Got this idea from a post earlier this week. It is a new variant that requires people to follow rules that are not enforced by the game engine, mainly restrictions on where armies can be deployed.

Premise:

You can * only deploy armies from a base, * from there, transfer wherever you want to take more bonuses and achieve a win. Play blockade cards to create additional bases.

Bases: You start with one, your only starting square. For the first several turns, this is the only square you can deploy armies to.

Creating Bases: First, play a blockade card with a minimum of 10 armies present. Then, the Next turn, pick one square adjacent to the blockade to deploy from, this is your new base. You can now deploy armies from both spots, in any ratio. Keep playing blockade cards to create new bases.

Taking Over Bases: If you take over an enemies deploy square, it is now yours to deploy from as long as the blockade remains. However, you must 1) see the enemy deploy from this square in a previous turn to know for sure it is a base and 2) see the blockade is present.

Destroying Bases: A base is destroyed when the blockade is taken down (either destroyed, or below a certain value, have not decided what makes sense yet).

Proposed Template:
http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=182764

Example of Game where the rules were mainly followed up until the end:
http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2623380

Changes worthy of discussion:

-Frequency/Multiplication Factor of Blockade Cards,
-Whether Blcokades need to be destroyed or diminished below a value to make base undeployable.,
-Allowing Reinforcements (per the card) to be deployed "in the field" away from the base.
-Size/frequency of Reinf Card

I think it might be more enjoyable to play with blockade cards 2x as quick as my proposed template (5 vice 10 pieces), and requiring less initial armies to create, and a multiplication factor of 2.

Please try out the varient, let me know if you have fun, and invite me to a game if you want to discuss.

looks good.
A weird style, make you think differently.

I was thinking about doing something similar. I will definately be using something like this! Having to Blockade however seems too clunky, do you know of any other, less annoying ways to make bases?

Also, added onto this, you could make a rule where if an enemy is encircled, IE, you take all the lands surrounding his territory, so it doesn't connect to anything but yours, he must abandon it, cutting off the supply chain for that army.

What if you destroy an enemies' last deploy base, but he has lots of normal territories left?

@Clavicus:

Less Clunky Way: Well, one perons said that they thought the rules meant that you needed to control the whole hex, and once you did, you could call the center of that hex a base which you could deploy to. This got rid of the whole blockade to make a base scenario, which was great for him... bad for us.

However, its not that clucky, and adds a bit to the game play to decide where to make a base, plus provides a reminder that you can only deply next to the blockade.

Cutting Off: Well, unless they have a base there, it is cut off from getting any more armies.

@Moros: Then technically they shouldn't get to deploy any armies then, and should surrender. I think anything else would be much to complicated to make into rules. But practically, on this map at least, by the time they got to the last base most other bonuses would be broken and there wouldn't be much left to fight with

Inconsistencies within the rules:
- There's no blockade next to the original base

Clarification request:
- When a group of territories is surrounded, are you allowed to blockade and start a new base there, so you can reinforce without having to break through?

Practical issues:
- When a player loses his last base (but still has a large stack of armies), the WL engine will force him to deploy somewhere. While you could have a rule saying the player has to surrender in that case, there doesn't seem to be a reason; it's possible to create a new base somewhere else and keep fighting.
A possible solution would be the inclusion of isolated territories (like the "airlift territories" on the Europe scenario), where you have to deploy when you don't currently have a base. (If you have airlift cards in the game, you should have a clear rule about whether or not those armies are eligible for airlifting!)

Off-topic:

If you want to include supply chain management in an RTS game, I recommend "Conquest: Frontier Wars". For some reason nobody knows that game, but it's actually pretty good.

@Moros.

As to the initial base, I got nothing, other than in this distribution, everyone knows where the other two bases are.

Airlifts would be really interesting.

There's no rules about surrendering, that was just a suggestion. The host could make a local rule if needed.

Per the rules, you could create a base anywhere, the caveat would be that you would have to have a neighboring territory adjacent to the blockade at the start of the next turn to deploy to. It doesn't have to be the one that you intended it to be, as the actual selection is made the next turn when you deploy.

Sorry, above was directed at RvW

Good points. I'll try this out later today :). I think i'll go with you can only make a base in a bonus you hold entirely, to prevent people setting up bases in the middle of a warzone.

I think i'll go with you can only make a base in a bonus you hold entirely, to prevent people setting up bases in the middle of a warzone.

Are you sure you don't mean "adjacent to a complete bonus"? Having to sacrifice a bonus seems like a very steep price to pay for an additional base...

So I made a new template:

http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=182861

A few lessons learned:
-I added that a reinforcement card can be played in whole to any one territory.
-The person that doesn't ask any questions at first does NOT understand and will play wrong.

Correct RVW.. I Scrapped the idea anyway, I made it so the blockades don't increase by anything, and the blockades are pretty rare, so putting a base on your frontline is dangerous enough as is.