Proposal for Capital City Variant:

1) Players declare at the start of the game which home SC is their capital city. This cannot be changed throughout the game. Lose that capital and you cannot build.

2) Lose the other home SCs as well (all of them to one power) and you become the vassal state of the power controlling your country (defined as the power occupying your capital and all other home SCs). You are completely under his/her control regarding the deployment and use of units. You could be allowed to gain SCs outside of your own borders but only with their consent. And, whilst a vassal, you cannot build regardless of external gains.

3) Your vassal status will change if your capital city and all other home SCs are taken by a single different player - you then become his or her vassal...

A miserable existence if you are caught out in this way but a fascinating use of power for those who gain an early ascendency. It also places a premium on holding onto the designated Capital as well as allowing for some thought about which SC to designate in the first place.

However, there is some hope...


4) As you become a vassal by having all of your SCs under the control of one power. If that power, at some stage later, loses any one of your SCs, you are released from vassal status. In this way, an ally can rescue you. However, the continued loss of the capital prevents you from building units.

5) Whilst a vassal, you can communicate with other players but must move units according to the controlling power's instructions.

In this way, although you can be forced to provide the armies and navies for warfare, you retain the ability to leak plans and generally work behind your master's back... Something which should feed the revenge motive for those unlucky enough to be conquered at home.

I would like to try this variant and am looking for players. If you declared an interest when I first flew this idea (before Christmas) please let me know if you are still interested.

And, of course, the game would follow an honour system: joining players must agree to abide by the specific rules.

Caedus - I will e-mail you...

e-mail sent... I hope it gets through.

If/when you join, we then each choose our capital city - send the detail to Wombat (I will give his e-mail inside the game)...

I'm in

Yes, great... Read the above - ask any questions through the Global Tag inside the game.

No, I mean i've joined the game :)

i gave u my email

joeman - I will probably start a second game soon.

The initial press is looking very interesting for Game I, and I drew Austria, so I am in line to become an early vassal or casualty.

I will contact you as soon as I know if we have enough players.

I totally want in on Round 2.

Okay - your name has been duly noted.

However, I need an e-mail addy to send the details (password) to...

[email protected]

I'd like to play in the next game if there's room. [email protected]

I'm also curious can you attack your vassal?

I would imagine so. XD

Yes, you can attack your vassal, and will most likely need to cannibalise him near the end.

I'm interested...

and you know my mail, or I could phone you for it.

I was interested in the first game, but got sidetracked by the booze over Christmas. I'll be in for the second variant.

As a side issue, I wonder if it's possible to create a list of variants to add to a page on the site that don't involve changing the site at all. I'm thinking specifically of Gunboat, this variant, UN Diplomacy, Global Tab chat etc.

Just as a suggestion - maybe it should not be allowed to attack your vassal? This will bring another complexity level as:
- getting too many vassals might actually make it impossible to win
- weaker countries will have the option to trick their attackers into taking their home centers - and actually escape elimination this way
- it somehow seems strange to have a policy allowing one player to attack the other - with the second having no option to defend?

Yes, I think that is a good idea and players can add comments/suggestions as and when weaknesses become apparent so that we can upgrade the variants.

I do not wish to appear boastful but I reckon this Capital City version has real potential - even though I drew Austria first game!

I will definitely start a second and as soon as I can get seven players in. The diplomacy is quite distinct and will clearly go through phases as and when players get into trouble.

Ivo,

You raise valid points and it does make for an interesting situation if you cannot attack your vassal, but I see no reason from history as to why an Imperial power cannot rape the territories it conquers.

I would envisage a very difficult balance when trying to decide whether to force a country into vassal status if you cannot at some stage take over their SCs yourself.

Perhaps we could try a Capital City version in which the vassal states cannot be attacked by their Imperial masters and see how it plays out in practice?

And good to see our Parliamentary representative back from the end of year festivities...

Oh, clearly any variant of play will require some actual beta-testing and tweaking - I have no idea how my suggestion will actually affect the gameplay.

As for "I see no reason from history as to why an Imperial power cannot rape the territories it conquers." - that is true.

However, you have already defined that a vassalized (partially conquered) country cannot fight back (revolt) - which is also ahistorical - my idea was to balance this out somehow.

Otherwise you risk to make vassalization worse than elimination?

You could perhaps have two options for the conquerer:

1. After vassalisation, the conquerer can choose either vassalisation as in the original draft rules or

2. Go for complete domination - BUT, to make it fair on the conquered country, he may only take a maximum of one supply centre a year off the vanquished country once the capital city is taken. If he decides to go down this route the vassal state may fight back.

Therefore the conquerer gets to choose whether to obtain the conquered country's units as vassal status, or instead, to gain units off him for his direct use.

If this sounds a little complicated, I'll give it some more thought - it was a response to Ivo's issues that he raised.

Again, an interesting idea.

My original thinking was that the vassal state would be so reduced as to having to resort to revealing plans and negotiating like mad for rescue - more of an underground effort than organised warfare.

The Imperial power would need to think carefully about any orders placed for the vassal units as the vassal could merrily post them to all and sundry.

Ivo...

If I can return to the status and suffering of the vassal. I mentioned in the original rules that anyone playing this should be prepared for a miserable existence if they become a vassal. I was trying to create the feeling of, say, a small country occupied by a communist power (or Fascist if you prefer) and then treated with utter contempt, a mere slave in the shape of a nation. And, accordingly, there should be a greater level of fear regarding losing control of your destiny instead of the usual 'early bath' for losers. I do hope it works out that way.

I'm interested in playing sometime. [email protected]

noted...

and bounced to keep data...

I think that's 6 for a second game, plus you Flashy makes seven?

(shameless bump to keep this high)

I will be on this in the morning (HK time) - by when I hope the Gamemaster problem is sorted.

A shameless bump as a reminder to dear old flashy...