Another game of Royale, folks?

[LordStone1]

So..what do you think?

[Gibsie]

I could be up for a game of Royale, if you're still looking for players. I've never reaaly plyed a game with more than the regular rules, but I expect I could follow...

[LordStone1]

Actually, 1600 has 9 players. Modern has 10.

[Victor Galis]

In that case, the 1600 map would be better. Same number of players, and more historic.

[LordStone1]

Modern Map: http://devel.diplom.org/Online/maps/modern.gif

One prob is that this has 10 players, and will result in a longer game. (Remember, Royale is three times slower than a regular game). And the map itself doesn't lend itself well to additions of build sites and archbishoprics.

[Victor Galis]

That'd be interesting. Perhaps you could post a link to a modern map (yes, I know, but I'm doing some serious downloading and it's hard for me to do a search through dip resources... if only I had high-speed access.)

[LordStone1]

Oops. Once again, here's the Royale rules. http://w1.132.telia.com/~u13206915/ROYRULES.htm

As for playing on the Heptarchy map, I have indeed GM'ed a game with that map before (Dip9) after taking over from Stewart Spink. http://web.libertysurf.se/baches/heptarch.htm I used the Heptarchy III Map, and to be honest I think Heptarchy IV is an improvement because all the powers are made more equal.

Yes, I'll admit, Heptarchy isn't that great for the diplomacy aspect -- Scotland will rarely ever need to talk to Mercuria or Anglia until the very end of the game. Moreover, this is a game where everyone's pretty much Anglo-Saxon, and for me, if it was used for Royale it'd lose much of its international dynastic flavor.

If we used the Standard Map, each dynasty could really adopt a distinctive national character with use of names and titles (just compare the Albayraks to the Ahponovs). For me, that makes the game more exciting. And with 7 players, I think it'd force everyone to talk to each other cuz everyone's in each other's way. With the 1600 map, people could ignore the Castilles or the Vasas and just walk over them.

But one thing I'm concerned about the Standard Map is that it actually has too few provinces. What do you think? How do you feel about a game on the Modern map? It's been used a lot...

Well, I was afraid that LordStone was going to take that position. Ultimately it's his time being spent, and it's difficult to criticize him for that. Although I have to chuckle at the "ONE HOUR" comment. I know all too well how long it takes to adjudicate some of these variant maps with 10-13 players. I wish it only took an hour to do these things.

Can we have a look at the oft-mentioned Heptarcy map?

This is just a recommendation, but I think LS should consider soliciting interest in the game and then selecting the players that he feels most comfrtable with. As has been mentioned this is a very complicated variant, and requires a lot of committment and effort. Even though I have not played Royale before, I folowed Saxony the game. And I would be willing to stand aside or act as an advisor/mentor to a less experienced player. Or if invited to play, I would accept a protoge player that could watch and assist me. This way if someone who's genuinely interested is left out, we might be able to accomodate them. I'm a little overwhelmed with things right now as it is. A start up in late may would work better for me too.

Gerwald, in Victor's defense I raised the crossgaming issue, not him. It's not that big a deal. Royale's treaties will in effect create some mandatory alliances. And as previously mentioned, the wording of the alliance treaties will add some interesting twists.

[Stefu]

I still favor the normal Dip map. It is seven-player map, and unlike Heptarchy, the nations are quite near each other, leading to game getting diplomatical right from beginning. Plus, I've wanted to have a game of Royale with normal map for some time now.

[SnowFire]

Indeed, I would be in favor of Saxony again, simply because it's a more historical map and for color. Heptarchy would certainly work though, the only thing is that some nations on the Heptarchy map have rather few neighbors while pretty much everybody on the Saxony map has at the very least 3, leading for lots of fun diplomacy.

The one warning I will give is that Victor is correct about the early alliances bit. I pretty well offered Stefu whatever terms he wanted for Russia to keep off my back, and I was reasonably nice to Mao as Denmark too, which insured I would only have a one-front war, something psychotically important to Saxony since you can almost insure it.

As for the lying bit, well, you can lie, but it's only really believable early on or for very barren households. Any compotent player will ask for a marriage to cement your promises, so really your only excuse is "I don't have anybody available right now."

I would be interested in playing, but fevrenetly hope that we won't have this start until the middle of May when I get out of college and have more time for Dip.

[Victor Galis]

I was more particularly reffering to Midshipman's request to play. No offense intended, but Royale just isn't for newbies. I also suggest the collection of all the Saxony rules into one set, for easier refference, and so that we can have a named sub-variant that originated at Apolyton

[Gerwald]

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

[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!

[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!

[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