I quite like fasces' idea. It certainly makes it more achievable for the traitor and also means that everyone will do their best to keep everyone else in check (even if they are supposedly on the same team).

Personally I also believe that the traitors' targets are achievable with a little thought - it is when the traitor attacks gung-ho that it won't work.

Fasces -

Your idea is distorting a game that we already bastardized by bringing it into the Diplomacy format. It is supposed to be nearly impossible for the traitor to win. That's the entire point. He's a traitor. One man against a King and his knights and against a group of Rebels. The one man SHOULD have it nearly impossible to win. He's one man against many. In no way, shape, or form should it be anywhere close to easy or balanced for the traitor to win. And yes, simply soloing is far too easy. Imagine a Turkey who is the traitor when England is the King. He could masquerade as whomever he wants all game, and easily pull it off since he's so far from the King. And even worse, the traitor could "win" while the King is still alive!! How could a traitor be victorious when the King and possibly his knights still live?!?

If anything should be changed, it's the idea Ruffhaus threw out. That at least preserves the monumental task the Traitor must undertake, while at least making it somewhat easier. I'm still of the opinion that that's not necessary, but it appears others are not.

Finally, people who would simply give up as the traitor are the people who should NOT be playing this SRG. Everyone takes the risk of being the Traitor when they sign up. To change the rules just because some people would give up when pulling the Traitor position is synonymous to changing the rules of regular Diplomacy because some people would give up when they pull Austria against good opponents. Or because some people would give up when they get stabbed. We should never make rules around some people being bad opponents. Instead, we should encourage people to play a good game, no matter what their position.

Well the idea behind diplomacy, and the reason for the 18 sc solo was the original theory that once you took half of Europe nobody could stop you.

I think the same rules should apply for the traitor. Its still a big challenge as traitor, nobody is going to be willing to let anyone (bar the king) get that large cause they fear he may be traitor.

I think solo for the traitor is best, it's still by far the hardest job, and it's almost exactly how it's meant to be, since the traitor would by definition be the dominant player at that point meaning no one else can win. Draws suck.

Another idea: if there's a draw with traitor alive, traitor wins. But that sounds like less of a good idea.

I would agree with Fasces here. 34 SCs is impossible on the Classic map. There are far too many minimalistic stalemate lines you can form with <10 SCs, in England and Turkey areas. Plus, as soon as the Rebels are eliminated the Knights and King will be looking for the Traitor, so as soon as they see someone trying to expand they'll all ally and stalemate him.

That second point wouldn't be too much of a problem if the VCs were 18SCs, as the traitor would have to be able to manipulate the King/Knights into fighting one another and slowly grow until he could rush for the last SCs - but seriously, it won't work with 34SC VCs. As soon as someone gets past the 16ish mark you'll know they're the traitor and stalemate them.

You're right that one person should have it near impossible to win, but not entirely impossible. And it's certainly not easy to get to 18SCs when everyone will be looking for the person who's trying to do so in order to stop them.

18 SCs is far too easy to be a victory condition for the traitor. That is in no way "near impossible" like it is meant to be. You're all saying no one would be willing to let anyone grow and that getting 18 would be hard enough, but with the Rebels focused on killing the King, and the Knights focused on protecting the King, there's the very real possibility that when the Traitor stabs, they wouldn't be able to put aside their differences and trust each other enough to stop him fast enough. Also, how many of us have seen a game where someone stabs to get the solo, BUT, if the game were to have continued, they'd lose SCs and fall below 18 SCs because they overextended themselves to get the solo? There is no reason the Traitor should "win" until it's clear they would kill everyone off. That is the ENTIRE POINT of the Traitor. Think about it: If there's a kingdom, and half of it is lost to a Traitor, but the King and his loyalists still hold just under half of it, can anyone really declare victory? No. And that's how it should be.

I get it that people think it's "impossible". But quite frankly, that's nowhere near proven and is just idle speculation. Even if it turns out that 49/50 times the Traitor fails miserably, I still hold that that's how it *should* be. The Traitor shouldn't have any expectation of having a high % chance of winning. I believe Lukas is the one who said he's played this as the original game, and I believe he stated that he's rarely seen the Traitor be successful. Just like it should be. If you're reading this Lukas, please confirm/refute that please.

The point is, let's stop babying things. If it's hard, people need to step up and play better instead of dumbing down the rules in order to accommodate people who are "dot-grabbers" as Ruffhaus would call them. If the Traitor can't see the bigger picture and accept that his position MOST LIKELY is a losing one, then that person shouldn't be playing this SRG. Besides, this SRG isn't all about winning and losing. Haven't any of you ever had a really enjoyable game where you actually lost? Sometimes the best games are ones where you're in an impossible position and you fight your way as best you can. Hell, just being included in a draw should realistically be considered a "win" for the Traitor since it means they live and get to enjoy their Independence.

As of right now the rules set forth are that the traitor must kill everyone else:
What if the Traitor didn't have to kill all the knights? just the Rebels and the King... It would still be extremely difficult(because as soon as he attacks the king, the Knights are going to be on him), But with well timed planning, he could demolish the kings forces before the knights can destroy him. That gives him a win, with a "slightly" better chance at doing so, but still a near-impossible victory.

I would concur that that's a reasonable change. Would definitely give the traitor more of a chance as a well timed stab could yield victory.

Yes, I have played the original game before, and it is indeed rare to see a Traitor winning in the end - but I have seen it once (although I myself was not in that game).

Of course we recognize the difficulties in transforming the original game entirely into a Diplomacy SRG, so with regard to supply centres victory conditions (which is not in the original game), I am reluctant but fine to accept butterhead's proposal.

Or, we could implement another rule from the original game. What happens there is that if the King kills a knight, he has to discard his hand and all his equipments (yea, it's a war game after all) as a penalty. Here, we can enforce the rule by requiring the King to hold all his units in the next diplomacy phase if he kills a knight in the current phase. You see, if the rebels fail to kill the King and they got eventually eliminated, what happens is usually the knights and traitors accusing each other of being the traitor to earn the King's trust/aid. This rule gives a heavy penalty on the King who decides to randomly attack and eliminate the remaining players, so this could also mean greater security and better prospects for the traitor.

Thoughts?

How would you decide who killed the knight? How about a hold whenever a knight dies? So doesn't have to be killed by king? The king should protect his loyal citizens after all.

Kill as in taking the last centre from the knight - this includes the situation where another player (say the traitor) also contributed to the knight's elimination by taking another of his centre in the same phase.

No, because the King does not have absolute knowledge of who is the knight unless the knight got killed. The King should not be held liable for a random death/elimination.

Plus expanding this holding rule will tip the balance towards the rebels.

I thought it would tip the balance even. Kind of depends on the variant I suppose though.

Nah steephie, it would totally screw the king. Think about it, imagine turkey is a knight and England the king. If Austria/Russia are rebels, and they take out turkey, england has to hold a turn? Not only would he lose a knight (and be facing 3 rebels with only one knight!), but he'd have to hold a turn and potentially lose very important positioning? We all know how deadly even 1 NMR can be.

Right, so the King should only be penalized when he, knowingly or unknowingly, kills his own knight.

What if the King knows the knight is done and kills him in order to keep the territories from falling into hostile hands? Or what if the player/knight sees s/he is in a hopeless situation, and wants to move on to another game?

Penalties don't seem to fit.

Hypotheticals are incredible in that you can always craft them to suit whatever point you want to make.

"Or what if the player/knight sees s/he is in a hopeless situation, and wants to move on to another game? "

Then I say f*ck them, its poor sportsmanship to give up, and that mentality should be squashed whenever it rears its ugly head. Just my .02 :)

Well, whatever. My rule is:
a) a (modified) implementation of the original game's rule; and,
b) proposed to make the traitor's role a bit more possible - which is what we have been arguing for these days iirc

So it's up to drano to decide if you want it or not.

gameID=17263

Pm me for password.