The Settlers of Wesnoth; NEW: "NO DOWNLOAD NEEDED"

[Dixie]

Yesterday evening, I played the (board) game with a few other friends, and after a bit of arguing and going through the rules some more, here are three(as of yet unimplemented, AFAIK) rules that I'd like to discuss with you:

Conveniently, the first one was mentionned already:

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but for the original placement of settlements, the order it should go is:

P1,P2,P3,P4,P4,P3,P2,P1. Otherwise, player 1 has a huge advantage. From my testing the game, it simply went in normal turnover, meaning P1 got to place both his first and second settlement first.

Second change applies to the Longest Road. Apparently, the settlement of another player can cut a road for the purpose of determining the longest road. I was not convinced by that rule at first, but I must admit that with further thought, it adds a nice layer of strategy and difficulty as far as the Longest Road is concerned. I unfortunately can't produce a picture now to illustrate what I mean, but I'll try to put it into words: let's say P1 has a 10 units long road and P2 has a 6 units long road. Should P2 (or any other player except P1) go and build a settlement at the intersection in the very middle of P1's road, P1's 10 units road would now be two 5 units long roads, and P2 would then get the longest road award with his non-interrupted 6 units long road.

Third change is about the Knight development card. As it currently is, playing a knight card is the very same as rolling a 7:
1) Those with more than 7 cards discard half of their hand;
2) The Robber is moved;
3) A ressource is stolen from an adjacent settlement;
However, according to the rules, it seems that when using a knight, step 1 should be omitted. I am still not convinced if this particular rule might make knights a bit too wimpy, but I'd tend to give the benefice of the doubt to the game's editors, since it has been played and polished for over 15 years, now.

So, what do you guys think about it? Number 1 is a bit complicated to implement, as it has already been stated, although I'd think it's worth it. Number two would just imply changing a filter (although it might be a bit complicated), and possibly also launching the road-counting function when building settlements (and send a message if the longest road changes hands?). Number 3 I am not convinced about, but is by far the simplest change to do (AFAIK).

Discuss!

[Anonymissimus]

1) Is on the server.
image for 2):

Red's longest road would be 6, with that rule only 4 units long.
3) Don't know. You can no longer enforce successfull trade deals when you have a knight card and someone else has more than 7 units. Also, I like playing a knight when the near-to-winning competitor is over the resource limit at the moment.

[Crendgrim]

image for 2):

longest.PNG

Red's longest road would be 6, with that rule only 4 units long.

That's indeed how the original works. It features nice strategies, even if we don't use them often. I don't know, but this could be also reasoned in the fact that we're always playing with the Seafarers of Catan, so there is much water to bridge before you're able to settle anywhere.
I don't know how complicated this is to implement - I remember that Dixie hat much trouble about the lua code for the longest road - but if it's easy to do it should be done IMHO.

3) Don't know. You can no longer enforce successfull trade deals when you have a knight card and someone else has more than 7 units. Also, I like playing a knight when the near-to-winning competitor is over the resource limit at the moment.

I don't really like it to be as it is. It is as Dixie said:

but I'd tend to give the benefice of the doubt to the game's editors, since it has been played and polished for over 15 years, now.

But if you really like to change the rules here it only would be surprising for people who see all other rules implemented as in the Original
Do whatever you want...


Crend

[TheEmptyLord]

Both of those things should be as the rules specify

2) This rule is a great one. Though it is rarely brought into play, it requires the players to think about defense as well as building quickly. Let me diagram this.

Player 1: -A--A--A- ok, so player one here is completely safe from a player breaking their road due to the Distance rule. There would have to be a minimum of three roads in a row with no settlements to any direction for this rule to possibly be invoked. Of course if you start building near them they can build a settlement there in defense. It is very rare for this rule to be invoked but it makes the enemy not invincible with a few extra quickly build roads.

3) When I began playing Settlers of Catan I originally thought the same as you. Why not have the knight cut the enemy's hand it half? Think of it this way. roughly 70% of the Development deck is solely knight cards. These cards already gain one recourse AND cut production of one of their enemies' lands AND moves the robber away from themselves AND with three of these cards gain 2/10 victory points which is very hard to lose. Giving them the bonus of cutting an enemy's hand in half (which would then be the cheif use of this card) would mean that for a sheep, rock, and wheat, they could have 70% chance of doing a GREAT deal of things, which outway the usually more prized devo cards and give them a large advantage. In an average game I usually have 7+ cards no less than, say, 10 times. In those games at almost any time at least one person has a knight lying in wait. If they pulled those cards i would constantly lose the ability to trade/build.

In conclusion, the truth is that the knight cards fit perfectly in their spot as most common devo card and their power matches that perfectly. Changing this will change so much of the gameplay it will literally cease to play the same way at all. After 15 years these people really do know what they are doing.



Sorry if any of that came across as condescending or annoyed, these rules are imperative to the game, and anyone who has played it in rl will be quite annoyed if they are changed. If you do change them, put a disclaimer noting that the game is altered in such and such ways so players don't lose because of misplaced strategies.

Thanks for making this add-on. SoC is a great game!



EDIT:

Reading backwards I noticed that there was controversy about donations. The main problem with donations is that donations change the gameplay. If two friends are playing, or they want to gang up on another player, they simply donate whatever they need to the other player. Sure they could trade it, but then at least they would be forced to give something up.

One of the reasons listed for removing the Donation limit, was for one player to be able to donate to help another player stop a different one from winning. Though there is no technical rule that refuses this, I most certainly dislike it. If 3 players decide they don't want player four to win, suddenly they can donate around and screw hat player over. Of course then one of them comes out on top and becomes the winner.

On a side note, lets say player one had a Wheat, Log, and Brick, but is lacking a sheep for a settlement. This player cannot trade to get the supply he needs and so he must move on. If his friend over there donated him a sheep, suddenly he is above where he should be in the game, and now he has an advantage not accounted for.

Again, it's best to follow the people who have been developing this for 15 years, rather than impulses

[Dixie]

Yeah, I guess this seems sensible. Maybe I'll try my hand at it as soon as I get some free time (which might not be before a few weeks :/) if Anonymissimus doesn't do it before me.

On a side note (and just so we don,t forget), here's another rule I'm aware of but (AFAIK) wasn't implemented yet: you shouldn't be able to use a development card on the turn it is built. Thinking about it, it shouldn't be TOO complicated to implement: just create a "just_built_dev" container variable similar to each player's "dev", and add its contents to the side turn's "dev" in "sow_victory_check", and then reset it. Something like that, at least.

[ElvenKing]

On a side note (and just so we don,t forget), here's another rule I'm aware of but (AFAIK) wasn't implemented yet: you shouldn't be able to use a development card on the turn it is built. Thinking about it, it shouldn't be TOO complicated to implement: just create a "just_built_dev" container variable similar to each player's "dev", and add its contents to the side turn's "dev" in "sow_victory_check", and then reset it. Something like that, at least.

Hmm, I just checked the rules of my set and this is a bit ambiguous in the case of victory point cards. It has the part about only playing one development card a turn and not being able to play it on the turn you got it and directly underneath it has an exception saying; "Any number of victory points cards can be played on any given turn." With it being directly under the paragraph that both says that you can only play one development card a turn and that you can't play it on the same turn that you got it, I'm not entirely sure whether it is granting an exception to playing just one victory point card a turn or whether it is granting an exception to both the restriction of playing one card and not being able to play it on the turn you bought it.

[Crendgrim]

On a side note (and just so we don,t forget), here's another rule I'm aware of but (AFAIK) wasn't implemented yet: you shouldn't be able to use a development card on the turn it is built. Thinking about it, it shouldn't be TOO complicated to implement: just create a "just_built_dev" container variable similar to each player's "dev", and add its contents to the side turn's "dev" in "sow_victory_check", and then reset it. Something like that, at least.

Hmm, I just checked the rules of my set and this is a bit ambiguous in the case of victory point cards. It has the part about only playing one development card a turn and not being able to play it on the turn you got it and directly underneath it has an exception saying; "Any number of victory points cards can be played on any given turn." With it being directly under the paragraph that both says that you can only play one development card a turn and that you can't play it on the same turn that you got it, I'm not entirely sure whether it is granting an exception to playing just one victory point card a turn or whether it is granting an exception to both the restriction of playing one card and not being able to play it on the turn you bought it.

You have to differentiate between "development cards" and "victory points cards". The latter are a special case of those cards:
You are only allowed to play one development card per turn and not in that turn you bought it. But you are allowed to play as many victory point cards as you want regardless of the other development cards.
I hope this was clear enough...


Crend

[Anonymissimus]

@TheEmptyLord
I don't like your post. Instead of complaining about rules you'd better do something for the project. Note that it seems that there are no "official" rules but it varies between distributions instead. Also I didn't know the rules before coding them for this project.

as for the cards: make some example pls

[Dixie]

About VP cards: they are an exception, because they are never played. They are simply revealed at the end of your turn when you have enough points (including them) to win the game.

Some examples:
You have a VP card, a knight and a monopoly knight. You decide to buy two development cards: they turn out to be another knight and a Year of Plenty. You want to use some of your cards: only a knight and the monopoly card are available, because the VP one isn't usable and the two others were built this turn. You choose the knight. You want to use another card, but sadly the function is disabled, since you already sued one of them (a knight). Next turn, you can use your remaining knight (the new one), the monopoly and the year of plenty. You still have the VP one, but it still ain't usable.

[Anonymissimus]

I still don't get ElvenKing's point I think. And please don't use "play" a card. Either it's "bought" (why "built" ?) or "used". Thats less confusing.

[Dixie]

I think ElvenKing is confused and thought you had to "play" (use) Victory Point cards. I thought you were confused on the other thing, sorry.

[Anonymissimus]

What about this case:
4 players in the game, A B C D
longest roads:
A 6, B 5, C 5, D 4
Therefore A currently has the longest road award.

D builds a settle, interupting A's road, A's longest road is now 3 units long. Who of B or C gets the longest road award now ? It may even happen that victory is triggered by this.
a possible solution:
-Keeping track of the order in which roads have been built (add a counter to the roads' variables); the one with the older latest built road gets it.
Any solution will be difficult; but what rule do you have in the board game for this ?
--------
Omitting the resource halfings for a knight card was actually easy, 2 lines and an if or so.

[Dixie]

What about this case:
4 players in the game, A B C D
longest roads:
A 6, B 5, C 5, D 4
Therefore A currently has the longest road award.

D builds a settle, interupting A's road, A's longest road is now 3 units long. Who of B or C gets the longest road award now ? It may even happen that victory is triggered by this.
a possible solution:
-Keeping track of the order in which roads have been built (add a counter to the roads' variables); the one with the older latest built road gets it.
Any solution will be difficult; but what rule do you have in the board game for this ?

AFAIK, there are no rules about this. In case of such a tie, I think the best solution would be to just remove the award from the game (give it back to the AI) until B or C expends his road. This would probably also require that an if be added in sow_victory_check/the longest road checking function, in case a player has an at least 5 units long road but is in a tie with another AND the award is currently in possession of the AI.

However, it occurs to me that maybe most of sow_victory_check could be omitted: when I coded it, the score was updated as points were made, and this function was just a check-up, but most of what it does is superfluous (i.e. just doubles up the other score updates). Its only real use is to compare a player's current score + Victory cards versus the goal of the game.

I'll let you see 'bout that

[Crendgrim]

AFAIK, there are no rules about this. In case of such a tie, I think the best solution would be to just remove the award from the game (give it back to the AI) until B or C expends his road.

You're wrong: There indeed is a rule about it. And: It is handled just as you proposed
So, this is the way the original game works...


Crend

[Anonymissimus]

AFAIK, there are no rules about this. In case of such a tie, I think the best solution would be to just remove the award from the game (give it back to the AI) until B or C expends his road.

You're wrong: There indeed is a rule about it. And: It is handled just as you proposed
So, this is the way the original game works...


Crend

Maybe we make it so that if someone loses the award by settle building it goes always back to neutral ? It might also happen that by such an action 2 players reach the winning victory points simultaneously otherwise. (One by building a settle, the other one by getting the award.)