Sorry about that Flo - that was me. It was completely unintentional. Forum administrators have the "edit" button is right next to the "quote" button and I selected the wrong one. Since they are both supposed to display your text I didn't notice the difference and just edited your text! Usually I review my post after it is published but in this case I must have navigated away.

Totally my fault and my apologies!

I thought so, but I did not receive any reaction from your part.
It really appeared strange

Anyway, I continued with the discussion here, so...

apoligies accepted!

I think you are right. I thought it was changed to the rule thet the primary victim loses a number of unit points, the beneficiary loses another number of unit points, and the sum of these numbers are equal to 5. Good to have this misunderstanding now, so I can suggest to state it in a more clear way:

Well actually, we are talking about 'factions' rather than 'sides'.



later on, if you hold military, 5 unit points are destroyed from the first faction and 5 unit points are destroyed from the second faction.

so:


'a total of five' takes away the doubt of reading 'up to five'

but indeed, you could read it as 2 from 1st faction and 3 from 2nd faction.

maybe 'either' does the trick.



(Since English is not my native language, I looked it up:
Wikipedia says:

Making 'factions' change to from plural to singluar.

conceirning the word order, this is something already defined when rewriting all attributes for the advances (a year ago)

We put the amount of damage in front if possible.

New text:





Changing in the rulebook:

CIVIL WAR:
29.4.1.6 If the victim holds Military (30.28 ) a total of five unit points from either faction 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.

CIVIL DISORDER:
29.7.2.3 If the victim holds Naval Warfare (30.36), Roadbuilding (30.43) or Advanced Military (30.2) one additional city is reduced for each of these advances held.

30.2 Advanced Military (Civic – 240)
30.2.1 Provides 10 Civic credits and 5 Science credits.
30.2.2 A holder may use tokens from areas adjacent by land as casualties in battle, but must leave at least one token in each area used this way (18.2.4).
30.2.3 One additional city is reduced due to Civil Disorder (29.7.2.3).
30.2.4 Nullifies Cultural Ascendancy (17.4.2).

30.28 Military (Civic – 170)
30.28.1 Provides 10 Civic credits and 5 Craft credits. Provides 20 extra credits to Advanced Military.
30.28.2 A holder constructs and maintains ships (16.1.1), and moves (17.2.1), after all players not holding Military.
30.28.3 Five unit points from either faction are destroyed due to Civil War (29.4.1.6).
30.28.4 Nullifies Diplomacy (17.4.1).

30.36 Naval Warfare (Civic – 160)
30.36.1 Provides 10 Civic credits and 5 Craft credits. Provides 20 extra credits to Diaspora.
30.36.2 A holder's ships may carry one additional token (17.5.2).
30.36.3 A holder may use ships instead of tokens as casualties in conflict (18.2.5).
30.36.4 One additional city is reduced due to Civil Disorder (29.7.2.3).
30.36.5 One less city is replaced due to Piracy (29.9.2.4).

There is another cheap red card with a drawback: Theocracy. This advance aggravates the effects of a Slave Revolt, and therefore it can be an unpopular advance.
Since there already is another discussion going about giving Agriculture a Slave Revolt drawback, maybe that Slave Revolt drawback can be removed from Theocracy. If that makes Theocracy too strong, it can be weakened: When discarding two commodity cards to protect against Iconoclasm&Heresy, each of those cards must have a face value of at least 2.
I believe this change makes the red strategy more attractive, since then the only cheap cards with a drawback are Coinage, a green card with credits to red, and Monarchy, a red card.

We already discussed Theocracy and this resulted in no change for Theocracy.

Let's not change the system only for the purpose of changing Agriculture, which itself is in debate.

I think the correct wording to use is

"Five unit points from each faction are destroyed."

Using the word 'either' is confusing as it implies that tokens are removed form only one of the factions.

DG.

Well, since it's your native language, let's take that for rule.

As you can see, I doubted about it, so I looked it up. Now you see, even a dictonary doesn't always provide you with the best solutions.

Considering English is not your native tongue, you write much more precise English than I could manage. Please don't ask me to write anything in Dutch!

DG.

Oh no, Dutch is even more complicated, if you want my opinion. A lot less systematical, containing a whole lot of exceptions.

There's a difference thought in writning things here on the forum, since you can think out every word and look things up. If I should speak all these, I would have a hard time.

Besides you might have noticed I have this typing problem combined with a little dyslexy. (I sometimes only read my mistakes after 5 times of re-reading it, and than suddenly I see the stupid typing error, but the first 4 times I just don't see it)


Whenver I just write opinion, or stuff I'm not checking every word or letter I typed, but I hope to do for any propsals in rulings.



Again for the language thing, MerlokDD is German. I think he'll approve German is easier to write and speak than Dutch (Once you know the language). I'm learning a bit Spanish, and the system seems more systematic than Dutch as well.

As a fluent Spanish speaker, I can confirm that it is a lot more ordered than English. The thing that always drove me nuts (as a native English speaker) is that the spelling is so much simpler than in English, the schools wouldn't bother teaching it, and so everybody spelled things wrong German is next on my list, but it has been there for so long, I despair of ever reaching it. I do well enough that the restaurant staff speak to me in German in the tourist zones of Munich, but I still can't string more than a word or two together.

The result for the playtest of december 28th:
Conceirning: Military - Advanced Military - Naval Warfare.
& Civi Branch

Number of players: 9
Mapboard: West


Military has been bought twice by two players who did not have real game-contact except for the last turn.

Advanced Military has not been bought.

Naval Warfare has not been bought.




Military:
Was bought very early in the game by the winner in the end. This card gave him free movement which certainly gave him the advantage in the game which led him to victory, though ofcourse this was not the only reason. Only later in the game this card was really used as offense where in the midgame it was merely used as defense.

Opinon: Great card, certainly a good change to remove Civil Disorder, I found it strange that not many other player bought it.



Advanced Military:
The same player considered buying it but saw no need for it as long as he was the only player holding military. He actually saw it as 'advanced military' because of this.

Opinon: As long as you are the only player holding Military, it's better to move out an attacked area as defense rather than taking losses from adjacent areas. Maybe later in the game it would be an offensive card, but in the midgame it would be used for defense only. Whenever more players hold Military te card becomes interesting, though maybe other cards can provide you with the same benefits needed.
The removal of Civil War drawback and price decrease, changed it from a never-card to a reasonable option, fully depending on the style of the average players.


Naval Warfare:
Tow players considered it but there was not direct need for it. Players rather choosed for Agriculture, or Architecture instead. Also this depends on the style of playing by the sepcific group of players of the approprate game.

Opinions afterwards:
The same as for Advanced Military, removing the civil war drawback changed it to a reasonable option where players considered buying it. Nevertheless this specific game saw no direct need for the card.





General result of the playtest, based on experience and opinion of the 9 players and gamemaster:

All of the 3 cards are approved changes by this group. Nevertheless the military path still is a choice made by certain players. Now it's a reasonable option.

I have looked again at the advances, their credit lines, their colours and the prices, and the following appeared:

- There are four creap craft cards and only two cheap religion cards and two cheap civic cards. Dual-coloured cards are not counted in.
- There are four expensive civic cards, and only two expensive science cards and two expensive art cards. Dual-coloured cards are not counted in.
- From the middle region there are three cards of each colour, except craft who has only two middle-cards. Dual-coloured cards are not counted in.
- No card costs 70. Many cards costs 60 or 80.
- No card costs 190. Many cards costs 160 or 180.
- No card costs 210. Many cards costs 220, 230 or 270.
- From the <100 category there are 10 cheap cards. With dual-coloured cards counted in, there are three of them from crafts and civics, and two from the other colours.
- From the 100-200 category there are three cheap (<130>=170) cards. From the medium cards three are religion and three are (dual)science. From the expensive cards three are civic.
- From the >200 category there are 7 cheap (<230>=270) cards. There is no medium craft card.
- From religion and science there is a monololoured credit line and a dual-coloured line. From art there is a monocoloured line. From craft there ic a dual-coloured line and from civic there is no line.
- Three >200 religion cards come from a medium 100-200 card. Three >200 civic cards come from expensive 100-200 cards. Two >200 art cards come from cheap 100-200 cards.

So it is hard to take a religion strategy because all religion 100-200 cards costs at least 150. It is hard to take a civic strategy because three >200 civic cards come from an expensive 100-200 card on the credit line, because there is no civic credit line, and because there are two dual-civic <100>200 art card.
So I believe the problem isn't solved yet. Maybe some minor solutions do enough work, but I think major solutions are needed too.

- Make Law cheaper: Nearly nobody purchases it now it isn't a prerequisite anymore for other advances. Since it only helps against calamities like a way the way cheaper Drama & Poetry and Music do, I think Law is not worth its 170. Maybe 130 is a better price?
- Make Universal Doctrine slightly cheaper. Since reachable Barbarians or pirates don't occur that much, and there is a drawback, I think 140 is a better price than 160.
- Change some credit lines to have for each colour a monocolour line and a dual-colour line. This is not simple but a major change.
- Change the colour(s) of some cards, which also is a major change. Maybe change some names too (for example if you would make Advanced Military a craft card, its name can be changed to Ironworking.)
I don't think we want to make major changes, but if we do the discussion can be started about which credit lines or card colours will be changed.
Anyone?

In calculations like these you should count multicolored cards for both colors, instead of not couning them in.


A card costing 190 would be the least attractive card, because player would rather see if they can manage to get 10 or 20 points to go over 200. Cards costing 180 are this expensive because of its power.


This is because making cards 200 or 210, would make these cards key cards without regarding its attributes. (like literacy used to be in Advanced Civilization where it was the cheapest civic available)


Two of which give credits to a color of your choice or credits to all colors. (Written Record, Empiricism)


Indeed, but don't forget its power. Myself, I've won the game and became second before, going mainly for religion cards.


This could be an option. But never over adjust things. (like sawing parts off of a table or chair that's unstable, you'll end up with a unwanted result.) Lowering its price from 170 to 130 is a huge step. Maybe 150 would do.


This seems reasonable. I think the drawback should stay. To me 150 is a better option. Compared to Fundamentalism.


I really don't think this is nessecary. It's working fine. You just gotta choose.


I really don't think this is nessecary. Changing the color of a card only by means of of changing its name should never be the a main reason. Also, where metalworking gives you advantage in weaponry (direct destruction of the first oponent's token), both Military, Advanced Military and Naval Warfare only deal with your own losses and provide you with more tactics or strategy. I see no reason why we would change it. This is also a thing discussed before in both this topic and the renaming military topic. Also regard the optional decrease of the cost of 'law'.


After you ideas, to me only these two things are optional for playtest:

Decrease cost of Law by 20 to 150
Decrease cost of Universal Doctrine by 10 to 150

It is not my intention to change the colour for changing the name, but if I should change colours, that is because either by creating more balance between the colours, or because I currently think the current colour doesn't fit the advance (for example, why Trade Empire is craft, but Provincial Empire is civic?)

Universal Doctrine: Why should its price be compared with Fundamentalism?
Law: A playtest at 150 sounds fine, but I believe 150 still is too expensive. But the right answer only can come from a playtest.

If I count these cards in for two colors, then for each category, for each color there are exactly four cards. So there is no problem. But single-coloured cards gives 10 credits to its color, and dual-coloured cards gives only 5 credits to their colors (except for Literacy and Mathematics.) So in this calculation it makes sense to not count multicolored cards.

About Written Record, several playtests worked out this card works out fine, but maybe now it is too popular. I suggest to playtest Written Record at a price of 70 instead of 60. Maybe Theocracy and Deism too (why Deism costs 30 more than another card with exactly the same effect?)