Thanks for this series. It makes me want to dig out my copy and try these 'new' solitaire rules. When I last played this, the solitaire version had Diaz discarding all enterprises which meant I could never use my troops for extortion. You might want to tweak your own rules further though. In this video you played a headline which put unrest on every Mexican enterprise including three belonging to Diaz, whereas your rules state "Díaz is unaffected by Headline effects except Strife and Regime Change."
+Ricky Royal Ah yes. I'd missed that distinction. The headline was played by you, not Diaz. But that does raise two questions in my mind. a) Would it be within the spirit of the game if that headline (or one with similar effect) had come up on Diaz's turn and affected your enterprises adversely whilst leaving Diaz's enterprises untouched? b) Given that the particular card in question involved a regime change which would have resulted in it being played by Diaz as 'status quo', I have to wonder whether any of the headlines which trigger a change to Pax Porfiniana (and hence might potentially be played by Diaz) contain the kind of effect that could, might or ought to affect Diaz as well as you. (If the answer to b) is that there are no such cards, then question a) becomes irrelevant.) Sorry for the long complicated sentences. I hope they make sense.
+Paul Cockburn it does make sense :) Yes, I explicitly went through every card, played by you and played by Diaz, and made sure the rules hold up in each case (hence the rule changes for this variant). In regard to "spirit of the game" - Diaz is not a human player, so it doesn't matter that things are not equal - e.g. Diaz gets a +4 bonus to his prestige to compensate for you advantage brain-power. That's the key when developing a solo variant: if you try to simulate another player exactly then the game would become unplayable because of the complex heuristic you would have to devise. It's a great topic. You can read more about my thoughts on this here: www.boxofdelights.net/the-selfish-gamer/
Hi, no, strife affects all players. You get to choose which faction will affect you. If you only have one of the two in-play then you may choose this faction (eg to get rid of an enterprise being exploited by an opponent), or the other (for no effect).
+Ricky Royal Hmm, it's a very fine point, I guess, but that's not the way I read the Living Rules: "Strife forces all players with cards In Play from both Factions to discard all cards of one color or the other (i.e. one Faction threatens to quit if you employ the other Faction)." Strikes me that this means it only affects players who have both factions under control, because a faction isn't going to threaten to leave if you don't employ the other one.
+Jonathan A. No, I think you are absolutely correct. I've re-read with your context and I think we've been playing that wrongly, and your advice is spot on. Thank you ! This is will allow for some new strategies! :)
Thanks for this series. It makes me want to dig out my copy and try these 'new' solitaire rules. When I last played this, the solitaire version had Diaz discarding all enterprises which meant I could never use my troops for extortion.
You might want to tweak your own rules further though. In this video you played a headline which put unrest on every Mexican enterprise including three belonging to Diaz, whereas your rules state "Díaz is unaffected by Headline effects except Strife and Regime Change."
Thank you! Yes, I'll fix that headline rule: it means to say in respect to headlines Diaz plays (he is still affected by Headlines you play).
+Ricky Royal Ah yes. I'd missed that distinction. The headline was played by you, not Diaz. But that does raise two questions in my mind. a) Would it be within the spirit of the game if that headline (or one with similar effect) had come up on Diaz's turn and affected your enterprises adversely whilst leaving Diaz's enterprises untouched? b) Given that the particular card in question involved a regime change which would have resulted in it being played by Diaz as 'status quo', I have to wonder whether any of the headlines which trigger a change to Pax Porfiniana (and hence might potentially be played by Diaz) contain the kind of effect that could, might or ought to affect Diaz as well as you. (If the answer to b) is that there are no such cards, then question a) becomes irrelevant.)
Sorry for the long complicated sentences. I hope they make sense.
+Paul Cockburn it does make sense :) Yes, I explicitly went through every card, played by you and played by Diaz, and made sure the rules hold up in each case (hence the rule changes for this variant). In regard to "spirit of the game" - Diaz is not a human player, so it doesn't matter that things are not equal - e.g. Diaz gets a +4 bonus to his prestige to compensate for you advantage brain-power. That's the key when developing a solo variant: if you try to simulate another player exactly then the game would become unplayable because of the complex heuristic you would have to devise. It's a great topic. You can read more about my thoughts on this here: www.boxofdelights.net/the-selfish-gamer/
Start of 1905: 0:00
Start of 1906: 6:32
Start of 1907: 11:27
Diaz normally cannot get rid of unrest?
+nkorppi good question: yes, he will - by deploying troops. He won't use the Police action though. We cover this in Part 4.
Do you still have a link to those trackers?
boardgamegeek.com/filepage/90314/prestige-tracking-cards-themed
@@BoxofDelights thanks
Is the bit about strife only because you are talking about "Diaz"? Because normally, strife only affects players who have both factions
Hi, no, strife affects all players. You get to choose which faction will affect you. If you only have one of the two in-play then you may choose this faction (eg to get rid of an enterprise being exploited by an opponent), or the other (for no effect).
+Ricky Royal Hmm, it's a very fine point, I guess, but that's not the way I read the Living Rules:
"Strife forces all players with cards In Play from both Factions to discard all cards of one color or the other (i.e. one Faction threatens to quit if you employ the other Faction)."
Strikes me that this means it only affects players who have both factions under control, because a faction isn't going to threaten to leave if you don't employ the other one.
+Jonathan A. No, I think you are absolutely correct. I've re-read with your context and I think we've been playing that wrongly, and your advice is spot on. Thank you ! This is will allow for some new strategies! :)