So:






Yes, I can live with that as well.
But I've changed Military back to its original 170.

Now Military still is that tricky card because of Civil war. It doesn't need that price raise in my opinion.

Anyone agree?

I wouldn't change anything about the diplomacy-thing. It's fine to me right now, and it makes sense: "Military can break any diplomacy-results"

That looks great to me.

(Pardon the one liner)

DG.

(that line was actually meant for a tshirt, but I got lazy and put it here.)

Yep, I also agree with the normal price level of 170. I wanted to suggest that as well, but decided first to wait on the reactions to the calamity-swap.

It looks great to me too :-)

OK. several positive opinions on the last option.

I'll take this as a signed law :


Let's do it this way and move it to the playtest-part.

I'll create the playtest cards.

These are the new playtest cards as well as preveiews of the printsheets.

If you are interested in printing, please message me, and I'll send them by email.

This has been posted by David in another topic. I've been thinking about it.

He has a point:

Historically: Whenever a city is being destroyed/reduced by a calamity or war it never led to more food production. Some farmers might even have worked on building sites, repairing. Some farmers might have even been killed by the same calamity or war.

Gameplay: It makes no real sense that reducing a city in an area with a population limit of 3, 4 or 5, powered by Agriculutre provides you with 4, 5 or 6 tokens, giving you 6, 7 or 8 tokens in the next turn. This is a benefit, where the result of city reduction should be a downfall.

Actually this was never clearly stated in the rulebook. Nor denied.

I'd suggest to adjust the rules in this.

1. Removing the ability allow players to use the benefit of Agriculture when reducing a city.

2. But keep the Slave revolt drawback as well, for this is a calamity that affects large populations more and it is a tradable calamity

This means:

Current:


New:


(*I've changed this line along: 'coexisting' and 'conflict' can be written as 'areas containing tokens belonging to two or more players', cause no choice is being made in living in peace or war: As long as two civilizations share one area, the agricultural food production is on low.)

and:

CURRENT:


NEW:


and

CURRENT:


NEW:

Im not opposed to the agriculture city reduction limit. I do think it needs to be included within the descripion of the calamity somehow though.

Also, it is generally assumed that all nations have some agricultre... I think the civ is supposed to represent a more advanced agriculture. Maybe a name change would be best?

Oh I wasn't proposing switching the name to Advanced Agriculture... but something else entirely. I have no idea what though...

Not a big deal to me either way though.

Personally, I wouldn't change the name of the calamity. Neither would I change the wording on any of the calamities.

I like Flo's rule change proposal, because, as mentioned in other threads I think agriculture is slightly overpowered and because for countries like Egypt calamities which reduce cities become beneficial rather than harmful.

DG.

I guess Velusion didn't speak about renaming the calamity, but changing 'Agriculture' to 'advanced agriculture'. That's not so good to me.

Hey WTF. I don't know who is logging in on my name, but these are not my words.

My actual words were something like:

The word 'Advanced' actually applies to most of the cards in our game.
'Advanced Mining', 'Advanced Architecture', 'Advanced Cloth Making', 'Advanced Anatomy'. It is regarded, that all developments already existed in some basic form, but our cards are the milestones in each specific development.
The only time the name of the card using 'advanced' is justified is 'Advanced Military', to make a division between this and regular 'military'.

I think it was Velusion replying with this:



Now I reply to this:
for the 'advanced' part, I don't think 'agriculture' should have this attached to it, for you would have to attach it to 75% of our cards.

In my opinion the card 'Agriculture' should stay 'Agriculture'. (no other change either). Like I mentioned before, I believe in history 'agriculture' is the most important development after 'the wheel' and 'fire'. It should not be left off.
The card really represents this development.

I still have a question left about this: Who has to choose which five unit points must be removed and on what side? If the primary victim chooses, the drawback actually is for the beneficiary, since the primary victim chooses to remove units from the sidde he or she will not play with. Otherwise the drawback mostly is equal or even worse for the primary victim than the original drawback of removing five unith from both sides, since the largest side will have five units less, and there is more lack of space to recover, since that space is filled up with units from the beneficiary.

That's something to be written in the rulebook. I'm working on that.

My suggestion (like it was, but something more specific):

- All removal is considered simultanous
- Primary victim removes from his chosen part
- beneficiary removes from his received part
- Both most choose from areas in or adjacent to the other faction if possible.

I've written this in the other topic:

CIVIL WAR:
29.4.1.6 If the victim holds Military (30.28 ) a total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed. Each player selects the unit points for his own faction. The required units are removed simultaneously and immediately after factions are selected. Each player must, if possible, remove the required unit points from areas adjacent to the other faction. If the faction assigned to the beneficiary consists of less than five unit points all of the unit points from this faction are destroyed.



I think you don't understand it the right way. the empire is divided in two, and 5 units from both sides are destroyed after division, after choosing, but before annexing.

This results in the primary victim losing a part of his empire for a normal civil war. WITH military, it result in the part he keeps, also loose 5 units point AND the part he gives to the beneficiary looses 5 units as well.
(excuse me for my bad english)