Civilization: The Expansion Project
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/

Resolving calamities
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=468		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Flo de Haan [ 2008-03-14 11:57:09 ]
Post subject:  Resolving calamities
Something I forgot to mention, and suddenly popped into my mind.

When we were playing we got to some houserules, to solve problems which weren't clearly stated in the rules, how to do this.

let me draw a situation starring Frank John and Mike.



We've been playing for years in this way:

Once trading is done, all players put their calamities open on table. All players can see John's got a 'civil war' and Frank's got a 'piracy' in the end, and Mike has got a 'famine', 'slave revolt' and a 'epidemic'.
Randomly a card is picked out of Mike's calamities; it ended up the slave revolt is out. All players see the picked out card.
One after the other the calamities are resolved, and this way keeping mind of a coming piracy or epidemic when for example removing tokens for Famine or pointing secondary victims.

Evertjan (and others) came up with this way of reading the rules:

Once trading is done, all players put their calamities closed on the table.
All players can see John's got a calamity and Frank's got calamity. Mike has got even three calamities.
Randomly a card is picked out of Mike's cards and put aside closed. Only Mike knows which card is out.
One after the other the calamities are resolved. Everyone who traded has seen some calamities pass, but not all of them know which player has which calamity.
The gamekeeper calls 'Volcanic Eruption' anyone? 'Treachery' anyone? 'Famine' anyone?. and Mike opens this one calamity only, still keeping his 'epidemic' closed.
After all calamities have been resolved, the gamekeep opens 'slave revolt' to show that one was out. (Even the gamekeeper did not know this)




There are two things to decide.

1. Should we keep all cards closed during 'resolving calamities phase' and reveal only the specific calamities when they are called by the gamekeeper

2. Is the 'picking out' in case of excess calamities by one player closed or open.


As we were playing we all agreed that both option 1 and 2 should be totally blind, thus closed cards as much as possible.

- It takes more brains, awareness to react on resolving calamities.
- It can give a 'surprise' attack with a card like 'piracy'.
- It adds more suspense to the game (who has the epidemic and could give me the sack.)


I would like to create an official rule on this, instead of keeping it a house rule (as we will play it this way anyway from now on)

I could add a poll here. I don't, cause I know all people from my group wil vote for last option. Would make it less democratic.

I'm interested though in what other people think.
Author:  Jonno [ 2008-03-14 13:43:11 ]
Post subject:  Re: Resolving calamities
I've been doing similar things too, but the "proper" way to do it, according to current rules, is as follows:

1. Anyone with too many calamities put them face down on the table.

2. Calamities is discarded as required by the rules. Calamities that is discarded are put on the discard pile face up, but the Calamities that remain is still face down.

3. At this point everyone knows what calamities won't take place, but they don't know which will, unless, of course, they hold them (or has seen them while trading).

4. All minor calamities (if any) is revealed and resolved. By default simultaneously, but any player can require that they are done in ascending order, with AST breaking ties in case of two identical calamities (when both east and west trade blocks are used)

5. All major calamities is revealed and resolved in order.
I usually do that by letting the GM (usually me) or other experienced player call them out in order (usually by the quick chart), and if someone has the card being called out, they reveal them, and then we resolve it. Then the GM starts calling out calamities again.
If both east and west trade blocks are in use, players should really be asked in AST order, but I usually just ask everyone at once, and if two identical calamities is out in the same turn, they are revealed simultaneously but resolved in AST order.

In the real world, as a GM I usually start the calamity phase by asking "Calamities on the table or proper order?".
If at least one player says "proper order", we follow the procedure set out above. If not, everyone put their calamities phase up on the table. If anyone got too many we properly discards all but two, and then we resolve remaining calamities in order.
Knowing which calamities will come in which order usually makes the calamity phase much smother, but in some instances it will seriously affect the outcome of some strategies (such as trying to become the beneficiary of the Civil War you know is out there as you have counted the cards by getting the "right" amount of damages from calamities, and making sure competitors for the position as beneficiary don't).

I think this "compromise" is quite good, but if you have another opinion, feel free to share it.
Author:  mcbeth [ 2008-03-14 13:56:08 ]
Post subject: 
Just as a warning, in Celtic Fury (and all games I've seen played on Redscape), it is all open. When trading ends, I will announce all calamities, randomly discard the extras, and resolve as many as I can that don't need a decision and aren't affected by earlier calamities.
Author:  Jonno [ 2008-03-14 14:35:17 ]
Post subject: 
mcbeth wrote:
Just as a warning, in Celtic Fury (and all games I've seen played on Redscape), it is all open. When trading ends, I will announce all calamities, randomly discard the extras, and resolve as many as I can that don't need a decision and aren't affected by earlier calamities.

Basically what I do IRL when noone protests. ;-)
Author:  Flo de Haan [ 2008-03-14 14:41:12 ]
Post subject: 
OK, so it stays I house-rule I guess. And house rules are always voted for before starting a game at our place.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/