Raiding when leaving with move

[Tantali]

The idea of vacating a region to re-enter it to raid it seems illogical to me. Allowing raiding by vacating with a move seems more logical and I think wouldn't impact the current game mechanics badly. 'Raiding' invests will still be used, because they are guaranteed to work. Otherwise, you would have to ensure you're first in play order to vacate the region, or the enemy could take your move-token.

I only see this idea working if we keep some bidding system though, which introduces some (non-random) uncertainty in who will be first.

[nymanjens]

I feel like coins are removed too often already. I think having coins lying around makes the game more fun, and so I think this will make the game less fun.

[317070]

If you would do that, the move token would be the catch-all token. It does moving, attacking. You could use it to take over others recruit tokens. If we would add de-investing, only digging trenches would be really missing from its list.

The idea of vacating and re-entering to raid, is why we allowed the invest token to de-invest. So you can do it more naturally if you want to.

I also agree with Jens on that the coins are removed too often right now. I hope that in the new version, the digging trenches will be a more powerful defensive token than the invest token, and that this will temper the destruction of infrastructure somewhat.

[Tantali]

True. But the unnatural way of doing it still exists and in the last game was even a viable strategy. But the idea of it is completely illogical. To have a technical detail be an important mechanic annoys me.

[nymanjens]

Important technical details are indeed annoying, but there is no consensus about this particular solution. I'm closing this issue.

[317070]

I have an idea which solves this issue, so I re-opened this issue.

What if we remove the option to remove coins from the board when entering an empty region?

1. It will leave more coins on the board
2. You could use a move token to preemptively leave a region. If the enemy then enters the region, he is not allowed to remove the coins. If you take the region back, the coins will still be there.

This (minor?) change would allow an additional option for defensive play, at the cost of making an option for offensive play less interesting. Additionally, you will keep more coins on the map and resolve this unintuitive situation where you move out and move in again to remove investments.

I know we introduced it to solve something unintuitive, but in my opinion, we just created something new which is unintuitive. Plus, returning to the original situation again, will push the game again in the direction which we want right now (e.g. more defensive play with more coins on the board).

Also, can we rename raiding to looting, plundering, pillaging or another synonym? Raiding is a wrong translation, or wrongly copied from GoT. From what I find, plundering seems the most correct word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looting

[nymanjens]

I had to think about this one, but I think it would make the game less fun.

I agree that it's an elegant way to solve the hack of leaving+entering to take the coins, but I don't agree that the other effects are beneficial:

1. It will leave more coins on the board

In most games, there was never a money problem. Only one game so far had a really small amount of coins, but it was still manageable. I'm not sure that we need to shift the balance towards more coins.

2. You could use a move token to preemptively leave a region. If the enemy then enters the region, he is not allowed to remove the coins. If you take the region back, the coins will still be there.

Analogously, if you have a poorly defended region with lots of coins, it's fairly typical that it is vulnerable to attack but that you can take it back afterwards. With the current rules, this situation is still a huge risk because you might lose your money. Applying this proposal, everything is OK as long as you retake it by the end of the turn (this is how it works in GoT too). I don't like that because it makes timing/planning/being last even more important than it is now.

I believe this is one of those rule changes that subtly can change how fun the game is, so if you're not convinced, I think it's best to discuss this in person.

[Tantali]

I like the current version more than what @317070 suggests, as that rule is also unintuitive and would be even more a standard part of the game. Also the concerns from @nymanjens seem valid to me.

Another possible fix, which removes all unintuitiveness, but might impact the game. Only the invest-token is useable to 'plunder' money, i.e. remove from board into your inventory. Move tokens (upon entering an area, after combat or a normal move) can only burn money, removing it from the game entirely. Maybe also allow this when leaving an area.

This makes the tokens also a bit more varied, instead of having the move token as the 'catch-all'.

[317070]

I don't really like the burning. It's bad for everyone. Maybe we indeed better leave it as is?

Also, is the renaming to plundering OK?

[nymanjens]

I'm not sure what to think of the burning idea. It addresses my concerns, but might subjectively feel bad and might actually cause money to become extremely scarce.

Renaming to plundering is OK.

[Tantali]

146

These are the possibilities I can think of:

1. current rules: has an unintuitive mechanic, luckily not often used, but unfortunately it is taken into account by the players while thinking about combat strategies
2. burn when entering (normal/combat move): unintuitive mechanic remains, but probably is almost never taken into account, as it wouldn't provide any gain (or loss prevention) to the one being plundered. Effect on game is difficult to predict w/o play testing. Attackers with enough money will attack-burn-retreat, attackers with money-problems will attack-invest-retreat or attack-stay. I wouldn't say money would necessarily become scarce. Burning is bad for everyone, so attackers might leave money on the board longer, providing more income.
3. burn when entering (normal/combat move), leaving (move): removes unintuitive mechanic. Same explanation as previous case.
4. only invest removes investments: removes unintuitive mechanic. Results to more money in-game. Probably reduces snow-balling effect, but whether that's good/bad... longer games.

I wouldn't mind play testing 3 and/or 4, but also wouldn't be surprised if 1 gives the better gameplay.

[317070]

After some thinking, I would not mind testing 2 and 4. 3 I don't like, as it will make every move token resolution longer (do I remove or don't I remove these coins).

But overall, I think the effect on the game will be minor.

[Tantali]

Now that I think of it, I also don't like 3, as the 'leaving (move)' will heavily depend on the player order.