Another game of Royale, folks?

[Stefu]

Last game was bounds of excitement all around, so how about another one? Not necessarily on 1600 map - I'm envisioning the regular 7-powered map, with game starting in 1900 and going on in 5-year turns (just like Dip Royale always does). Yes, it would continue to our times, but hey, that's just part of the charm! We'd naturally need 7 players and a GM (LordStone1?), but I don't think we'd have much difficulty in finding them. I'm willing to play, certainly. And if this does happen, my country reservation list would be Russia - Turkey - England - France - Germany - Italy - Austria.

[LordStone1]

I MIGHT be willing to GM another game of Royale. But first I think I'd like to hear from all the Saxony players (privately) and hear their opinions about the variant. It's a very complex game, and I'm sure there are some weaknesses within the rules and so on. I'd like to hear from players on that subject. I was also troubled by how the dynasties virtually decided the fate of a country by pure luck -- for example, the Vasas of Poland (Imran) and the Castilles of Spain (Du Chateau) had no chance because they didn't produce any heirs, and were quickly eliminated from the dynastic proceedings and later on, the game itself.

What do you think, people?

[Victor Galis]

The Bourbon dynasty was also very unlucky after the early game. It's repeated failure to produce male heirs (I think I got five daughters in a row), made it pale in a size comparison to the other dynasties. Luckily, my military might overcame this shortfall. (A private opinion to follow.)

[The Hogfather]

I am intrigued by Royale dip.

I am also available as cannon fodder if there is any room!

[Midshipman]

Russia
Turkey
France
Italy
Germany
Austria
England

Oh, and this means I will be willing to play. I will be around for a while.

[Stefu]

Midshipman, do you know the rules for Royale?

Anybody, is there any interest?

[RUFFHAUS8]

I might be interested, but I rather like the 1600 map. I think with all the extra action going on (treaties, royalty, clergy, births, deaths, etc.) that opening it to 10 or so players makes for more interest. Of course this requires 3 more players, but WTF?

[Victor Galis]

I feel that a seven player map is very good, but would preffer the Heptarchy map if I were playing, simply because the map is much more suited to the concept of Royale. I seriously doubt though that you could get more than seven GOOD players for the purpose of Royale. Your Apolyton average players aren't going to cut it for Royale due to the nature of the game, and I for one though I wish very much to play, will be unable to this summer (now if someone were to volunteer to be an alternate, I'd be glad to start the country off then leave it to them.)

[The Hogfather]

I need a copy of the rules, if someone would be so kind...

And this one should call for about 10 players, I agree with Ruff... the more the merrier!

[Victor Galis]

I fear that there are not 10 people qualified enough to play a game of Royale in all Apolyton. The dedication it takes is very great, otherwise you meet your end like Spain in the game we played (I made sure he never built, and his empire was quickly gutted.)

[RUFFHAUS8]

There's no question that Royale (What we knew here as Saxony will take a firm commitment to play, and finding 10 dedicated people willing to play it to the end will be tought. But such is true with every game we play here. And abandonments are on the decline lately. Dare we be optimistic?

My main reasons for advocation the 1600 Map over the standard map lie in my preference for variants, historical color, and a feeling that a ten player map would offset some of the crossgaming/prearranged allainces that might pop up.

Having not played Royal before I can't say for sure. However, in observing the last game, I think this presents the so-called weaker/inexperienced players more options for treaty and alliance. Ultimately I think it will simply be more work for the GM to add more players, so that has to be considered too. YMMV.

[Victor Galis]

I think Royale is even harder on inexperienced players than normal dip, mainoy because of the binding treaties. The way they are worded can cause a newbie to sign something which firmly places him as the junior partner in a two-way alliance, and he can do very little so long as he is bound by that writ. This also puts a lot more emphasis on early diplomacy. Once the pseudo-permanent treaties are signed, most nations are bound to a very specific set of alliances.

I personally like this type of play a lot more. I technically stabbed no one (I had no deal with Spain, and the assignment of a leader to F Bor pretty much told me which way this was going to go. The Ottomans and I both knew war would break out between us, and I wasn't too keen on preventing it through negotiations. I told Denmark i would take Holland off its hands. Austria gave me Bavaria (I refused more Austrian territory, chosing instead to try to keep Austria alive.) I refused to renew my treaty with England, leading clearly to our war.) A dip game that one can come out on top of without lying is pretty nice. (I don't know how much lying Snowfire did, if any). Diplomacy becomes so much more important for this reason. I mean, by the end of the first year, Austria and I were almost irrevocably allied. England and Denmark both had peace treaties with me. I promised both that I would not ally with the other as soon as the respective treaties took effect, but both treaties were secretly signed the same year (Language at its finest.) And so poor Spain had very little chance. France's other neighbors could not intervene, and Spain was very quickly gutted, also due to my ability to get the Ottomans to take out his Italian possessions. Then, my refusal to consent to a French-Ottoman marriage doomed the Ottomans, since again, they were the only border across which I could attack. Even if I wanted to, I was forced to fight them or not grow for years.

10 players, as good as that could be in terms of halting cross-gaming that Apolyton is prone to is nice, but due to the size of the number 10, you ensure that we have to tap all players that tend to cross game for this one, since they also tend to be our most reliable players. 7 is a much nicer, and I think the Heptarchy map takes out the historical advantage that 1600 offers over standard, but if 1600 is chosen, I vote for the verion 2.54 map

[LordStone1]

I won't GM a game with 10 players - it's as simple as that. Saxony was a 9-player game and often, adjudication would take ONE HOUR (particulary with the birth rolls). GMing a Royale game is a lot of hard work with lots of math and thinking. I'm more busy now than I was before, and a 7-player game would be great.

The rules for Royale are: http://www.geocities.com/defiant003/Dominations38.gif

For Saxony, we used the Wasa rules except for the unlimited clergy rule, and none of the Heir rules except for the plague rules.

These are the additional rules/clarifications I made for Saxony: http://www.geocities.com/lordstone1/saxony/rules.htm

This is the Saxony website: http://www.geocities.com/lordstone1/saxony/

Take a good look at the "Results" page, the "Dynasty" page, the "Writs" page which is in the Dynasty page, and the maps too. Looks pretty complex already, right? My main "Saxony.doc" with all the info the players sent me, is 190 kb!

[Gerwald]

I am very interested in playing. I must confess that Victor's comments are perplexing. Who are these cross gamers he so casually rags upon? If the game is supposed to be heavy on diplomacy; then maybe more players in the club should be encouraged to play. If anything this might improve their diplomacy talents. I have never NMR'd nor do I cross game. Plus, I believe I have mastered the art of the English language so as to not be "taken advantage of" by you word smiths. By Victor's requirements, I look like a perfect fit for this game. I think learning a more complex game that rewards diplomacy and possibly eliminates needless stabbing is a refreshing change. Good sirs, count me as either one of the seven or of the nine!

[Gerwald]

BTW, Lordstone. Your link for the rules is Defiant's Domination Map.