Then we are at the Warships Variant proposed earlier at the Variants Area:
http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=16

But back to the main discussion:
I think the Game Situation Picture Number 4 should be
changed (or left out) as there is always a way around an open sea area,
which can not be blocked by units (as ships are no units).
So there is also no need to talk about Diaspora over Oversea Areas.

You are right, but still I think a clearification should be made whether it is true that you shouldn't regard the sea part of an area or you should.

(I mean, the rulebook still leaves a little doubt about that)

I think you can ignore a ship in this area, but it isn't clearly specified.



Let's keep game variants out of this question. Any changes to the normal rules should be specified in the approprate game variant.



I've added this to clearify the rules. Right now it isn't mentioned nor denied that open sea areas may be inlcuded in tracing a path.

Whenever you add images, it's no real problem to add this option as well as it takes away doubts.
Actually i think option 4 should be put as first option as it's kinda the base of tacing paths over coastal areas.
(in other words: whenever you can reach an open sea area, you can reach all coastal areas adjacent to this)



In general: adding images to the rulebook for explaining 'tracing paths' can be a very handy addition as 'tracing paths' is actually a unique feature for more than one situation.

I think it does not take away doubts.
For using Open Sea Areas you have to discuss about Astronavigation also.
This would be another sentence/rule in the rulebook.
As you can always sail around an open sea area, because ships can never
block your path, it is not necessary to think about that or state this...

If we use examples, then this should be made clear by ships sailing
around an open sea area (straight through enemy ships), near to
a coastal city and coastal tokens.

One additional thought... Diaspora can be used to go from any coastal
area to any other coastal area on the same part of the map (east or west)
as there are all areas are connected by water.

This path can't be blocked by ships, and I did not use any open sea areas at all.
Is this really what we wanted to have Diaspora for?

You are definately right.

BUT:

- Right now it is stated in the rulebook that you can trace a path like your illustration. This is so,becasue it isn't denied. If it shouldn't be allowed, it should be mentioned in the rulebook too.

- The 'path tracing' does not speak about open sea areas at all. I think it should. Either by denying it, allowing it, or link it to Astronavigation.

In fact Astronavigation allows 'movement' accross open sea areas, it does not speak of 'path tracing' at all.

IF it is true you can trace paths using open sea areas ONLY when you hold Astronavigation, I believe we should clearly mention this AND change the text for Astronavigation as well.

So:

change:

into:


And add to the rulebook:

30.6 Astronavigation (Science – 80)
30.6.1 Provides 10 Science credits and 5 Religion credits. Provides 10 extra credits to Calendar.
30.6.2 Allows a holder's ships to move through open sea areas (17.5.1).
30.6.3 Allows a holder to trace a path through open sea areas for the purpose of Diaspora (25.2) or Universal Doctrine (25.8 )

As well as a clarifcation in both the sepcial abilities subject and the specific card subjects.


EAST AND WEST:
Conceirning what you seas about East or West. It's true. With the exception of the Caspian Sea (which are coastal areas) and some small seas like in Nineveh (Which aren't coastal areas, but CAN be used for Diaspora by land anyway, so no problems).

This is one of the reasons I proposed to add this:



In practice, it will mean the further an area is traced, the less chance this is the best option to use Diaspora for. In other words: There will be two areas nearby that will give a better option. With the addtion of 'adjacent' you cannot scan the whole map for any empty areas anymore.

This was my motivation:

You can always trace a path AROUND the open sea. ALWAYS.
There is no need to trace through the open sea area.
Sorry, I just don't get it.
From my point of view, we should add a small note, that ships can't
block Diaspora, because ships are no units. But don't change anything else.



No. I think the more far you go, the probability to find 2 or three
adjacent areas, which are empty, will increase not decrease!!!
Statistically the probability increases as you are farer away, as
there are more areas, which you could check for emptiness.

As I think of Diaspora the people of a civ will travel to the nearest
empty area, but not to one maybe very far away, because there are
3 empty areas... Therefore my porposal is to add something like
"the far you go, the less token arrive there"


As we are talking about spreading culture and people around, we should
think about that it is easier to do this in neighboring countries, but not
too far away.

You are right. Now I see. Since ships are no units, you don't deal with open sea areas at all.


Just forget what I said about open sea areas.



I like this idea. I think you have a good point in this, just to keep things realistic. It will get a little hard to count sometimes, though.

Maybe we could also consider it like movement.

Keep the 7 units rule, but limit sea travel by the folowing:

You can move a maximum 5 tokens by ship only 4 areas.
If you hold 'cloth making' you can move 5 areas
If you hold 'naval warfare you can move 6 tokens.

Don't know how this works. what are your opinions?

I'm just giving an idea, though I do like your idea better at the moment!

I'm not a fan of weakening the card, nor of making it more complex... I get the feeling you guys are over-thinking this a bit...

I had the same thought yesterday. So the following question:

What do we want?
Balancing the card Diaspora or Improve the description ???

for the first point (balancing) I propose to discuss further here
On the first view I like Flo's idea of having 7 token on adjacent areas,
BUT... this makes the card a lot stronger. I could move to some cold areas
with 7 linked unused 1-areas and populate all of them. It's a very tough change.
The normal Diaspora would give me only 1 area with 1 token in it.
As I feel this would be too strong, I recommend to have the "adjacent-option"
only with some drawback additionally (maybe the "the farer the weaker - option").
If we don't like this complexity then we should not use the adjacent option.
By the way: From my point of view EVERY card over 200+ should be complex
and mighty. It's a 200+ card!

for the second point (improving description) I propose to have only two rulebook changes
1. add pictures to show possible and impossible paths for Diaspora
2. add one sentence, that ships can't block a path, as they are no units

In fact we are talking about two things:

1. Clearifiaction of the rules:



Apart from any adjustment on the card I'd say these two thing should be added anyway.

I was trying to explain things the way they are written currently in the rulebook. (with the error of my interpretation of the 'open seas areas'-thing, which I removed later).

Indeed a line like: 'ships can't block a path' is what I prefered too. (either by saying 'ships can't block a path' or 'ships are not considered units')
(in fact this was an answer to the question of Johannes)

Without even adjusting a thing, the curernt rulebook says you can trace a path around the full range of all adjacent open sea areas on either the West part of the map, the East part of the map and the Caspian Sea.
(Like Merlok illustrated, sailing around europe from Krim to Normay)



A lot of people might not realize this.

I think adding images give them these clues, as well as it takes away the doubts. Fact is, these images should be clear and leave no doubts themselves.

OK, so far for the clearifications in the rules.

2. The actual attributes:

I have no problems with expensive cards being complex, indeed most of the 200+ are so, but please not more complex than nessecary.

I work as an editor. My job is to get the essence of things all the time. That is the reason why I regard part of this game like that. Finetune things either by slightly adjusting the rules or by changing the way things are written. Sometime by adding clearification, sometime by removing confusing parts.

Maybe Velusion is right. Let's not overthink things.

I do agree on this:



Merlok, you are right, the former Diaspora could give you 1 token in northern europe, and maybe by changing diaspora to 7 tokens, this might give you even 7 tokens in northern europe. But hey, it costs you 270.
Do you need a card that gives you a possible 1 token in a 0-area for 270. It should be better than that.

Ok, so do I. Let's have it your way (7 token in adjacent areas) in your
playtest on Dec28, any other ideas could be give to our game at Jan3.

But also we have to make sure that adjacent does not mean
adjacent to your homeland. It should be something like adjacent to each other.
Even better / more clear: adjacent to another area settled by your Diaspora in the same turn.
This would give a linked group of areas where due to Diaspora a new region grows up.

Hey Flo: You are editing too much your own posts.
It's hard to answer if I see, that your posts changes several times.

ok sorry.
I'll wait for 10 minutes
(this happened before.)

Then I still have to remark that sometimes one will place a city. I believe a city will be counted as 5 units, but maybe this should be mentioned too.

That's why I proposed to add this to the rulebook:



For the card I'd like it even shorter than your proposal, but indeed my last one was still not complete.



If we think that's even too strong. Why not change it back to 'up to five tokens', but keep the several areas instead of only one area. This keeps the symmetry in the game, also it takes away some possible confusing lines from the rulebook.

This is coverd by 'A city built this way can only be built on a city site.' This takes away the question: "I am I allowed to build a city?"