Challenge IV, Category C explained. RULES THREAD

[SkaForHire]

A few questions for clarification:

1) The build that wins, guerilla or counter, gets 6 points? Or is the 6 points only for a succesful guerilla build, while the counter side is "only" awarded as below for winning?

2) If the counter wins, everyone on the counter-guerilla team will get 1 point, or just the ones that put up a counter? (I am a bit concerned that too many points for the opponents would deter people from doing guerilla builds.)

Seconded.

Only the Guerrilla can win the 6 points, see below about new proposed points for a winning counter. See below about everyone getting a point, aka us not doing that.

What?! We're changing the guerrilla rules? I liked them how they were!

Okay, first of all, why would everyone on the response team get one point if the response wins? I take it we're talking personal points here. I really don't see why everyone should get a point; they haven't put effort in to it! If you ask me just the winning build should get a point, and I'd make it two or three points.

Second, I think five approvals for responses is a bit high. It makes it hard to get them but I don't think it really will have any effect on the quality standard. Three approvals is plenty if you ask me.

I don't quite see why under this point system guerrilla suddenly became a bit gamble. If you ask me, it just became a few points more worthwhile 'cause now if you win, you get 6 instead of 4, was it? - though to be sure the default went from 5 to 3, so I guess it evens out.

Here's a concern I do have, although it probably won't happen, but just in case - I don't think a team or combination of teams should be allowed to guerrilla another team up to more than half the second team's members. That's not a problem when it comes to DK or HC, but just say those two put their heads together and decided to blow us out of the water, five of each team could create guerrillas which would be ten against us. If every single builder on our team were to respond that would still leave one automatic win! And there's almost no way every team member it going to be able to respond. I'd say the most guerrillas any combination of team can do against us in a week should be five (half the number of people on our team). Like I said, that's probably not going to happen, but while we're addressing various concerns...

As currently stands, 1) only the guerrilla gets six points, 2) everyone on the counter team gets one (which doesn't make much sense to me from anyone's point of view except those who just sit on the sideline and get a free point every now and then! ).

Edit: While we're at it, I may as well say that a quickly hashed, poorly executed guerrilla will get it's own punishment in an easy win by the defenders - if it even makes it through the approval process! As for personal points, since they're only a factor in deciding the winner of Challenge C, surely the judges will make some allowance should a pathetic guerrilla get by!

OK, I agree, the part about the winning side getting a point each was an afterthought... however, I was not planning on setting up a voting thread with all MOCs, it was going to be a simple Which side won? question. All of the counters versus the original guerrilla challenger. However, this could be fixed by having that question, then a list of counters where everyone could vote for their favorite, and that winner would get 2 or 3 points. That is probably the best fix here.

I was thinking about the overwhelming attacks today before reading this. I think a limit of four teammates can make an guerrilla attack on any one zone, while counters are still unlimited.

As for approvals, most builds are getting around 5 already... I just wanted to make sure someone couldn't sneak in a bad build every week just to score 4 points. Maybe if we lowered it to 4 approvals?

.

So, if a Guerrilla Attack is countered, everyone on the countering team gets 1 point? So, as a whole, that team would pick up 10-15 points?

If that's how it works, that's dumb. Why should an Attack get only 6 points, when a Counter can get more than twice that amount?

I think the rules should be left as they were. Gueilla Attacks are one of the draws of this challenge, so the rules shouldn't be made to discourage players and limit participation.

points are personal, not team based, although we will definitely take the total a team has into account.

I think it would probably be far simpler if only one team was allowed to guerrilla against a particular square in a week - after all, there are plenty of squares to choose from! So once one team has guerrilla'd a square it is off limits for a guerrilla from the other team until the voting (guerrilla vs counter) is over. It seems like this would be a much easier method yet it wouldn't seriously affect the other team. They would have the options to either hold off or to guerrilla a different square instead

For rules that makes sense, for story it doesn't. This was my first thought on it though, so we are in agreement that it would probably work. This would also force people to reveal their Guerrilla attack earlier to claim a spot.

[Kai NRG]

As for approvals, most builds are getting around 5 already... I just wanted to make sure someone couldn't sneak in a bad build every week just to score 4 points. Maybe if we lowered it to 4 approvals?

I only seem to have gotten two (on my guerrilla). Thus my concern.

Okay, so let's see if I got this right... if two people counter one guerrilla the final decision as to who gets the square will be those two builds vs. one? I assumed it would be the team of whoever's build was best of the three - thus one-on-one.

Also, did I get it right that a team can build more guerrillas for a square than that square is worth points?

[Adair]

One question: are we allowed to have a flash-back for a Guerilla build, that is have another build that is the main build, and have another build as a flash-back so that the first build fits in the category? That would allow me to make many of my story-advancing builds into Guerrilla actions.

[SkaForHire]

I only seem to have gotten two (on my guerrilla). Thus my concern.

Okay, so let's see if I got this right... if two people counter one guerrilla the final decision as to who gets the square will be those two builds vs. one? I assumed it would be the team of whoever's build was best of the three - thus one-on-one.

Also, did I get it right that a team can build more guerrillas for a square than that square is worth points?

Your's from last week to not count towards the new rules, you are grandfathered in. I think I said that.

Correct, it would be the whole team of counterers versus the one guerrilla. The question is asked, which side won? The guerrilla should be the strongest contender in order to win. We are not asking , which side had more effort, just which side had the best build. Yes, Guerrillas can build up to four builds (I am instituting that rule now) That came out of your last question, which makes me wonder did you actually ask something else, and I didn't understand it... 4 guerrillas MAXIMUM, means that the defending side would still need four counters in order to bring the challenge to a vote. If they could not get four counters, the guerrillas would win an uncontested zone.

One question: are we allowed to have a flash-back for a Guerilla build, that is have another build that is the main build, and have another build as a flash-back so that the first build fits in the category? That would allow me to make many of my story-advancing builds into Guerrilla actions.

I think... if I am reading this correctly, you are asking if you could have two separate MOCs (not just repositioning of figs and items on a MOC, in that case, it would not be allowed. It needs to be one MOC per counter.

[Kai NRG]

Your's from last week to not count towards the new rules, you are grandfathered in. I think I said that. ...

Oh, yes, I understood that. I was just worried that if I only got two this time, who knows how many I'll get next time...

Alright, I think I got it, but just in case, say it all over again...

Seriously though, is the question - Which team had the better MOC? or, Which is better, all four counters taken together or the original (up to four) guerrillas? That of course puts a real challenge on doing just one guerrilla per square, even if the square is just worth one point. On the other hand, it makes guerrilla very much like warzone, only picked by whoever and with a one week deadline.

To clarify my question by giving an example:

Guerrilla build A

Guerrilla build B

Counter A

Counter B

Counter C

Counter D

Good citizens of Historica! We call upon you to decide which team deserves this highly contested square! Vote your decision below!

Now, does the voter do this:

Well, counters C&D are lousy so we'll just cross them out. On their own, neither come even close to beating either Guerrilla. Counter A is better than Guerrilla B. But on the other hand Guerrilla A is way better than Counter B, and than A, C, and D too. So, I say the guerrillas won. Why? Because Guerrilla A is better than any one of the Counters (including the best one, A) and Guerrilla B looses to Counter A only by a slim margin.

Or, do the voter's thoughts look like this:

Well, both Guerrillas are pretty good, but of course two builds can't hold a candle to the effort shown by all the four counters combined, so the counters win. Or, I suppose it could be, Wow, those two guerrillas are really good! Even better than all four counters put together! So they win.

[Bregir]

The counters will be linked to a specific guerrilla build, as it has to mirror and undo the effects of the guerilla build. So - is guerilla action A sufficiently countered by the linked counter guerillas? If not, it will win. And similarly with B.

I think that clarifies it a little - however, I think the quality of the build(s) should be the basis for voting - did the counter guerillas undo the effects of the original? (With quality and imagination)

That will be how I vote :)

[gedren_y]

The counters will be linked to a specific guerrilla build, as it has to mirror and undo the effects of the guerilla build. So - is guerilla action A sufficiently countered by the linked counter guerillas? If not, it will win. And similarly with B.

I think that clarifies it a little - however, I think the quality of the build(s) should be the basis for voting - did the counter guerillas undo the effects of the original? (With quality and imagination)

That will be how I vote :)

This is all we should be concerned with. Ska will handle the scoring fairly.

[Jacob Nion]

It would be far easier if every guerilla could only be countered by one defending player.

For example: player1 and 2 make guerilla mocs on one square. So the defending faction decides wich two players of their team shall counter. So they can choose the ones with the best opportunities to win.

That means that there are two equal teams of two players and the decision is all open.

I'm not sure if 1 on 1 battles in this Situation would be wise. On the one hand that could mean that the defenders could lose even if one of their counters was the best of the whole conflict because they have to win both battles. On the other hand it would be the easiest thing for voting and it's up to the factions to choose qualified defenders. And every team has plenty of good builders.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Jacob Nion

[Maxim I]

I am not going to talk about the point system (I lost track of that), but isn't it game-wise more fair if there are an equal number of approved counterbuilds as there are approved guerillabuilds for a chosen square, the defending team always wins?

If team A makes 4 guerilla's for Square E7 (for example) and team B makes 4 counters for that same Square, the situation stays as it was (so E7 stays Team B-terrain).

I mean, team B countered every guerilla attempt so it is logic if they win.

The reason I ask this is simply.

1. You only got one week for a counterbuild (while you got up to 3 months time to prepare/make the best guerilla builds ever)
   
2. You already need to make up to 4 counterbuilds as a team
   
3. The moment a MoC-expert makes a marvelous guerilla MoC, nobody of the defending team is going to be pumped to make a counterbuild.
   

We already have the Warzones where the best MOC'er will win and... I see the guerilla's more as a nice extra to tease the enemy.

[Bregir]

@Gedren_y

I wholeheartedly agree here.

@Maxim & Jacob

I will still enjoy doing counterbuilds, even when it is against one of the "elite"

You still get points, and it is part of the story, so I think you need'ent worry.

Further, I don't see the problem with multiple counterbuilds. If you guerilla build is of high quality and with a cool idea/story, it will be hard to counter, even though many try to do so. Further - we are not THAT many "players" so I really do not think it will be a problem. It is not the amount of counterbuilds that matters, it is, as I wrote above, whether the quality and the idea is good enough to counter the effect of the guerilla build.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Bregir

[Maxim I]

@Maxim & Jacob

I will still enjoy doing counterbuilds, even when it is against one of the "elite"

You still get points, and it is part of the story, so I think you need'ent worry.

Further, I don't see the problem with multiple counterbuilds. If you guerilla build is of high quality and with a cool idea/story, it will be hard to counter, even though many try to do so. Further - we are not THAT many "players" so I really do not think it will be a problem. It is not the amount of counterbuilds that matters, it is, as I wrote above, whether the quality and the idea is good enough to counter the effect of the guerilla build.

Like I said, I am not talking about the points. It is fair that someone who put a lot of work in their build gets more points than someone who puts some bricks together.

I am more defending the counter builds. It is the amount AND quality that matters. If there are 4 guerilla's for a city (with 2 excellent MOC's and 2 mediocre for example), it is very hard for the Counter to win. They need at least 3 excellent MOC's and a 4th good one to win, all 4 of them made within 1 week...

For example (current situation):

The puny Ulandians make 4 MOC's attacking a random High Council city in Kaliphlin. They make 3 excellent entries and a 4th nice entry. They prepared this combined attack 1 month ago.

It is Sunday and Ska decides the city is Stedor. the High Council has now 6 or 7 days time to co-ordinate, to MOC, to photograph and to present better MOC's countering the Guerilla. As you said, we are not with that many players, so the High Council will have to be lucky 4 players can make a counter MoC and the High Council will be blessed when those 4 players manage to create something really nice within a week.

It is Sunday again, voting starts. Turns out a player made such an awesome MoC for Ulandus that everyone votes Ulandians win this guerilla-battle and Stedor is now an Ulandian city...

Sorry, but I would be pissed that I lose my city because I had no time that week for a decent counter-MoC.

edit: how I would like to see it:

puny Ulandians blablablabla 4 guerilla-Moc's

the brave High Council members manages to make 4 counter MoC's so every guerilla MoC has been countered.

The Ulandian MoC's are more beautifull so they get the points (also interesting for determining after 3 months who won), but as the High Council managed to counter the guerilla builds, Stedor stays a High Council City...

Edited March 11, 2015 by Maxim I

[Sir Gareth]

I think the Guerrilla MOCs should have a size limit because not everyone has a huge collection and if they need to order pieces, they likely won't arrive in time.

[Jacob Nion]

I think the Guerrilla MOCs should have a size limit because not everyone has a huge collection and if they need to order pieces, they likely won't arrive in time.

And that would make it easier to counter within a week, and nobody could build a super duper giant build over a whole month like maxim said.

I think the biggest problem is voting. The fairest system would be an independent jury which gives points from 1 to 10 for example. When there are two guerillas there have to be two counters (the same number). Each build will be judged and the team with the highest total of points wins. Of course these points have nothing to do with the personal points.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Jacob Nion

[Kai NRG]

...We already have the Warzones where the best MOC'er will win and... I see the guerilla's more as a nice extra to tease the enemy.

Just to clarify, a MOC can win the warzone and that MOC's team can still lose. Eg. Disco's aqueduct is superb and probably not going to be beat. But the High council could have five good entries against the Desert King's one, so they would obviously win the square big time. Disco, however would get the personal points. Basically, there will be two votes going on with the warzone - one for best MOC, the other for best team.

As for a potentially huge, impossible-to-respond-to-in-a-week guerrilla, I think those should be handled on a case by case basis. When Ska compiles the guerrillas for the week, if there's one really huge one, he can say, okay respondents, you have two weeks for this one! And frankly, I don't think you'll have too much trouble with this. If it's really a problem, we could say you can't post a MOC as guerrilla if it took you more than a week to build - on the honor system of course.

...Sorry, but I would be pissed that I lose my city because I had no time that week for a decent counter-MoC...

And next week the High Council blows us all out of the water with a guerrilla back in Steador!

Okay, I know that might not be feasible anyways if we took the wise precaution of rooting the HC out of the neighboring squares first.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Kai NRG

[Bregir]

I understand your worry, Maxim. But on the other hand, since Stedor is a 2 point zone, I assume it would require 2 (out of four) guerilla attacks to beat the counter attacks in order for control to be shifted.

And we, the mighty High Council, would of course do our utmost to beat it back with EPIC counterbuilds, since it is such a strategic point.

You may at least count on my humble support. *bows*

[SkaForHire]

Way too much to quote and respond to. I see Maxim's point, especially for Kaliphlinites who have a personal interest in certain squares. To this story-wise -- either after the challenge is over, a person could take back their city, or even during the challenge, maybe the city holds out, but the surrounding countryside is occupied. Maxim is more concerned with losing control of his own story, and I respect that. That is a really tough one when we make all of Kaliphlin a battlefield. A way to alleviate this would be to make VP areas off limits, but I am not sure people would go for this.

Limits on build sizes = I think a better way to do this would be, if someone presents a build over 32x32, then the judging standards become more like the warzones -- quality and quantity instead of just quality. I think there could also be special circumstances to extend the counter period. Furthermore, I wouldn't be opposed to applying a minimum 2 week counter time on any place worth victory points. And a three week minimum on Petraea no matter what.

Someone mentioned 1v1 guerrilla to counter ratio... That would work if we didn't have the personal points. But, since we give points for creating a counter MOC, and only allow one attempt at this a week. It is likely that a team might have three or four "go to" builders to counter MOCs each week. Meaning other members would have no chance to earn points. The 1 vrs best counter is probably the fairest way to allow everyone to particpate. The Judging criteria for normal counters would always be two step. Pick your favorite counter moc, then compare that moc to the guerrilla, who won?

I feel like I am missing something...

Just to clarify, a MOC can win the warzone and that MOC's team can still lose. Eg. Disco's aqueduct is superb and probably not going to be beat. But the High council could have five good entries against the Desert King's one, so they would obviously win the square big time. Disco, however would get the personal points. Basically, there will be two votes going on with the warzone - one for best MOC, the other for best team.

As for a potentially huge, impossible-to-respond-to-in-a-week guerrilla, I think those should be handled on a case by case basis. When Ska compiles the guerrillas for the week, if there's one really huge one, he can say, okay respondents, you have two weeks for this one! And frankly, I don't think you'll have too much trouble with this. If it's really a problem, we could say you can't post a MOC as guerrilla if it took you more than a week to build - on the honor system of course.

And next week the High Council blows us all out of the water with a guerrilla back in Steador!

Okay, I know that might not be feasible anyways if we took the wise precaution of rooting the HC out of the neighboring squares first.

Just a clarification - All sides have a 1st through 5th place in a warzone. So Disco could win 5 points, but so could Kai, or Gideon or whoever from the other two factions.

[Kai NRG]

The 1 vrs best counter is probably the fairest way to allow everyone to particpate. The Judging criteria for normal counters would always be two step. Pick your favorite counter moc, then compare that moc to the guerrilla, who won?

That exactly answered my question, thanks!

As for guerrillas potentially messing up a story, that's something I hadn't thought of before. I would say that shouldn't be too much of a problem because for story purposes who actually controls the square could be ignored. The square belongs to the winning team but they've got other things to think about and aren't worried about running rampage over the countryside, for example, or even setting up their own governing body - basically just a nominal change of masters that doesn't have to affect anything else - even secret supply trains setting out for High Council relief.

Now, I admit that it would be kind of annoying for three or four guerrillas to suddenly sweep in and grab my city without me being able to marshal enough support from my team to be able to respond. But it seems to me that that's just the fortune of a war like this. After all, DM should have could have sided with us Ulandians...

[MKJoshA]

What if we just say guerrilla builds can't be made against cities worth 2 or more points? There will still be plenty of squares to attack and minor cities that aren't worth extra points.

[Disco86]

Interesting discussion, I don't want to right as much right now, just wanted to say that we have to be careful not to overpower the guerilla builds. This game should be focused on the war zones. So I am open for any rules that make guerilla actions as hard as possible.

[Maxim I]

MKJoshA, it is an interesting suggestion to leave the 2point squares to Warzones :) translated in real life, one should already sabotage/assassinate a lot before a city will swap sides so it make sense all 2point-squares can only be swapped due winning wars

@Disco: Indeed, the guerillas are more an extra in this whole Civil War! Neverthless, attacking Everlast (even it is only 1 point) will not go unpunished!!

[robuko]

What is the situation if there is a guerrilla attack on a neutral square?

[Maxim I]

What is the situation if there is a guerrilla attack on a neutral square?

Ska made this in another Topic clear: guerilla is only against enemy squares :)

[robuko]

Thanks Maxim

[Gideon]

I agree that the current guerilla build system is overpowered and takes focus away from building for the warzones.

I think the idea that "high profile" zones can only be won through by first declaring them as a warzone and then winning that war is a great idea. That would make each side equal in terms of building time and would also first require that a foothold is gained next to the "high profile zone" before it can be attacked.

Btw, can a warzone be only between two sides or can all three sides always build in a warzone?

Feels a bit weird if there are requirements for where a warzone can be declared (adjacent territory) but that the third side could participate in the battle anyway, or am I missing something here.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Gideon

[Bregir]

I agree that the current guerilla build system is overpowered and takes focus away from building for the warzones.

I think the idea that "high profile" zones can only be won through by first declaring them as a warzone and then winning that war is a great idea. That would make each side equal in terms of building time and would also first require that a foothold is gained next to the "high profile zone" before it can be attacked.

Btw, can a warzone be only between two sides or can all three sides always build in a warzone?

Feels a bit weird if there are requirements for where a warzone can be declared (adjacent territory) but that the third side could participate in the battle anyway, or am I missing something here.

First point - I am divided on this issue. Higher point zones will also solicit more counter effort, so maybe the balance isn't too bad.

Second point - Yup, you are missing something

The rules state explicitly, that if a warzone is opened where only 2 sides can join, a third zone will be opened: "IF we get a situation where only two factions can reach a location (No no-man’s land to cross, or the third faction’s territory touching the warzone), then we may open up a “ flash war-zone”, where everyone can participate. This zone’s winner would not pick a new location."

/Bregir