HEY!

1 - The Luck Factor's Problem
How many times have you been playing a great game, evaluating every move, and THEN the Westeros Cards drawn in the next turn ruined your game? There's a great difference between a Mustering or a Supply, depending on how you played, and this could decide if you're going to win or lose.

So, the drawing of Westeros Cards is, in my opinion, the only luck-related factor in this game. You can make all of your assessments, there could even be a 66% possibility that a Clash of Kings will be drawn, but then god has always to be on your side. Always.

2 - "B... But GIAN, that's why I play GoT and not Chess!"
SHUT UP!!! ...No, just joking. I understand what you mean... But it's a strategy game, so sometimes it's annoying that, after hours of planning and plotting, the wrong card ruins your game, even if stats and percentage were on your favour, so... I was wondering... What if there were a variant to reduce, or even remove, the luck factor in GoT? Eheh, stay tuned, ladies and lords!

3 - The GIANZAPPARIA Solution© - The Westeros Votation
.........I think someone has already thought about this. If so, you can send me the URL of the Topic.
Anyway, let me explain:

What if Westeros Cards are not drawn but are chosen by players? *Challenging music starts playing*
We could call it The Westeros Votation.
I imagine it as a votation (just like Clash of Kings or Wilding Attacks bids, but without power tokens). At the beginning of every turn (starting from the 2nd one), each player votes the Westeros card he wants to be drawn in every deck. Example:

GIANZAPPARIA: Mustering / Game of Thrones
Nitro: Mustering / Clash of Kings
Lannie85: Last Days of Summer / Dark Wings, Dark Words
Magnificent Opossini: Mustering / Last Days of Summer
Radagast: Supply / Clash of Kings
TheWarden: Supply / Game of Thrones

Let's resolve the bids.
Deck 1: 3 Mustering, 2 Supply and 1 Last Days of Summer, so, the card that's going to be drawn is Mustering!
Deck 2: 2 Game of Thrones, 2 Clash of Kings, 1 Dark Wings, Dark Words, and 1 Last Days of Summer. So, in this case, the throne holder would decide which card to be drawn between Clash of Kings and Game of Thrones.

What about Deck 3?! You can read it in the following section, if you're interested.

CALM DOWN! THAT'S THE BASIC IDEA, NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT WORKS. IF YOU LIKE IT, KEEP ON READING FOR THE ANALYSIS DOWN HERE.

4 - Let's take a closer look
If you're still reading this, maybe I got your attention, you started to love me and you're interested in examine in depth The Westeros Votation.

4A - What about the Throne of Blades and Dark Wings, Dark Words cards?
You're thinking: "Damn, no one would choose these cards in the votation!" ...Why not? Example: If you think that the Throne Holder would choose a Mustering, maybe you could vote the Throne of Blade card and spare a Mustering (since there are only 3 in Deck 1).
I think this all would work better if the Winter is Coming Cards would be substituted for another Last Days of Summer, in Deck 1 and Deck 2, since Winter is Coming Cards would allow the recycle of Musterings, Supplies, CoKs and GoTs and they potentially could be unlimited (Throne of Blades and Dark Wings, Dark Words would lose their value!). So we would have 2 Last Days of Summer and 0 Winter is Coming in Deck 1 and 2. I know this is a debatable point, and would like to know what you think about it.

4B - How is each deck composed?
The same as in 2nd edition games.

Deck 1: 3 Mustering / 3 Supplies / 2 Throne of Blades / 1 Winter is Coming / 1 Last Days of Summer (or 2 Last Days of Summer and 0 Winter is Coming).
Deck 2: 3 Clash of Kings / 3 Game of Thrones / 2 Dark Wings, Dark Words / 1 Winter is Coming / 1 Last Days of Summer (or 2 Last Days of Summer and 0 Winter is Coming).
Deck 3: Sorry, I don't remember them all.

So, a player can't vote for Mustering if 3 Mustering Cards have already been drawn!

4C - What about Deck 3?
I think a card could be chosen by votation from Deck 3 too, BUT, I believe it's no bad idea to let it decided by fate (the card is normally drawn) for 2 reasons:
- it makes the game a little unpredictable. "WTF?! First you say you want to remove luck from the game, and then you say you want the game unpredictable?!" Yes. In my imaginary this makes the game more fun, but it's my very personal idea.
- if a player is about to win (for example if he has got the 6th stronghold), the Westeros Votation would be a rape for him: if he needs a mustering, other players would vote supply; if a Clash of Kings would destroy him, other players would vote it. I think it would be disastrous for him if other players could choose the card drawn from Deck 3 too (For example no march+1, or no defence orders).

Anyway, I think that, before the game starts, players may decide if to vote for Deck 3 too, or not to.


5 - Pros and Cons
I haven't tried out this variant yet, since I haven't played live games with friends for a long time, but I am trying to assess the pros and cons of The Westeros Votation in a theoretical way.

Pros:
- Luck is reduced. Good thing, it's a strategy game.
- The game is more balanced. Consider all those times that one player held the Throne, the Valyrian Sword and the Crow... The only way to re-estabilish the balance was to pray for a Clash of Kings. With The Westeros Votation, situations like that would be infrequent and wouldn't last more than 1-2 turns. I know this is a debatable point.
- Any other idea?

Cons:
- Lenght. Games would be longer, because 2 votations should be resolved at every turn, and because every move should be well planned, since there are more factors to consider. So I think this variant is more easily appliable in games that doesn't have to end in 3-4 hours.
- Difficulty. To think about what votations to do, and what votations could other players do, would make the game surely harder to plan.
- Of course, the game is more balanced, as stated in the Pros, but it gets harder to win by taking 7 strongholds (for example, if you reach the 6th stronghold) since other players would vote cards to disvantage you in the Votation (as stated in paragraph 4C).
- EDIT: (overall) in the early game, players with stars are incentivized not to vote Mustering and Clash of Kings.
- Any other idea?

6 - Discussion
Do you think something is not clear? I will clarify your doubts.
Let me know what you think about it, if there's something I should change, or if you think I'm not mad!

7 - Insulting
Yeah, you can insult me.

I'm looking for someone to try out this variant... Shall you do this for me?!
Thanks for reading.

Last edited by GIANZAPPARIA on 2016-Feb-10 20:50, edited 5x in total

You can choose "Westeros Cards" as an option for your games. With that option enabled you see the next three cards. Then its not luck, its who plays best according to the upcoming cards.

After Reading section 3 I am opening a counter for players who ragequit after carefully claiming their 6th castle(while being first on track) and everybody is like: CLASH OF KINGS
Yeah wp gg

Section 4: The Throne,Raven and Sword loose a lot of power since noone will let the dicison to another player alone.

I totally disagree with the balancing> 4 houses got Star orders, so everyone is like: Supply/Supply/Supply with no Clash. With your proposal, a mustering could come up in round 7(same with clash) GG Tyrell and Greyjoy

---

AFFC PBF - #10
You do not need to know everything, but where to read it.-Albert Einstein-

Reading is overrated.-sarcasm off-

I don't know how this could work out. Somebody should try it out. But I agree with Harakon: those with star orders have strong incentives not to have mustering.

The open westeros cards (which Harakon mentioned) seems a better solution. I always play with that option, btw, exactly to decrease the element of randomness.

---

You probably mean round, not turn. There's a difference.

Yes I always prefer less randomness, as the best planner wins, but all my friends strongly disagree and prefer more randomness. In fact when we play in person the majority always opts to use Tides of Battle which adds even more randomness than Westeros I think.

Doing Open Westeros does take out the great majority of randomness, as you can plan your turn according to the cards.

More randomness does give the less strategy inclined people a better chance to win, so it balances in that sense. Much like using items in Smash Bros.

The custom option "Open Westeros phase" is a good way to have a good decrease of luck, but Gianzapparia is talking  about a total control on what is going to happen in the game. I still have no idea on how to realize it, but one day I'll find it ... Maybe!

Yeah, I like the Westeros Phase option, but there's always some kind of luck involved, since the cards are drawn randomly. For example, there could be no mustering 'till turn 8 just because the seven gods decided it.

I don't know how this could work out. Somebody should try it out. But I agree with Harakon: those with star orders have strong incentives not to have mustering.
This is something I didn't consider while thinking and writing. Thanks for the hint. I agree, this would make the game unbalanced (overall in the early game) on favour of players with stars, but I don't think it would affect every game... I find it hard to believe that every game (or almost every game) with this option would take to the annihilation of Greyjoy and Tyrell...

Then I can think of many situations (alliances, invasions, vengeance...) that could take some players to vote Mustering or Clash of Kings even if they have stars...

Anyway, as I said, I agree that's unbalanced in the early game, so I'll keep on thinking to find the holy inspiration... Oh god, I already know I will reach the point to make Tyrell start with 2 ships!!!

Thanks everyone for your ideas

Last edited by GIANZAPPARIA on 2016-Feb-10 20:46, edited 2x in total

I totally disagree with the balancing> 4 houses got Star orders, so everyone is like: Supply/Supply/Supply with no Clash. With your proposal, a mustering could come up in round 7(same with clash) GG Tyrell and Greyjoy
We may say that not everybody will vote for a Clash of Kings in the first turn, but I don't think what you said could really happen. For example, if I were playing with this rule as a Baratheon I will have more chances to get more power than one of my possible enemies (Martell) and I really wouldn't like to play the whole game with one star and on a low position on the Fiefdoms: I think I would vote for the Clash in the second turn at least.

I really disagree with what has been said by a lot of people : that the westeros cards being drawn by luck gives an edge to the less skilled players.

I've seen in my games (offline mostly) that less skilled people deal very badly with this luck factor. They are like "No mustering for 3 turns ? There will certainly be a mustering next turn, I'll bet on it". I think that being good at this game involves being prepared to every possibility, be it what the opposing player will play or what cards can be drawn. Never letting yourself in a position where a single card can completly destroy you is key I think. Yes some cards will benefit you more, but you need to be prepared, to have a plan, for every card.

Just my 2 cents ...

Another thought:
If you want to reduce randomness, why you ake random houses? Statistics show that you got a better chance to win with stark than with Lannister.=>Luck

Or if we keep the random(luck) houses, why should everbody keep his cards? Everybody gets a vanilla mix of a 0 and 3 card with a nice ability and the rest gets towers and swors.....

---

AFFC PBF - #10
You do not need to know everything, but where to read it.-Albert Einstein-

Reading is overrated.-sarcasm off-

Another thought:
If you want to reduce randomness, why you ake random houses? Statistics show that you got a better chance to win with stark than with Lannister.=>Luck

Or if we keep the random(luck) houses, why should everbody keep his cards? Everybody gets a vanilla mix of a 0 and 3 card with a nice ability and the rest gets towers and swors.....
I think this game has 2 little problems:
- the little presence of luck;
- Greyjoy who are overpowered. Balon and Victarion are gods.

Then there are other little lacks (as you can read in my Baratheon Topic or my Martell - Salt Shore Topic, now buried in the depth of this section) but this is my opinion.

My friends and I tried to rewrite Greyjoy's cards to weaken them, but we didn't find a deck that fully satisfied all of us, so never made a live in game to test what we've created.

We also thought of a way to draft cards (every player chooses his own house cards, following the pattern 4-3-2-2-1-1-0), we tested it once and I have to say it has been a funny game. But I think that if someone wants to create a perfect balance: luck should be reduced to 0 and every house should have the same cards or almost the same (1st edition house cards are a good attempt)... But we'd have boring games this way.

I didn't even propose the variant of playing with the same house cards because it would kill the game and it's something anyone could think of... I prefer complicating my life with this topic

Have you tried playing with the 1st edition Clash of Kings expansion cards? Those are the best in my opinion. Greyjoy is not that overpowered there.

---

You probably mean round, not turn. There's a difference.

My two cents on this topic:

for sure what Gian proposes it's interesting and it might be worth testing/improving it, to offer different game dynamics.

I am a little more skeptical about the concept itself of making GoT a game with no randomness. I mean, randomness was an ingredient at the very basis of this game when it was designed, and it does have its meaning in the game dynamics. Why do you want to denaturate this game at the point of totally removing randomness, instead of playing some game that was already developed and designed with that feature (some "funnier chess" let's say, I don't know about these, but I'm sure some should exist)? Don't forget that the developer of the game were pros in game theory and stuff like this, not just random guys that sat to a table saying "Hey, what shall we do today?""Let's invent a game!"
If you want, my question could be read as: Why do you want to invest a lot of time and efforts in giving a game some features that weren't thought for it, where some other people already did the work creating games that undergo your requirements?

Then I'd like to go off topic, to express MY OPINION on an issue (which is close to what Alrich already said):
Weighting risks (including westeros cards) is an inherent feature of this game, and, as far as intend the word "strategy", it's part of the strategy of the game. It's one of the features that I find more interesting about this game, along with diplomacy (don't forget about this factor when you make your consideration about balanced/unbalanced games, since the very fact of being unbalanced is usually a diplomatic leverage). This is why, as a personal taste, I even prefer the closed westeros option to the open one. In the end, I  think that taking into account the various westeros possibilities and sometimes gamble on that (weighting risks, we were saying), it's stuff for very good player, instead an advantage for weak ones.
Then of course sometime really unlikely and unlucky combination of westeros cards come up and tear you down, but this happen so rarely that cannot be taken as a paradigm.

As a conclusion, I think that we have two different visions of randomness in this game (equally worthy, no doubt about that): You see randomness as a destabilizing effect that happen to favour weaker players, levelling the game results. On the contrary I see it as an opportunity to emerge due to a greater modularity and adaptability of the strategic choices, to the skill of improvisation, and to some kind of instinctive feeling, a sort of sixth sense about how other players will gamble on the randomness.

Cheers

---

Have you tried playing with the 1st edition Clash of Kings expansion cards? Those are the best in my opinion. Greyjoy is not that overpowered there.
Are you referring to the 1st edition Greyjoy cards (Euron 2 swords icon, Balon and Victarion as zero cards)? If no, I don't think I know these cards.

Then, I agree with what strow_hunter said... I've never considered risk in game as you interpreted it now, and it may even change my way of playing.

Anyway, I don't know if I will ever work on this idea again, unless I find a new incentive to do it. Now excuse me, but I think I'm going to commit suicide!

Thanks for taking the time to share your ideas, guys.

Well two Players would be enough to win a vote (most of the time id guess). And thats how you can destroy a game for others just as well. If you planed everything so well and one card destroyes your whole game you didnt plan so well, aye? The westeros phase option is probably your game than. Your "solution" creates just a different type of luck. The card gets picked, that has the mist votes of your opponents and that may be even worse than having a not so great card by chance. Besides with the /events  given, you dont even have to do the mathematics yourself.

---

Once more into the frey...
Into the last good fight i´ll ever know.
Live and die on this day...
Live and die on this day...

Well, GIANZAPPARIA you seem to open interesting threads.

I will firstly discuss about the difference between open westeros/drawn westeros, so I can establish how I see the current game and then give my two cents to your "total skill" version.

I have to say that I don´t see that drawing the westerosi cards helps the weaker players or let´s say strategically lesser players. I always evaluate the different options and how I feel they will effect my game and so manage to create a strategy that will maximize my odds of winning. I can easily adapt to different situation and rarely let the westerosi cards destroy my game unless risking my game comes with a higher price of winning the game with high percentage. For example I tend to save tokens and usually anyway muster tokens much more than "weaker" players, but in some situation I could use them all to secure really good odds on winning the right away which I see my current best strategy to maximize my odds on winning.

Strategically wise I think the game is so much harder without option to see what is coming next. When there is open-westeros you can see what is going to happen and those making a decisions and strategies what are your short terms goals and needs easy since you most of the time know what is happening and how you should prepare. One major aspect of the game changes and that is diplomacy. When it is easy to see what is important and when questions like should I drive to take over blackwater for supply meaningless. When the information from the decks are open the most needed skill is diplomatic skill and abilities to bargain and make deals with other houses.

It is difficult to say which game type requires more skill or favors the more skilled player. I guess if you are good at this game the odds of your win don´t change that much what ever mode you play. Well for example Poncho is most likely the best negotiator and diplomat in this site and thus I understand his likeness of the mode and maybe he can even have better rating (most likely marginal) with open-westeros. I could say same to me that I am most likely better playing with drawn westeros and might have marginally lower rating playing those type of games.

Conclusion
I think the game is anyway not that luck intensive game and if you are good you can use that to gain really big advantage and thus win lot of games. Maybe with exception of 2nd edition Lannister which is such a weak house that you would almost always require quite much luck to aid you to win. The both options are very demanding and thus require lots of skill even with minor differences this game is seldom dictated by luck.

GIANZAPPARIA version
Even thought there suppose to be no luck element in this game, I would argue that this game makes it harder to gain advantage over other players which are weaker than you. The simple explanation is that in regular game there is limited options available when you are winning the game. In this version it is super easy to just "vote" against the best player intention if it seems that player is winning the game before round 10. I guess this game type is almost certain to not end until round 10. Also I guess this kind of self balancing game mode would also create tons of situations where one of the players will eventually choose between 2 players that which one of them should win.

In regular GoT usually if some player become too strong the other houses might lack the means to stop the front runner, but when players control the westerosi decks a strategy for early win will become stupid and most likely not fruitful. I would definitely play this kind of version just creating "allies" and try create the best situation to win this game in round 10 (assuming some skill difference but not major like newbies vs "pro".

One more point that your version might be boring is that the games should resemble each other quite similar to chess which has lots of opening sequences.


How I have reduced luck in my home games
Still I think the biggest luck factor in this game is the house draw. When we have played our own 4p version we have always bid for the houses before starting in order to weaken the houses that people see are better, after the house bid we start with a pregame clash of kings and then shuffle the decks and draw cards. Of course the house selection luck reduces if you have system like here that automatically distributes the houses fairly.

---

fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me

Could you explain your HOuse System again?

So everyone got their 5 tokens and bids 2 tokens (for example) on the house he wants to play?
If you win the bid for the house you got 3 tokens left for the pregame clash?
How do you shuffle the decks?

---

AFFC PBF - #10
You do not need to know everything, but where to read it.-Albert Einstein-

Reading is overrated.-sarcasm off-