Results of the previous game:

The King (France) and his Knights (Turkey and Italy) were successful in defeating the Rebels (Russia, England, Austria) and the Traitor (Germany).

Changes for the next game:
1. Traitors will know the roles of all players.
2. 1 King, 3 Knights, 4 Rebels, 2 Traitors (competing interests of course)
3. Possible more

I would love to play

1. Chaqa
2. KingCyrus (placeholder)
3. WarLegend (placeholder)
4. Vecna (placeholder)
5. reedeer1
6. y2k (placeholder)
7. Jamiet (placeholder)
8.
9.
10.

We had another one of these running at the same time: gameID=175553

The King (England) and his Knights (Russia and France) were not successful in defeating all the Rebels (Germany and Italy were defeated, Austria survived) and the Traitor (Turkey) failed to solo.

Se...everyone lost.

We too had some issues of balance.

Any thoughts for balancing?

Considering some sort of rule about requiring a declaration of war before attacking.

I think the luck of the role draw caused our game to be a little one-sided with England as King and France and Russia as Knights. That's a stacked setup to begin with since only Germany could even think about attacking the King, but the three of them just crushed him.

What do you think about a rule that the King must be one of Italy, Austria or Germany? That way it is highly likely for there to be someone allied with the King and someone opposed to him on his border.

Maybe.

The thing is, lets say the worst case for the king, he is surrounded by Rebels. First off, the Rebels will have to realize and trust that all everyone around them is indeed a Rebel and not lying. Then, they will have to go ASAP against the king. However, them doing this confirms them as rebels, and lets the knights not worry about guessing games and Immediately attack the rebels. It becomes a race against the rebels eliminating the king before the knights can come help, and at that point its just 50/50.

For every time that people wait, the more the knights/king benefit.

With all that said, I am OK with trying again, though I am not familiar with the Modern format or strategy, i'm sure i'll figure it out!

1. Chaqa
2. KingCyrus (placeholder)
3. WarLegend (placeholder)
4. Vecna (placeholder)
5. reedeer1
6. y2k (placeholder)
7. Jamiet (placeholder)
8.HoM
9.
10


I was on the other (OB's) board, and team knights definitely won, we just got bored and decided to would take too long to defeat everybody. However, it was a lot of fun, and I'm excited for the next one.

Hall of Mandos, I think you need to read the win conditions.

1. Chaqa
2. KingCyrus (placeholder)
3. WarLegend (placeholder)
4. Vecna (placeholder)
5. reedeer1
6. y2k (placeholder)
7. Jamiet (placeholder)
8.HoM
9. OB
10

I would also say that King/Knights won that other game, OB...

What are the rules?

I've been thinking about it a little, and I think the rebels need to know who each other are. Otherwise I don't see how they can ever be expected to win. Second, I think the traitor role is impossible, the chances he wins in any scenario seem negligible at absolute best... Maybe if you don't allow the rebels to know each other, get rid of traitor and make extra rebel?

How did the King/Knights win that game WarLegend? If that's the case then I decree that I've won every game of Dip I've ever played, because it seems we can redefine winning as we see fit.

Your decree that other games should be reconsidered because this game falls short because this was a special game with a specific rule set :)

If you wanted to keep playing, you shouldn't have drawn. As it was you conceded because you didn't want to play on, as losing (/knights winning) was inevitable at that point.

I'd like to play, where are the rules?

2 Rebels defeated and the third contained with the traitor? I think that qualifies as a King/Knight victory, even if not a total one.

Could someone please explain the rules? This sounds like a really fun idea i would like to play with my friends.

The game is split into three groups:
The King, whose identity is public
His Knights, who only know who the King is
The Rebels, who only know who the King is
And Traitors

The Knights want to protect the King and kill the Rebels/Traitors. The Rebels want to overthrow the King and root out the Traitor. The Traitor wants to take over everything.

3 knights, 3 rebels, 1 king, 1 traitor (traitor acts as knight, until he deems the time ripe, and switches to rebels) only know your role, but everybody knows who the king is. Object: rebels try to kill king, knights and king try to kill rebels/traitor. simple enough?

If the king survived at the end when everyone drew, then the rebels couldn't win, and nether could the traitor unless they soloed, but in the rules it also said that the knights and the kin had to eliminate the traitor to win, so nether pf the games, did anyone win...

At some point, it becomes not necessary to play the game to the end result, as the result of the game is inevitable. For a similar reason, the game ends in diplomacy when a nation gets 18 centers, they don't make you play through to get the other 16

1 more!!!!!

also, what are the rebel/knight numbers on the modern variant?

The predefined rule is 18 SC = win. It's not a rule that 34 SC = win, and everyone just stops at 18 by convention. The predefined win conditions of the game were clearly stated and were not achieved by any side in the game I was in. An analogous end in a standard Dip game would be a draw. Even if a player is in a position to solo, if that player chooses to draw, he's not assumed to have soloed. Close to winning does not equate to winning. If the King/Knight team wanted to win, they should not have drawn. They did not eliminate all rebels and the traitor.

This is what Chaqa posted up there:
Changes for the next game:
1. Traitors will know the roles of all players.
2. 1 King, 3 Knights, 4 Rebels, 2 Traitors (competing interests of course)
3. Possible more

I honestly think it might be better to have 5 rebels and 1 traitor if we're not going to go through a huge retool of the rules. The chance of the traitors winning is already so unlikely, it would suck to be one of the two traitors :P

@OB, sorry somehow your message seemed to be posted a split second before mine and I didn't see it.

If it is important to you that you did not technically "lose" then thats fine, I am not one to take it away from you. However, as this game is literally worth nothing, not even fake rankings, its kind of useless to come in and assert that you did not lose. It is akin to friends playing basketball, with your team down by 50 (but the score limit wasn't reached), and everyone else collectively deciding to stop the game and go home, but one of the players then going around and saying that nobody won :P

1. Chaqa
2. KingCyrus (placeholder)
3. WarLegend (placeholder)
4. Vecna (placeholder)
5. reedeer1
6. y2k (placeholder)
7. Jamiet (placeholder)
8.HoM
9. OB
10. patburu

Sounds like fun

We did two traitors once before and they played off each other pretty interestingly.

@Warlegend: "If it is important to you that you did not technically "lose" then thats fine...its kind of useless to come in and assert that you did not lose"

Where am I asserting that I did not lose? Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. Go back and read my first post: "..everyone lost." I am included in "everyone". Ergo, I admitted, in my first post, that I lost. Technically, objectively, subjectively, without hesitance, and any other way you want to argue it. No where further in my posts did I assert or even argue that I did not lose.

You're clearly just arguing technicalities here, maybe its your comprehension skills that need work? AND you ignored my beautiful analogy at the end of my post!

I'm just saying, you came in here trying to assert that everybody lost in order to...? something? assuage your ego? I don't know, but its disingenuous to argue that EVERYBODY lost, go look at the board. Only one rebel and the traitor remain, while the King has over half the board.
I understand that they didn't TECHNICALLY win, but if you don't call that a victory for the king, then it just seems like you're being petty.

Anyway, I do agree with you on one thing, the win conditions suck. There is no reason to have the King need to kill all rebels and traitors, and there is no need for the Rebels to kill the traitors, etc. These are just tedious win conditions that serve no purpose, it will take an extremely long time for them to come to fruition, long after the game is actually decided. I think they need to be changed before the next game

I was in the other game. I was the traitor. We were close to a stalemate line, with myself and the remaining Rebel allied to prevent the King/Knights from reaching their win condition. The King/Knights *very definitely* had the upper hand in strength and position, but none of us reached the special win conditions we all agreed on for a given team to win. Ultimately, because we were playing with special rules, even arriving at 30 centers wouldn't be a "win" unless the right players were eliminated.

Then one of two things happened: either a) we got bored and quit, or b) the game arrived at a stalemate in which it was mathematically impossible for any team to win. If I stabbed the rebel and took his centers, the king would win because the rebels were dead. If the rebel stabbed me, the king would win because all the rebels died. If I supported the rebel indefinitely, no one would win because the King/Knights couldn't break the stalemate line (I think). Thus: we drew, and want to try again.



I like the idea of the king being forced to be an interior power. That forces more active gameplay, even if the king gets surrounded by rebels. To avoid the king being beset and killed by random placement of rebels, try adding this role to the team of knights: Prince. The prince is second in line to the king. Should the king die, the prince's identity is officially revealed (it was hidden from all beforehand), and he takes command of team Kingdom. The rebels have to kill both king and prince. Adjust the balance of players to team Kingdom and team rebels accordingly. ....thoughts on this?

Public press would make this game hilarious. Much more so than private press, imo.

Also, I don't have time to play the try on the modern diplomacy map, but I'd love to spectate.

@WarLegend "Anyway, I do agree with you on one thing, the win conditions suck"

I never said that.

Tongue in cheek, yet true none the less

I would combine Prince and Traitor: if the rebels die while the King is alive, the King/Knights win. If the King dies before the rebels die, the Prince takes his place and wins with the knights if they defeat the rebels.
The Prince can't win unless the King dies, giving him his traitor-role. He still needs the knights strong enough to defeat the rebels though..

This should create a much more interesting dynamic, IMO.

Revised win condition:
The King/Knights win if the King survives
The Rebels win if the King dies
The Traitor wins if he wins the game

@steephie, love that idea!
Much better win conditions too, chaqa, thanks. However that doesn't leave an opening for traitor and rebel victory together. I would add to the rebel won condition that the traitor doesn't solo.
That way, if the traitor solos he always wins. Him killing the king shouldn't cause him to lose

I don't like the idea of the traitor knowing the identities of everyone. I think it is important that nobody knows anyone else's identity (except the king). The prince idea might work, but I would still hold to the original rules.

@halls
I also like the idea of the original game, however in practice it has shown that it is very broken. There's almost no point playing the original rules, because as it stands now it is not a fair game to all parties, and nobody wants that

@Halls: the traitor identity idea is something we did in previous King is Dead games on vDip, but I didn't think we needed for sure. It's very useful for the traitor.

@steephie - a traitorous prince! I like it.

I do think that running a game like this on vDip could have some benefits, in that the 18-point win condition can be adjusted.

@WarLegend - tbf, I feel like getting Italy in the standard game isn't fair either, because it's a lot harder than France or Russia.

@teacon
Well, that's definetly a matter of opinion. But I would argue that the "amount" of difficulty isn't really comparable. I have seen many people play Italy well, I can't see anyone playing well enough to pull out a win as traitor