Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One of the things I think Games of Thrones really gets right (besides the neekid hawt chix of course) is the simple fact that, for most of history in much of the world, war is not like chess.

You don't always know which pieces are yours, or what they will do. You might wake up one morning and find your bishop standing over you with a knife at your throat. Or hear that 3 pawns decided to go home to their farms for the harvest, or that the black rook is willing to change sides for 300 gold and complete dominion over the left hand corner.

Or that a third and fourth player just showed up with their pieces.

(Which I think is why people in the west have had such trouble wrapping their brains around the wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, we're just too used to thinking of binary situations.)

So I'm playing with an idea of how to represent this in a game.

(side note, this is hardly a new idea so if you know any good board games that capture this idea let me know, I might might want to check them out).

Using 40k as a backdrop it might be a situation where the Governor has died and both his son and daughter have valid claims to the throne ("it says here, the oldest son shall inherit the throne" "but it says here the oldest child shall inherit!").
So you have factions:

4 different Planetary Defense Force generals and their armies (let's say East, West, North and South Commands)
The Capital Guard force
Grand Wazir and the administration
The Imperial Guard garrison
The Adeptus Arbites
The Cardinal and Eccleciastacy
Adeptus Mechanicus
Wasteland Raiders
Chaos Cults
Hive Gangs
Sisters of Battle in their mountain Fortress-Convent
Off World Trade Houses
Rabble Rousers and their mobs

And so on...

Each would have its own preset forces, plus a limited ability to raise more.

The players bid on their loyalty, and later in the game can try and bid to switch (requiring a 2x or more multiplier).

And there'd be some sort of feedback loop, where success on the battlefield makes keeping loyalty easier, loses make it harder. Fighting defensively helps loyalty (troops are comfortable and fed in their bases), but winning in the field helps too. Propaganda and controlling influential factions helps, the Arbites and Cardinal grant you more legitimacy. The Wasteland Raiders and Chaos Cults hurt you. Getting your enemy to commit massacres or other atrocities helps your cause.

At some point this gets too complicated and should probably be a video game...

And then of course you have the map and locations to control.

Factory cities for production
Farms for food
Spaceport for off-world reinforcements
Cathedral for legitimacy
Governors Palace for legitimacy
Bureaucratic center for income and governing

You get the idea.

Most of the locations would belong to a faction but could be taken in battle or by swinging loyalty your way.

Anyway this is very much notional, I wonder if it could be turned into a 40k mission or something...

Or maybe a Star Wars Miniature game.

My big worry is it would not be fun. A luck or good player could spam bids right off the bat and the loser suddenly find himself surrounded and wiped out.

So uh... I dunno... thoughts?

Depending on how 'into it' the players involved are, I think the easiest solution here is to combine a traditional campaign system (probably map-based) with actual inter-player diplomacy, with each acting 'in character' (not going full RPG, of course, but acting in their army/factions interests as well as their own) during the campaign management.

So say in a portion of the map, Player A has a large aggressive force bearing down on Player B's already-battered force from a previous game, and a smaller force defending an area that offers something (resources, campaign points, or just a good position). Player B is not going to be able to withstand A's attack on his own, but it just so happens that Player C has a force in the region as well, not as large as A's but larger than B's. The two negotiate, B perhaps trying to convince C that A is the biggest threat to them both, and that by pooling forces for this round, they both stand a better chance against A's force. C, meanwhile, wants A's territory captured, so might agree to help out B against A on the condition that, should they win, both immediately move against the smaller garrison force, and the resources gained from that are ceded to C as a repayment for the assist. On the other hand, C might be playing a more conniving faction or character, and rather see A obliterate B and use the latter as a diversion for a retreat or an attack elsewhere...

Of course, if they do agree to join forces, either is liable to betray the other at any time, for resources, for position, out of (in character) spite or whatever, and that's just as easily accommodated. As in 'real world' diplomacy, the players have to be constantly weighing the chances of success and failure, trying to keep certain forces on side while paying off others. This could lead to military joint actions, non-aggression pacts, trading/bribing/exchanging/extorting resources ect, all without a complicated list of what you can and can't do that needs to be constantly consulted.

So while there's no rules governing this kind of thing, beyond the campaign structure, I think it's the best way of simulating what you're going for, a mimic of 'real' politics. Obviously, it's something your players need to commit too, as you can't really half-arse this kind of thing, but it opens up a lot that doesn't require a great deal more preparation or admin than a regular campaign.

I like your idea a lot because basically you're saying we should play Diplomacy, which is fine by me since Diplomacy is one of the great board games of all time.

I can remember details of Diplomacy games I played ages ago.

In order to make this work as a two player game I'm thinking maybe every army/faction should have an activation roll. And you get a bonus depending on what you control.

So the PDF is fairly loyal and motivated, you can get them moving on a 4+ (out of 10). The Battle Sisters are fantatics and will move on a 2+, but the Hill Tribes, they're happy where they are, you need to get 9+ for them to move, so you'll be spending points on bribes and so on to get them going.

What I remember of diplomacy is its unofficial tagline "destroying friendships since 1959" and two good friends brawling over the game table because one backstabbed the other in such a way that from top he fell to really bottom.

The last was the last game of diplomacy I ever plaid and the reason I will never play it again.

I would characterize it as a peculiar incident if not I had such a huge report of similar incidents over this game, I would be really worried placing a gaming group in such a "system" they may be cool with it it may rupture the club.

In short like Lifeboats, Diplomacy relies on personality and popularity instead of game mechanics to persuade players in doing what the game is supposed to do.

This can fracture even well bonded communities and no "its just a game" does not stand.

Was going to say, this concept would work better like a party game or along the lines of diplomacy, Mafia or the Werewolf variant. Less rolling of dice, more interacting with other people and screwing each other over for fictional power and riches.

Somone was telling my the actual Game of Thrones board game is like this.

Still working on the 2 player version though...

I think I can make it reasonable.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
(Which I think is why people in the west have had such trouble wrapping their brains around the wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, we're just too used to thinking of binary situations.)

So uh... I dunno... thoughts?

Consider the following games as reference:

1. Diplomacy
2. Machiavelli
3. Dune

All of these factor for shifting alliances, and are excellent diplomacy games that might give examples for how you want your game to play.