18-04-2001 18:30									#1
	Another game of Royale, folks? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Last game was bounds of excitement all around, so how about another one? Not necessarily on 1600 map - I'm envisioning the regular 7-powered map, with game starting in 1900 and going on in 5-year turns (just like Dip Royale always does). Yes, it would continue to our times, but hey, that's just part of the charm! We'd naturally need 7 players and a GM (LordStone1?), but I don't think we'd have much difficulty in finding them. I'm willing to play, certainly. And if this does happen, my country reservation list would be Russia - Turkey - England - France - Germany - Italy - Austria.

	18-04-2001 22:10									#2
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I MIGHT be willing to GM another game of Royale. But first I think I'd like to hear from all the Saxony players (privately) and hear their opinions about the variant. It's a very complex game, and I'm sure there are some weaknesses within the rules and so on. I'd like to hear from players on that subject. I was also troubled by how the dynasties virtually decided the fate of a country by pure luck -- for example, the Vasas of Poland (Imran) and the Castilles of Spain (Du Chateau) had no chance because they didn't produce any heirs, and were quickly eliminated from the dynastic proceedings and later on, the game itself.

What do you think, people?

	19-04-2001 01:34									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The Bourbon dynasty was also very unlucky after the early game. It's repeated failure to produce male heirs (I think I got five daughters in a row), made it pale in a size comparison to the other dynasties. Luckily, my military might overcame this shortfall. (A private opinion to follow.)

	19-04-2001 04:58									#4
	Put an end to popups!

I am intrigued by Royale dip.

I am also available as cannon fodder if there is any room!

	19-04-2001 08:09									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Russia
Turkey
France
Italy
Germany
Austria
England

Oh, and this means I will be willing to play. I will be around for a while.

	21-04-2001 00:16									#6
	Got spare money?

Midshipman, do you know the rules for Royale?

Anybody, is there any interest?

	21-04-2001 01:25									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I might be interested, but I rather like the 1600 map. I think with all the extra action going on (treaties, royalty, clergy, births, deaths, etc.) that opening it to 10 or so players makes for more interest. Of course this requires 3 more players, but WTF?

	21-04-2001 01:32									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I feel that a seven player map is very good, but would preffer the Heptarchy map if I were playing, simply because the map is much more suited to the concept of Royale. I seriously doubt though that you could get more than seven GOOD players for the purpose of Royale. Your Apolyton average players aren't going to cut it for Royale due to the nature of the game, and I for one though I wish very much to play, will be unable to this summer (now if someone were to volunteer to be an alternate, I'd be glad to start the country off then leave it to them.)

	21-04-2001 03:56									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I need a copy of the rules, if someone would be so kind...

And this one should call for about 10 players, I agree with Ruff... the more the merrier!

	21-04-2001 08:01									#10
	Got spare money?

I fear that there are not 10 people qualified enough to play a game of Royale in all Apolyton. The dedication it takes is very great, otherwise you meet your end like Spain in the game we played (I made sure he never built, and his empire was quickly gutted.)

	21-04-2001 18:51									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

There's no question that Royale (What we knew here as Saxony will take a firm commitment to play, and finding 10 dedicated people willing to play it to the end will be tought. But such is true with every game we play here. And abandonments are on the decline lately. Dare we be optimistic?

My main reasons for advocation the 1600 Map over the standard map lie in my preference for variants, historical color, and a feeling that a ten player map would offset some of the crossgaming/prearranged allainces that might pop up.

Having not played Royal before I can't say for sure. However, in observing the last game, I think this presents the so-called weaker/inexperienced players more options for treaty and alliance. Ultimately I think it will simply be more work for the GM to add more players, so that has to be considered too. YMMV.

	21-04-2001 19:28									#12
	Remove this text

I think Royale is even harder on inexperienced players than normal dip, mainoy because of the binding treaties. The way they are worded can cause a newbie to sign something which firmly places him as the junior partner in a two-way alliance, and he can do very little so long as he is bound by that writ. This also puts a lot more emphasis on early diplomacy. Once the pseudo-permanent treaties are signed, most nations are bound to a very specific set of alliances.

I personally like this type of play a lot more. I technically stabbed no one (I had no deal with Spain, and the assignment of a leader to F Bor pretty much told me which way this was going to go. The Ottomans and I both knew war would break out between us, and I wasn't too keen on preventing it through negotiations. I told Denmark i would take Holland off its hands. Austria gave me Bavaria (I refused more Austrian territory, chosing instead to try to keep Austria alive.) I refused to renew my treaty with England, leading clearly to our war.) A dip game that one can come out on top of without lying is pretty nice. (I don't know how much lying Snowfire did, if any). Diplomacy becomes so much more important for this reason. I mean, by the end of the first year, Austria and I were almost irrevocably allied. England and Denmark both had peace treaties with me. I promised both that I would not ally with the other as soon as the respective treaties took effect, but both treaties were secretly signed the same year (Language at its finest.) And so poor Spain had very little chance. France's other neighbors could not intervene, and Spain was very quickly gutted, also due to my ability to get the Ottomans to take out his Italian possessions. Then, my refusal to consent to a French-Ottoman marriage doomed the Ottomans, since again, they were the only border across which I could attack. Even if I wanted to, I was forced to fight them or not grow for years.

10 players, as good as that could be in terms of halting cross-gaming that Apolyton is prone to is nice, but due to the size of the number 10, you ensure that we have to tap all players that tend to cross game for this one, since they also tend to be our most reliable players. 7 is a much nicer, and I think the Heptarchy map takes out the historical advantage that 1600 offers over standard, but if 1600 is chosen, I vote for the verion 2.54 map

	21-04-2001 23:27									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I won't GM a game with 10 players - it's as simple as that. Saxony was a 9-player game and often, adjudication would take ONE HOUR (particulary with the birth rolls). GMing a Royale game is a lot of hard work with lots of math and thinking. I'm more busy now than I was before, and a 7-player game would be great.

The rules for Royale are: http://www.geocities.com/defiant003/Dominations38.gif

For Saxony, we used the Wasa rules except for the unlimited clergy rule, and none of the Heir rules except for the plague rules.

These are the additional rules/clarifications I made for Saxony: http://www.geocities.com/lordstone1/saxony/rules.htm

This is the Saxony website: http://www.geocities.com/lordstone1/saxony/

Take a good look at the "Results" page, the "Dynasty" page, the "Writs" page which is in the Dynasty page, and the maps too. Looks pretty complex already, right? My main "Saxony.doc" with all the info the players sent me, is 190 kb!

	22-04-2001 00:49									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I am very interested in playing. I must confess that Victor's comments are perplexing. Who are these cross gamers he so casually rags upon? If the game is supposed to be heavy on diplomacy; then maybe more players in the club should be encouraged to play. If anything this might improve their diplomacy talents. I have never NMR'd nor do I cross game. Plus, I believe I have mastered the art of the English language so as to not be "taken advantage of" by you word smiths. By Victor's requirements, I look like a perfect fit for this game. I think learning a more complex game that rewards diplomacy and possibly eliminates needless stabbing is a refreshing change. Good sirs, count me as either one of the seven or of the nine!

	22-04-2001 00:52									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

BTW, Lordstone. Your link for the rules is Defiant's Domination Map.

	22-04-2001 01:25									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I was more particularly reffering to Midshipman's request to play. No offense intended, but Royale just isn't for newbies. I also suggest the collection of all the Saxony rules into one set, for easier refference, and so that we can have a named sub-variant that originated at Apolyton

	22-04-2001 10:37									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Indeed, I would be in favor of Saxony again, simply because it's a more historical map and for color. Heptarchy would certainly work though, the only thing is that some nations on the Heptarchy map have rather few neighbors while pretty much everybody on the Saxony map has at the very least 3, leading for lots of fun diplomacy.

The one warning I will give is that Victor is correct about the early alliances bit. I pretty well offered Stefu whatever terms he wanted for Russia to keep off my back, and I was reasonably nice to Mao as Denmark too, which insured I would only have a one-front war, something psychotically important to Saxony since you can almost insure it.

As for the lying bit, well, you can lie, but it's only really believable early on or for very barren households. Any compotent player will ask for a marriage to cement your promises, so really your only excuse is "I don't have anybody available right now."

I would be interested in playing, but fevrenetly hope that we won't have this start until the middle of May when I get out of college and have more time for Dip.

	22-04-2001 12:12									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

I still favor the normal Dip map. It is seven-player map, and unlike Heptarchy, the nations are quite near each other, leading to game getting diplomatical right from beginning. Plus, I've wanted to have a game of Royale with normal map for some time now.

	22-04-2001 20:39									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, I was afraid that LordStone was going to take that position. Ultimately it's his time being spent, and it's difficult to criticize him for that. Although I have to chuckle at the "ONE HOUR" comment. I know all too well how long it takes to adjudicate some of these variant maps with 10-13 players. I wish it only took an hour to do these things.

Can we have a look at the oft-mentioned Heptarcy map?

This is just a recommendation, but I think LS should consider soliciting interest in the game and then selecting the players that he feels most comfrtable with. As has been mentioned this is a very complicated variant, and requires a lot of committment and effort. Even though I have not played Royale before, I folowed Saxony the game. And I would be willing to stand aside or act as an advisor/mentor to a less experienced player. Or if invited to play, I would accept a protoge player that could watch and assist me. This way if someone who's genuinely interested is left out, we might be able to accomodate them. I'm a little overwhelmed with things right now as it is. A start up in late may would work better for me too.

Gerwald, in Victor's defense I raised the crossgaming issue, not him. It's not that big a deal. Royale's treaties will in effect create some mandatory alliances. And as previously mentioned, the wording of the alliance treaties will add some interesting twists.

	23-04-2001 01:52									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Oops. Once again, here's the Royale rules. http://w1.132.telia.com/~u13206915/ROYRULES.htm

As for playing on the Heptarchy map, I have indeed GM'ed a game with that map before (Dip9) after taking over from Stewart Spink. http://web.libertysurf.se/baches/heptarch.htm I used the Heptarchy III Map, and to be honest I think Heptarchy IV is an improvement because all the powers are made more equal.

Yes, I'll admit, Heptarchy isn't that great for the diplomacy aspect -- Scotland will rarely ever need to talk to Mercuria or Anglia until the very end of the game. Moreover, this is a game where everyone's pretty much Anglo-Saxon, and for me, if it was used for Royale it'd lose much of its international dynastic flavor.

If we used the Standard Map, each dynasty could really adopt a distinctive national character with use of names and titles (just compare the Albayraks to the Ahponovs). For me, that makes the game more exciting. And with 7 players, I think it'd force everyone to talk to each other cuz everyone's in each other's way. With the 1600 map, people could ignore the Castilles or the Vasas and just walk over them.

But one thing I'm concerned about the Standard Map is that it actually has too few provinces. What do you think? How do you feel about a game on the Modern map? It's been used a lot...

	23-04-2001 04:52									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

That'd be interesting. Perhaps you could post a link to a modern map (yes, I know, but I'm doing some serious downloading and it's hard for me to do a search through dip resources... if only I had high-speed access.)

	23-04-2001 05:56									#22
	Inflate your Upload Space

Modern Map: http://devel.diplom.org/Online/maps/modern.gif

One prob is that this has 10 players, and will result in a longer game. (Remember, Royale is three times slower than a regular game). And the map itself doesn't lend itself well to additions of build sites and archbishoprics.

	23-04-2001 07:08									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

In that case, the 1600 map would be better. Same number of players, and more historic.

	23-04-2001 09:50									#24
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Actually, 1600 has 9 players. Modern has 10.

	23-04-2001 19:44									#25
	Increase Your PM Length

I could be up for a game of Royale, if you're still looking for players. I've never reaaly plyed a game with more than the regular rules, but I expect I could follow...

	25-04-2001 02:49									#26
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So..what do you think?

	25-04-2001 03:16									#27
	Got spare money?

I vote for game of Royale on 1600, named after a German province which will prove a key battleground in the mid to late game

	25-04-2001 03:26									#28
	Remove this text

Baden?
Bayern?
Brandenburg?


How about Bayern Munchen in honor of the soon to be European Champions?

LS has some neat ideas too. Saxony II would be fine with me, but I guess I'm not all that picky.

	25-04-2001 04:17									#29
	Inflate your Upload Space

Westphalia and Mecklenburg are too much of a mouthful. Hesse is a bit too short, but works, I suppose. My votes would be for Silesia, which as we all know was a pretty important province in history, or Tuscany, which while not German certainly is an interesting province and rolls off the tounge pretty well too.

And oh yes, one extra restriction: you can't play the same country you played in Saxony. So no Sweden for me.

	25-04-2001 06:34									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

How about Styria? That has a nice ring to it. I thought about "The Concert of Europe" as the new title but that's a bit off the beaten track. Styria, I like it. Makes me think of Slytherin. Go Gryffindor! Go Hufflepuff! Go Ravenclaw!