surround and control territory" aspect of the game is Go-like.

While I'm changing the dice out, I'm thinking of taking away the "on-board" instructions. Does anyone see a problem with that?  There are enough people that know how to play and can teach it to others as they go.  Besides, players should really read the description before playing anyways.

I like to play games where I know nothing about the board and then I am surprised later when I figure out why I can't move to certain locations etc.  Thats just me though.

M57 wrote:

Different players are likely to climb to the top of the leader boards if they are kept separate.

I feel like this is kind of true for a lot of scenarios that are under the same board.  Was there ever a discussion about scenarios having their own leader boards, etc.

M57 wrote:

I wonder.  .Tom, Is there any chance that you could combine the scenarios and current stats under one board name?  -- I could amend scenario names.  Or is it best if I just retire one?

I think the easiest thing is retire the old boards and create a new version set up exactly how you want it with scenarios etc. I'll then manually cut over the ranking data from the old boards.

Getting back to Jigler's original post, I think the issue came with the Rankings.  Most people would be ok with having similar maps from one designer be a set of scenarios, but since the Rankings are per board there was dissent about how to deal with the combination.  My Kingdom [Capitols] is much different than My Kingdom [War].

tom wrote:

M57 wrote:

I wonder.  .Tom, Is there any chance that you could combine the scenarios and current stats under one board name?  -- I could amend scenario names.  Or is it best if I just retire one?

I think the easiest thing is retire the old boards and create a new version set up exactly how you want it with scenarios etc. I'll then manually cut over the ranking data from the old boards.

Done

Go-Diced is retired -- Two of its scenarios have been moved over to Go-Geared.  There were not a lot of games played on Go-Diced--though there is a tournament that just started using it--so if it's inconvenient, don't knock yourself out.

..thanks Tom

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Getting back to Jigler's original post, I think the issue came with the Rankings.  Most people would be ok with having similar maps from one designer be a set of scenarios, but since the Rankings are per board there was dissent about how to deal with the combination.  My Kingdom [Capitols] is much different than My Kingdom [War].

Possibly the designer could optionally designate scenarios or groups of scenarios as Independent. Default would be Unified.

So for instance, now that Geared and Diced have been smooshed together,  I might choose Independent. Then I would create two sub-groups, calling them "D1 v D1" and "D8 v D8" -- putting two scenarios in each group.

Details from there would have to be debated, but right now I would probably vote to have all what would have previously been considered "board stats" be delivered independently, including championship points.  My rational for this is that any board and its scenarios have to get a certain amount of play in order to deliver Championship points to its' players, so designers (and players) who split up their scenarios this way risk creating boards that don't deliver the goods if they don't become popular. 

Given the above, when reviewing a specific board, clicking on "charts" would return separate systems of graphs, or maybe a scenario menu..

Just throwing it out there..  I have no clue if it could work.