Subject: Re: MN: Re: Tokens

From: riffraff@n...
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:57:35 -0500

>Rushton is at Charing Cross.
>
>Rushton: [Blocking Waterloo] Charing Cross (NT) [Wild Green Park]
>Rushton: [Blocking Waterloo] Pass (Charing Cross (NT)) [Wild Green
>Park]
>Rushton: Pass
>
>Just notation really.

True, but 'Pass' makes it easier to see at a glance that the Player hasn't
gone anywhere. It's also arguable that a Move of 0 isn't a Move at all.
Plus, it prevents confusion over whether or not you get token bonuses for a
0-length Move. You simply can't make one; you have to Pass instead.

>> (I personally feel that [Blue Tokens]
>> should be somewhat more common than the Reds, in reverse of the
>> original rules where the Reds were more common. I guess I'm just not
>> very agressive. ;) )
>
>Depends on what Actions are available really.

Well, having more attack options doesn't necessarily imply that people
should be able to attack more often - just that, when they do, they have
more choices.

>> Green: Neutral or miscellaneous Actions.
>
>I think Greens could be replaced by Blacks and/or Blues. Say 4 blacks
>for an extra Action, Blues for the rest. Reduce the complexity a
>little.

I like the added complexity... not only does it make your own planning more
strategic (when to get Greens, and how many, and what Tokens to trade for
them), but it provides hints of what other Players might be planning,
allowing you to make plans based on that. If I see Kevan suddenly collect
7 or 8 Greens, I know he's probably up to something. Without those sort of
clues, pretty much anything someone does is going to be an utter surprise,
and instead of being a strategy game, it becomes "Gather Gold Tokens as
quickly as possible and hope no-one unexpectedly attacks you".

Plus, having the extra colour adds more... well, colour. Just having
Black, Blue, and Red is dull. At least we don't have to deal with Whites
and Yellows and Oranges and Puces and Chartreuses like in regular MC. :)

>> Silver: For extra-powerful Actions, and to cash in for Gold. I
>> think these should _only_ be available through saving up Bronzes,
>
>I don't think we need these as well as Golds and bronzes. If they're
>just bigger denominations of Bronzes then I can't see the point. It
>doesn't matter if someone has 2000 bronzes it's just a number. I
>suppose this might be different for RL where a stack of 30 bronze
>might be bulky, but then we could just have a 10Br token.

This is similar to Greens. "Uh-oh," I think, "Snow's stashing up a lot of
Bronzes. I'll try and head him off at Bank before he can cash them in for
Silvers and do something terrifying to me." Plus, like Greens, it makes
Actions that require them slightly more difficult, since you have to get to
a specific Station to acquire them. Adds an interesting extra dimension to
it.

Plus it adds a sort of aesthetic balance to the thing. Can't just go from
Bronze to Gold with nothing in-between...

>> The table's open-ended, since a Player could theoretically stash up
>> a load of Black Tokens and make a truly massive Move, unless we want to
>>>> put a limit on Stations moved in a turn.
>
>We could say you can't pass through or land on a Station already
>passed through. Or cap the number of blacks a Player can hold (say
>10).

The first sounds a bit counter-intuitive, and would probably become
annoying in practice. Probably we'll have to put a cap on Blacks, but
let's wait for play-testing to decide how much. (I was thinking around
15-20, myself.)

Anyone else have comments on my Token Thoughts?

>--Annatov Snow
>Minus two wisdom teeth and some blood.

Owch. I hope you at least got some fun painkillers out of it. They gave
me Percocet for my foot, it was pretty nice.

cheers,
--Riff

p.s. Does anyone have the URL for the Tube Map where the Lines are laid out
geographically accurately, rather than on a grid? I can't remember if it
was here that I saw it or somewhere else...

"This calls for a subtle blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"

---

From: "Kevan " <kevan@s...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:36:08 -0000

> was here that I saw it or somewhere else...

It's still in the "pages that have amused me lately" bit of my Web 
page, actually, three or four months on. Tsk.

http://www.xara.com/gallery/usergallery/maps/tubemap.html

Kevan

--
kevan@s...
http://www.stormloader.com/kevan
"Her train of thought is underground;
the map is yours, but God knows what you'll make of it."

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:56:09 +0100

RiffRaff wrote:
> gone anywhere.

OK.

> >I think Greens could be replaced by Blacks and/or Blues
>
> strategic.

OK, let's leave them in for now and see how they perform.

> This is similar to Greens.

No, I really do have a reason here. Assuming something similar to the
current ruleset; it is just as easy to do Bronze->Silver as
Bronze->Silver->Gold in the same Turn. And since one can do
Gold->Silver without being at Bank Silvers are redundant.

As an example, if a player has enough Bronze to make a Gold then e
isn't going to make 4 Silvers even if Silvers are what e needs. If eir
plans change later e will have a Gold e can use. If eir plan doesn't
change e can create the Silver anyway.

On the otherhand if we used Bank for Bronze->Silver and some other
station (Bond Street say) for Silver->Gold and maybe require
down-exchanging at Bank as well then maybe we should keep Silvers.

> Bronze to Gold with nothing in-between...

Rename Bronze to Silver.

-------------------------

OK, I'm brain-storming. Here is a different approach to Tokens. Rather
than have Action costs measured in x reds for an aggressive move have
1 red+ cost in Bronze/Silver/Gold. That is remove the emphasis from
having enough plastics to do something towards having one to do it
plus enough "money" Tokens.

Or to put it another way. Having a plastic gives you a right to do an
Action, but the cost is made up in "money" Tokens.

Shunting 1red.
Blocking 1red+1bronze.
Bulkheading 1red +4bronze.
Bridges Up 1blue+2bronze.

I don't actually think this is a good idea. I'm just hoping a
brainstorming session will throw up something good.

> me Percocet for my foot, it was pretty nice.

I didn't need painkillers because it didn't hurt. What did you do to
your foot incidentally?

-- Annatov Snow
What is apparent is that I don't understand. What is less apparent is
what I don't understand.