Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
 |
| 21 Dec 2007 12:36 PM |
|
(3 player)
1st round:A,B,C
2nd:B,C,A
3rd:C,A,B
(4)
1st:A,B,C,D
2nd:C,D,B,A
3rd:B,A,D,C
4th:D,C,A,B
(5)
1st: ABCDE
2nd: DECBA
3rd: BACED
4th:EDCAB
(6)
1st:ABCDEF
2nd:EFDCBA
3rd:BACDFE
4th:FEDCAB
-----------------------
Summurry:
The letters are players and the order they go in. After this sequence, they restart the sequence. To anyone with poor memory(I'm not mocking anyone) start with the turn of the dice. then turn the order right around(Well you can't let anyone go twice in a row.) then let the second last person go first and the last go second.
|
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 21 Dec 2007 4:03 PM |
|
Interesting variation. But i am not sure if it is that easy to use. Probably easier in a computer game that takes care of it. But is it really necessary. The current turn order seems to be good enough and fair.
Your system is said to be fair too, but makes planning very difficult by the 6th round! |
|
|
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 21 Dec 2007 5:32 PM |
|
I get what you're going for, but I'm not sure that would be fair at all times.
For instance there is a sequence of 2 rounds that go: A, B, C - then B, C, A
Both "B' and "C" get to move twice before "A" gets his second round. Seems a quick alliance between "B" and "C" could put "A" in a predicament from which he may never recover. |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 21 Dec 2007 5:54 PM |
|
| This sounds pretty cool, seems like a fair and balanced way to play and changes up the turn order so the person going last doesn't have a huge disadvantage. I may have to give this one a try as well. Thanks. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 22 Dec 2007 12:29 PM |
|
Posted By Dan12 on 21 Dec 2007 4:03 PM
Interesting variation. But i am not sure if it is that easy to use. Probably easier in a computer game that takes care of it. But is it really necessary. The current turn order seems to be good enough and fair.
Your system is said to be fair too, but makes planning very difficult by the 6th round!
To dan: the rows are rounds and the brackets are no of players.
|
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 22 Dec 2007 12:33 PM |
|
Posted By UnH!nged on 21 Dec 2007 5:32 PM
I get what you're going for, but I'm not sure that would be fair at all times.
For instance there is a sequence of 2 rounds that go: A, B, C - then B, C, A
Both "B' and "C" get to move twice before "A" gets his second round. Seems a quick alliance between "B" and "C" could put "A" in a predicament from which he may never recover.
To Unhinged:But if C and A have an alliance it'll put B in a predicament...still alliances that stick will probably win.
|
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 22 Dec 2007 6:56 PM |
|
Territory Grab: This turn order.
Elimination: This turn order but skipping dead person. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 23 Dec 2007 5:25 AM |
|
| To Sam: Oops, my mistake, I get it now. Though I think Unhinged has a good point. |
|
|
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 23 Dec 2007 12:08 PM |
|
| Of course. In conjuction with Quite Fair Dice&Cards and Frozen allies, the first to make an alliance wins. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 24 Dec 2007 4:16 AM |
|
| Sam, if you already know that the first to make an alliance will win, do you think this is fair? |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 24 Dec 2007 12:21 PM |
|
Strategy tells me to get faster reaction time. Also people with 2 alliances cannot win when battling experienced plyers because frozen allies forbids him to attack.
My point is i think it is "quite" fair. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|