<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=275524.msg13658007#msg13658007">Quote from: Zaer Darkwail on 08-11-2017, 13:16:11</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Well, I cannot help it I plan stuff, it's part of my innate gamer self. I do roleplay but I also think stragetic manner as well. However do note that I did not stack decks just myself; AnnieSatin by her own choice picked me as someone to kidnap her (she had checked my ons/offs) and Autocad also choose free will my clan to work in and so did Silk choose where to train her char in. In short I was lucky and played stragetic manner (and plus roleplayed things out).<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Looking back, my wording was probably a little strong.<br/><br/>What I meant to say was that we could go back and forth forever trying to draw distinctions between smart moves and poor sportsmanship, but no matter how we take it apart and reassemble it, the whole problem comes down to whether OOC strategy was intended to be part of the game (and to what extent, if so). I really think this whole thing was a communication breakdown rather than any intentional ill-will, so provided we know for the next game (and hence everyone’s on the same page), it’s not going to be an issue ever again. Given that this was the first ever ‘beta test’ for the Supremacy system, I like to think that working out these unexpected foibles is still something of a win.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=275524.msg13662524#msg13662524">Quote from: Relikai on 10-11-2017, 14:05:02</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">One of the things GM can put in the rules regarding characters and actions, since some clans could do thrice the actions of others.<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=275524.msg13662536#msg13662536">Quote from: Xue on 10-11-2017, 14:12:17</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">If the issue was overloading one clan, can that be addressed in such a way that the game can be played with an uneven number of players on each team? Caps? Minimums?<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=275524.msg13662543#msg13662543">Quote from: Zaer Darkwail on 10-11-2017, 14:20:57</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Anyways GM could rule each clan got set number of actions [...] Each action could performed by the daimyo itself, but daimyo can assign someone else perform the given action.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>I might be wrong, but I think there was talk of a similar system whereby there were two tiers of characters: leaders, and supporters. The leader assigns the Clan actions; the supporters provide buffs according to their skills, or perform minor actions (akin to bandits in this game).<br/><br/>At any rate, I think we’re all aiming towards a roughly similar idea: establishing an equal baseline for actions, with extra players conferring some sort of bonus rather than a whole extra consecutive turn of +2 actions.