| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
| Author |
Message |
Nasher1976
Joined: Mar 05, 2018
Posts: 11
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:11 am Post subject: Poll - Number of Nations should equal number of players +1 |
 |
|
| It sometimes feels unfair that the last player to pick a nation gets no choice and ends up with a terrible nation. It also reduces the strategy of the game and increases the luck. An idea would be to increase the number of nations to the number of players +1. E.g.s in a 2 player game there would be 3 nations to pick from and in a 6 player game there would be 7 nations to pick from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nasher1976
Joined: Mar 05, 2018
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Please share the reasons for your decision |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corwin007
Joined: Apr 02, 2018
Posts: 7
Location: Cluj Napoca, Romania
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to see this included as an option. The fact that the first player doesn't have a choice is a bit annoying.
Voyages of Marco Polo does this already, using n+1 characters, and in my group we even play it with n+2 because while several characters have impressive powers, you might still end up with 2 pretty bad ones... Same with Clans of Caledonia, and probably others I'm forgetting.
Many other games will let each player choose between two powers, or between all left in the game.
Santa Maria is the only one I know where with max players the last to pick only has one option, and I think it's the poorer for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nasher1976
Joined: Mar 05, 2018
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Three votes for no and no reason put down?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corwin007
Joined: Apr 02, 2018
Posts: 7
Location: Cluj Napoca, Romania
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm guessing some people are opposed to house rules. But I don't see why they would be opposed to it as an option. :?: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MathiasK
Joined: Aug 30, 2017
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If it is implemented as an option, no problem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talaborn
Joined: Jun 14, 2017
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I voted „no“; the poll ask for a general change of rules. For this i dont agree. There is nothing to say against an option, if Mabi like to install this. But I wouldnt choose this Option. First Position willbecome too strong, imho. Greetings Talaborn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LordChambers
Joined: Feb 05, 2017
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Corwin007 wrote: | | I'm guessing some people are opposed to house rules. But I don't see why they would be opposed to it as an option. :?: |
The reason someone may be opposed to it as an option is that it ruins the convenience afforded by having community standards. Can you imagine some players feeling stuck that they play some games under one rule and some games over another? Or feeling that games are less exciting when we shuck off the outer layer of Nations and focus on the stronger core nations in each game? Perhaps these players have seen elsewhere the fruitless and detrimental power creep that results when players house-rule components of a game.
Options seem harmless if you only consider logical rhetoric, "how can this rule bother you when you can opt out?" If you also consider practice, you can probably see why other players may oppose additional options. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nasher1976
Joined: Mar 05, 2018
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes this was to be an option, not forcing everyone to adopt this. Just like 6 player is not in the official rules but is an option here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
