Below are some proposed changes. This will be put into place unless someone mounts a reasonable argument why they shouldn't.

Map Terms:The civilizations in ACEP each belong to one of three Regions: The East, The Old Word, and the West. They are assigned on the AST track and are as follows:
 
The West: Iberia, Illyria, Thrace, Crete, Italy, CarthageThe Old World: Assyria, Babylon, Hatti, Egypt, Nubia, Arabia
The East: Persia, Indus, Kush, Tamil, Maurya, Unknown
 
Map starting locations:
*This will be dealt with in detail in the scenario book but suffice to say it will be illegal for any empire to participate in a game if it leaves gaps in the map areas. For example… In a game with Iberia and Illyira, Italy MUST be played. If it requires Iberia player to shift over to Italy it MUST be done. There can be no gaps.
 
Calamity/Commodity:
*Remove Minor Calamities. Instead use an empty place-holder set of nine cards called "Swindled" which is worth nothing and is tradable. (I think the minor calamities only make it longer to resolve)
*Add a new set of Major Calamities (using the current minors for ideas)
*Add a new set of commodity cards. Mark two sets as being “Western” Commodities and two sets as being “Eastern” Commodities.
*Calamities will all be revealed at once. The East and The West regions will be resolved simultaneously with calamites being resolved by civilizations in AST order (rather than by calamity level). If a civilization holds two calamities they are resolved in calamity order with non-tradable being before tradable of the same level. Once both East and West are complete the Old World is then resolved (again in AST order). If any conflict occurs (e.g. A Western civilization is effecting an Eastern civilization)
*Corruption would be lowered to a combination of 8 points of face value cards. Law and Coinage would modify this total down and up by 3 points.

Trading Phase:

*What is in use and who can trade depends on the game size (this will be dealt with in depth in the scenario book):

2-6 players:
Method (A)
Two sets of both Commodity and Calamity cards.
One set of Trade Cards
Open Trading

7-9 players:
Method (B)
3 sets of Commodity Cards, 2 sets of Calamity cards + Swindled cards.
One set of Trade Cards
Open Trading

10-13 players:
Method (C)3 sets of Commodity Cards, 2 sets of Calamity cards + Swindled cards.
Two sets of Trade Cards
Split trading/drawing of cards between the players for half between two Trade card sets. This limited trading lasts half of the trading phase with open trading for the remainder.

14-18 players (based on either Eastern or Western ASTs being filled):
Method (D)
4 sets of Commodity Cards, 3 sets of Calamity cards.
Two sets of Trade Cards
Split trading/drawing of cards between the players for half between two Trade card sets. This limited trading lasts half of the trading phase with open trading for the remainder.

14-18 players (based on equal civilizations on both the western and eastern ASTs).
Method (E)
4 sets of Commodity Cards, 3 sets of Calamity cards.
Two sets of Trade Cards (East, West)
The Western and Eastern AST civilizations may only draw from their appropriate trade sets. The Old world may draw from either. For half of the trade phase players may only trade with others of their own AST region. For the final half members of The Old World may trade with either the West or East freely. Eastern commodity sets redeemed by the West are worth one level more than what is printed on the card (as in metalworking) and vice versa.
 
Advances:
*The advances credit system has undergone a serious and complete makeover. Gone are lack of civic credits and the wonderful science credits. Everything has been simplified to certain degree. Exceptions are limited to major exceptions. The changes are drastic and affect almost every card. To see them check out this new credit chart here.
*Cartography would lower the cost for buying a card from any stack from 18 to 14.

For the Unknown Eastern Civ I would recommend the Aryans.

The two trade card stacks is an interesting idea... but problematic. The biggest, IMO, is that many of the trade goods present in the game already were available in both the east and west. So, you can either split a commodity between the two (ie. put 4 wood in the east stack and 4 in the west stack), have two complete sets (ie. an Eastern wood set and a Western wood set), or deny half the board a commodity that they should have.

Peronally, I would recommend the 3rd option. (it gets a larger variety of trade cards into the game... which is important for a lot of players, IMO)

Now, as to how to break up the commodities:

West:
1 Clay, Hides
2 Iron, Papyrus
3 Timber, Fish
4 Grain, Oil
5 Textiles, Wine
6 Silver, Bronze
7 Resin, Olive Oil
8 Marble, Dye
9 Gold, Ivory

East:
1 Ochre, Rice
2 Stone, Furs
3 Fruit, Salt
4 Cotton, Horses
5 Glass, Perfume
6 Copper, Tin
7 Spice, Incense
8 Gems, Tea
9 Silk, Pearl

It's not perfect, surely... but it's a start.

You were reading my mind Daryl! That's actually exactly what I intended though I should have been clearer.

Your stacks distribution seems to good to me! One exception - How about flax instead of rice (because you already made a 1 flax card!)? I'm also thinking about using Slaves instead of Olive Oil (so there is no confusion about the "oil" when tradeing).

As for the lacking Civ, how far will your map stretch exactly? What about Parthians, Tocharians or Sogdians?
Major calamities: I just had the idea of "Succession Turmoils". Don't know what exactly it could do, maybe exclude the holder from trading that round.
The point I'm not so sure about is the trade restrictions between "East" and "West", but anyhow I don't care because I'll never gather so many players in order to play such a huge game
Don't you fear that the alteration with 2 seperate areas will cause the game to "feel" differently? It just doesn't seem to feel right that Indians can't draw Ivory and Carthaginians no Salt...
About the starting locations, what about restricting players to choose civs from just one of your regions

How about these?

http://home.comcast.net/~dcluciano/Perfume.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~dcluciano/Horses.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~dcluciano/Slaves.jpg

Wer,

Parthian: I actually considered using Partha instead of Persia. However since the both controlled almost the exact same area (just at differnt times) I don't think I can fit both.

Sogdia: Two problems here: 1) I think they orginiated in the center of what became the Kushan empire and 2) I couldn't find enough reference material to consider them.

Tocharia: Now this is a pretty good idea. However I'm not sure if the map will stretch that far and I need more reference material (locations of cities, borders, ect..) Seeing as how relativily unknown they are I'm not sure If I will be able to find more info. If you have some resource material you could send me on them that would be great!

Aryan: Someone else mentioned then. They might be a possibility but from what I know of them they were a nomadic people. The lack of a definded homeland and no city sites make it difficult for me to consider them.

Hmm.. Succession turmoils is not a bad idea... but wouldn't that kinda be like Civil War? Also all the calamities must reslove instantly... can't carry over any effects into later phases. Still its something to work on.

Well the biggest problem with 10 or more players is the fact that with the more commodity card sets you + more people it becomes more difficult to compile sets of commodiites when tradeing. Plus trading can be much longer (not to mention louder)

By splitting them up you decrease the amount of time tradeing significantly . This is going to have to be fined tuned though.

I'm afraid that limiting them to just regions won't be enough (though it wouldn't hurt). Creating a "hole" of empty areas which were designed to support an entire additional civlization significanly benefits the adjacent players.

For example, if we are playing wit the western AST civs with 5 players and Iberia is not selected, with no map limits Italy and Carthage are going to have significant advantages in the later games probably enabling them to consistantly support 9 cities, while Illryia, Thrace and Crete will be pressed for 6-7 cities.

The solutions are going to have to be to limit areas depending on what civilizations you are playing with. In this case most of spain part of gaul would have to be removed from play OR the Thracian or Creten player will have to play Iberia and some of the eastern areas will have to be removed from play. I hope to give a good number of options though in the scenerio book to allow players to quickly decide what civilizaions they want to play with and then what area's are in play.

I know it sounds overly complicated here but here is how I imagine a setup will go for a group that wants to play a full game:

1)How many players? (Answer: 8 players. flip to the page for 8-players)
2)What region should be the center? (Answer: Old World. Flip to the Old World option for 8 players).
3)What Civilizaions? We have the option of playing with either Crete & Thrace or Persia & Indus. (After a vote Crete and Thrace along with the other 6 Old World Civs are available to play.
4)Block out the area's not in play and remove the excess panels. (Consult the chart for you game and cover the population numbers on the out of play areas)
5) Play!

What does everyone think of that sort of setup? If you aren't interested in playing a full game there would be even more information available.

I like splitting the trading into two halves, but you've got to be very careful how this affects the game balance. For example:

* If the Old World have to possibility as acting as "brokers" between the East and West, this would give them an advantage.
- However, if different commodities are available in each half, then there would be very little inter-continental trading, so the amount of brokerage would be very small.
- I like the "Eastern cards in the West" being worth more. This does a lot to counter the advantage of the Old World players.

* Assuming that each commodity is only found in either the East or the West, if the Old World can choose which continent to draw from, then it is advantageous for them all to consistently choose the same one.
- This would increase the number of trade cards from that continent in play, and therefore the likely size of the sets of trade cards.
- This would therefore give an advantage to either the East or the West (and certainly the Old World)
- (Of course, this requires the Old World to join forces. However, it is in all of their interests to do so.)

* It is advantageous for an "Old World" player to consitently draw from the same continent, as the cards from their hand would tend to be from this continent.

* If there are separate "Eastern Calamities" and "Western Calamities", then it is important that they be balanced.
- Alternatively, you could have the calamities swap from one continent to the other. However, this would be difficult to enforce, and would exacerbate the effect of the Old World ganging together.
- Perhaps you could have identical calamities in each set of trade cards.

* I very much like the "Swindled" cards.

This is a very good point. I think we are going to have to assign trading sets to players. For example: Arabia, Babylon and Nubia must pick from The East, while Egypt, Assyria and Hatti pick from the West. In fact.. if this is the case I don't see a need to split the tradeing time at all. We could just allow the old world members to trade anywhere they want, but allow the East and West to benifit from more valuable commodities.

My only fear is that thier simply won't be enough interest with interregional trading even with the bonuses. Trading time can be very hectic and I'm not sure players will know how to use this system effectivly. Perhaps an extra reward for turning in exotic goods should be implimented.. something like an additional 75 points for turning in a complete set of exotic goods (e.g. west turning in all the silk)? Or perhaps have a ruleing that tradeing calamities across Regional lines in not permitted (which would make it safer). hmm...



I've been thinking about this. My "gamers" impulse is to make them identical. This simplifies the calamity resolution and means that the Civ cards do not need to be changed.
My "civilizaion" impulse is to make new tradable calamities and reuse the non-tradable. Simply so I can make new cards and calamities!

But... I'm thinking that I should listen to the "gamers" voice.

Any opinions here?

In any case tradable calamities would travel and be resolved anywhere, unless we go for the non-tradable rule as mentioned above.

Assyria and Babylonia also occupied more or less the same space, didn't they?

Actually IIRC, the Tocharians occupied more the area of the Kushana, while the Sogdians and Fergana were more to the northeast. And you're right, the info is probably too scarce.
The Tibetans will also be out of the map, right? Hm, that leaves the Satavahana of central India to me.

I understand the need to restrict and regulate the trade in large games, Paul summed up some of the problems nicely. A way to do so could be to allow at the start only trade with neighboring civs (in terms of starting position). The Trade Routes advance could then allow a player also to trade with more civs if there's not more than 1 civ in between.
However, if the East-West idea remains, I have to state one thing:

That's a good idea. But what about just to let Western civs count one more card if attaining Silk or any Eastern good? That would represent that those exotic products were usually very desired in the more distant regions. Combined with my idea, that would leave the Old world cultures - although they wouldn't have that bonus themselves - with the position of intermediary traders. That would probably be unbalancing though, was just an idea.
As said before it's kind of odd when Indians just can't draw Ivory or the civ that controls Cyprus without copper...
What about two stacks for east and west, but with partially the same commodities.
Like this:
All
1 Clay, Flax
2 Iron, Stone
3 Fish, Salt
4 Oil, Horses
5 Glass, Textiles
6 That's difficult. Moreover because Bronze is Copper and Tin but a seperate commodity. Have to think about that one.
7 Incense, Slaves
8 Gems, Dye
9 Pearl, Ivory
West
1 Hides
2 Papyrus
3 Timber
4 Grain
5 Wine
6 ?
7 Resin
8 Marble
9 Gold
East
1 Ochre
2 ?
3 Fruit
4 Cotton
5 Perfume
6 ?
7 Spices
8 Tea
9 Silk


No, not limiting in the next round. The one who draws the card reveals immediately and skips that trade turn. With turmoils I wouldn't mean something like a Civil War. It just often caused confusion and caused acting a state a bit headless unable to take action for being occupied with ordering itself until the turmoils were resolved. It just could happen everywhere and thus would make a good NT-calamity IMHO.

I was thinking about this problem, because I agree with you in the sense that I don't like denying certain civs commodities that they should have.

Here's an idea that I haven't really thought completely through yet... and can see some possible flaws already:

Have one stack of trade cards consisting of 2 commodities per value (the distribution that Wernazuma came up with is a very good start) In each stack, there will be an equal number of Regional Commodity Cards (RCC)... so that a Western Civ that draws a RCC in stack one, will get to replace it with a Hides. An Eastern Civ that draws a RCC from stack one, will get to replace it with an Ochre. An Old World Civ can chose either.

We played a 13 player game in August. We had 7 minute trade rounds, which everyone agreed went great. Trade is most fun with everyone involved. It would detract from an otherwise great expansion to split trading among board halfs, or with different draw decks.

7 min trading with 13 people? Thats impressive. We were hitting it dead on with 10 minutes and only 8 players.

I think Craig that your limit is probably one of the strictest out there. (The least I'd normally recommend is 1 mintue per player). If your group likes it that's good.... but mine would probably cringe at the thought of ending tradeing so fast.

I'm just looking at 18 players with 4 differnt commodities per level. If there was 1 trade stack and everyone traded together it would be really hard to make commodity sets in in a decent amount of time. I think that 2 groups of 9 would be more managable about than 1 group of 18.

Any other opinions here.

Another thing... you wouldn't HAVE to use the rules as provided. We could have an optional rule in the back for full free tradeing...

[quote="Velusion"]FYI...Going to move the 18th Civilizaion discussion to a new thread to the Maps section of the Forum.

I like Wernazumas proposal. The way I see it, the commodities which are to be found in only one region will have to be doubled. The first stack, for instanse, would look something like this:

West: 9 hides, 4 clay, 4 flax.
East: 9 ochre, 4 clay, 4 flax.

plus, of course, all the calamities and stuff. I think the game will be really odd if the region had different calamities, but for flavor, if you guys can come up with some calamity which historically could be linked to only one of the regions, go ahed.

If bronze really is copper+tin, then I guess either bronze or copper+tin would have to go and be replaced wth another metal, but it would be best with some sort of metal, I guess. What metals would be found only in the west/east?

Why is furs removed in Wernazumas proposal? beats me, but maybe it could be replaced with rice. I really liked that concept and it is VERY east to me.

Well, actually I don't know myself why I don't have Furs in anymore...