| dc354 game end - draw! - FuzzyLogic (May 24, 2011, 7:35 am) |
Interesting point.
I wonder if we rotated the globe and redrew it so that the Archers were at the north pole and the Magicians were at the south pole, how ppl would view their nations. Is this more a perception thing? The Ogres (south pole) do start surrounded by 3 other players with whom they come into immediate contact.
From: Warren Fleming [mailto:alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: Mon 5/23/2011 10:21 PM
To: Michael Sims; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; Mike Hoffman
Cc: maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; spinozas(at)gmx.net; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn; Garry Bledsoe; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Nathan Deily
Subject: RE: dc354 game end - draw!
How do you connect north and south on a globe? Everyone is at a pole, just depends which way you hold the globe.... 'cept the nomads.
W
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - pieandmash (May 24, 2011, 2:47 am) |
I agree leave poles alone. Its no different from standard, each country has different strength and weakness, combined with player skills and the variables are what make it interesting. If it aint broke dont fix it, except nomads, either improve or remove, they are too weak
On Tue, 24 May 2011 04:21 BST Warren Fleming wrote:
How do you connect north and south on a globe? Everyone is at a pole, just depends which way you hold the globe.... 'cept the nomads.
W
Subject: RE: dc354 game end - draw!
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:27:00 -0500
From: mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com
To: hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; mrh(at)panix.com
CC: maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; githraine(at)yahoo.com; kielmarch(at)hotmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Many have brought up this link of of the north to south poles. I am thinking about this a lot because it has significant ramifications...
The Pros...
Gives the victorious northern power and victorious southern power another front behind their lines, so they can't just sit with back to the wall and expand outward.
The Cons...
Looking at the Ogre position, with which I'm most familiar from the game I played in which Hoffman was the Ogres - they are indeed very strong - if they get situated, they will become invulnerable. Their problem is going to be supply lines. The Ogres inevitably build so many armies that when their conquering of the southern continent is complete, they have nowhere else to go. New fleets built at home take several years to reach open waters, and the closest useful EBC is way out in NNL, sure to be held by someone other than the Ogres. This dynamic ultimately limits the Ogres to around 1/3 of the centers of the board, with no chance for solo. Compare that to say, if the Elves take out the southern continent, at that point they are ready to go to tackle the central island and beyond. ANY other power that wins out in the south would end up better off than the Ogres.
Now if we connect the south to the north, and the Ogres capture that passage, now they need never build a single fleet - for if they do conquer their continent, they can still proceed, via the land bridge, right to the other large continent. Does this not oversimplify the Ogre goals too much? Now instead of worrying about when to stop building armies and when to start building fleets, they just go army army army all the way.
"but so-and-so can just block the pass" I hear you say.
Of course they can. But if the pass will just be blocked then what's the point? Whether it requires 1 or 2 or 3 armies to block, Once (for example) the Ogres win out in the south and the Knights win out in the north and both agree to block it, it's closed off anyways.
From: Jeff Hall [mailto:hall.jeff(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 5/23/2011 2:39 PM
To: mrh(at)panix.com
Cc: max victory; Matthias Matzinger; Balthazar Logan; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn; Garry Bledsoe; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Michael Sims; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
I may have sounded more bitter then I meant. I will absolutely play again and I recognize that political intrigue is a necessary and healthily unhealthy component of diplomacy. I also recognize that a certain amount of "consider the human not just the country" meta-gaming is inevitable in a hobby where you see the same people time and time again. I played against Bruce Ray (that some of you know) in a A&E game in which he lied to me nearly every turn as to his intentions. I can't and won't be able to forget that if/when I play with him again.
In diplomacy, experience is a double edged sword and it showed here. Experience means your ally grows strong. It also means that on that turn when he gets three builds and you get none, you're likely to feel the knife quickly and professionally placed into your back. I was virtually eliminated by the time knowledge of the Vets broke around the table. Ultimately, I think Max would have helped me but he was probably one year away from being able to provide any meaningful help.
My own mistake was in not taking advantage of the one turn that the Warren (Gnomes) left himself open. I feel reasonably certain that had I moved decisively in that one year, Gary would have happily hung him out to dry (only Gary can confirm this I suppose). I also feel reasonably comfortable that the Fairies would not have stabbed me as quickly, either.
As for your original proposition, I think it falls flat (both in theory and, now, in practice). A large alliance is probably good for securing a survival but it presents very real problems when / if progress begins to stall. A single defect can have tremendous negative ramifications (not unlike OPEC and oil). I also think that specific board experience is less important then general diplomacy experience. Granted, this is a somewhat tricky board but it's far, far more important that you have open, frequent, concise and substantive discussions with lots of people really, really quickly. Just in my sphere of influence, both the Centaurs and the Archers were eliminated because they failed to reach out (in my opinion) in those kinds of ways.
A couple suggestions for people who play the next time around (which will hopefully include me 
Once the triangle at the roof of the world resolves (Centaurs/Knights/Barbarians) into one power, I think it's really, really unlikely that they'll be stopped short of 8-10 SCs at least (enough to probably demand a part in a draw). The Gnomes don't have particularly great attack avenues and the Trolls are too distant. I tried with the "You're giving the game to Gary" thing with the Fairies and the Gnomes but they'd already made up their mind.
I still think the Fairies have the strongest position in the game. It took a backstab and some piling on for Michael to be truly torn apart. The fairies are the only race to have never been eliminated (although this was very close). I think that the biggest thing is that they have SUCH a good chance to get a 3 build first year and that that isn't fully offset by Early Leader Syndrome in a 19 player variant.
I think the "logical" thing to do under the current board setup is to just viciously eliminate the Nomads. It only makes matters worse that they're surrounded by Pirates, Undead and Ogres 
I'm looking forward to Michael's board tweaks. No variant is ever going to be perfect (doesn't Italy's performance in Standard tell us that?) but this is a really, really good board and a good one to build off for a "World War" variant.
My expectations for board changes
slight tweaks to the barbarians and perhaps elves and leprechauns starting positions to make them just a tiny bit better off.
slight tweaks that might weaken the Ogres and Fairies
potentially major tweaks to connect north and south and potentially make the Nomads stronger
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Mike Hoffman wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall wrote:
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a
distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)
I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.
What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.
Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.
I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!
So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.
Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".
Mike
--
The square root of soon is never[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - alwayshunted (May 23, 2011, 10:21 pm) |
How do you connect north and south on a globe? Everyone is at a pole, just depends which way you hold the globe.... 'cept the nomads.
W
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - laxrulz777 (May 23, 2011, 5:08 pm) |
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - ndeily (May 23, 2011, 4:39 pm) |
W/re to the Polar centers - one possible solution might be to make them connect to the Underground... swapping Hoarluk for Devil's Canyon/Snow Witch and Artic Barrens or Icereach for Tymwevenne or Knurremarre.
That would effectively rule out the stalemate line issues, connect all the regions in all directions and make the Dwarves either much more powerful or vulnerable, depending how one looks at it.
Nathan
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>
To: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com>
Cc: mrh(at)panix.com; max victory <maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk>; Matthias Matzinger <Spinozas(at)gmx.net>; Balthazar Logan <baz.dip(at)gmail.com>; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354 <dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com;
dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
I was initially negative on the idea but after further thought I'm coming around. But it needs to be done right. I think the general fear (from both me and others) is that Michael would choose one of the following two bad solutions
1) Icereach connects to Devil's (easy stalemate line... a single army holds it forever)
2) Icereach and Devil's become the same territory (incredibly difficult stalemate line to hold. Now the person that loses it needs to deploy 4-5 units to defend all of the adjacent territories).
Someone earlier suggested splitting devil's canyon and then making Icereach/Crystal Lake/Devil's Canyon A/Devil's Canyon B all border each other. That's a solution that makes a lot of sense. Now it takes two units to hold and allows the conqueror of BOTH of them on one side of the line to actually project some force. I think if this is done, it's probably logical to move ICE as a SC (maybe just move it to Arctic
Barrens slightly strengthening the Barbarians??).
The only thing it doesn't do is address Michael's (legitimate) concern about oversimplifying the Ogres' goal.[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - laxrulz777 (May 23, 2011, 4:33 pm) |
I was initially negative on the idea but after further thought I'm coming around. But it needs to be done right. I think the general fear (from both me and others) is that Michael would choose one of the following two bad solutions
1) Icereach connects to Devil's (easy stalemate line... a single army holds it forever)
2) Icereach and Devil's become the same territory (incredibly difficult stalemate line to hold. Now the person that loses it needs to deploy 4-5 units to defend all of the adjacent territories).
Someone earlier suggested splitting devil's canyon and then making Icereach/Crystal Lake/Devil's Canyon A/Devil's Canyon B all border each other. That's a solution that makes a lot of sense. Now it takes two units to hold and allows the conqueror of BOTH of them on one side of the line to actually project some force. I think if this is done, it's probably logical to move ICE as a SC (maybe just move it to Arctic Barrens slightly strengthening the Barbarians??).
The only thing it doesn't do is address Michael's (legitimate) concern about oversimplifying the Ogres' goal.[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - FuzzyLogic (May 23, 2011, 3:27 pm) |
Many have brought up this link of of the north to south poles. I am thinking about this a lot because it has significant ramifications...
The Pros...
Gives the victorious northern power and victorious southern power another front behind their lines, so they can't just sit with back to the wall and expand outward.
The Cons...
Looking at the Ogre position, with which I'm most familiar from the game I played in which Hoffman was the Ogres - they are indeed very strong - if they get situated, they will become invulnerable. Their problem is going to be supply lines. The Ogres inevitably build so many armies that when their conquering of the southern continent is complete, they have nowhere else to go. New fleets built at home take several years to reach open waters, and the closest useful EBC is way out in NNL, sure to be held by someone other than the Ogres. This dynamic ultimately limits the Ogres to around 1/3 of the centers of the board, with no chance for solo. Compare that to say, if the Elves take out the southern continent, at that point they are ready to go to tackle the central island and beyond. ANY other power that wins out in the south would end up better off than the Ogres.
Now if we connect the south to the north, and the Ogres capture that passage, now they need never build a single fleet - for if they do conquer their continent, they can still proceed, via the land bridge, right to the other large continent. Does this not oversimplify the Ogre goals too much? Now instead of worrying about when to stop building armies and when to start building fleets, they just go army army army all the way.
"but so-and-so can just block the pass" I hear you say.
Of course they can. But if the pass will just be blocked then what's the point? Whether it requires 1 or 2 or 3 armies to block, Once (for example) the Ogres win out in the south and the Knights win out in the north and both agree to block it, it's closed off anyways.
From: Jeff Hall [mailto:hall.jeff(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 5/23/2011 2:39 PM
To: mrh(at)panix.com
Cc: max victory; Matthias Matzinger; Balthazar Logan; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn; Garry Bledsoe; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Michael Sims; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
I may have sounded more bitter then I meant. I will absolutely play again and I recognize that political intrigue is a necessary and healthily unhealthy component of diplomacy. I also recognize that a certain amount of "consider the human not just the country" meta-gaming is inevitable in a hobby where you see the same people time and time again. I played against Bruce Ray (that some of you know) in a A&E game in which he lied to me nearly every turn as to his intentions. I can't and won't be able to forget that if/when I play with him again.
In diplomacy, experience is a double edged sword and it showed here. Experience means your ally grows strong. It also means that on that turn when he gets three builds and you get none, you're likely to feel the knife quickly and professionally placed into your back. I was virtually eliminated by the time knowledge of the Vets broke around the table. Ultimately, I think Max would have helped me but he was probably one year away from being able to provide any meaningful help.
My own mistake was in not taking advantage of the one turn that the Warren (Gnomes) left himself open. I feel reasonably certain that had I moved decisively in that one year, Gary would have happily hung him out to dry (only Gary can confirm this I suppose). I also feel reasonably comfortable that the Fairies would not have stabbed me as quickly, either.
As for your original proposition, I think it falls flat (both in theory and, now, in practice). A large alliance is probably good for securing a survival but it presents very real problems when / if progress begins to stall. A single defect can have tremendous negative ramifications (not unlike OPEC and oil). I also think that specific board experience is less important then general diplomacy experience. Granted, this is a somewhat tricky board but it's far, far more important that you have open, frequent, concise and substantive discussions with lots of people really, really quickly. Just in my sphere of influence, both the Centaurs and the Archers were eliminated because they failed to reach out (in my opinion) in those kinds of ways.
A couple suggestions for people who play the next time around (which will hopefully include me
Once the triangle at the roof of the world resolves (Centaurs/Knights/Barbarians) into one power, I think it's really, really unlikely that they'll be stopped short of 8-10 SCs at least (enough to probably demand a part in a draw). The Gnomes don't have particularly great attack avenues and the Trolls are too distant. I tried with the "You're giving the game to Gary" thing with the Fairies and the Gnomes but they'd already made up their mind.
I still think the Fairies have the strongest position in the game. It took a backstab and some piling on for Michael to be truly torn apart. The fairies are the only race to have never been eliminated (although this was very close). I think that the biggest thing is that they have SUCH a good chance to get a 3 build first year and that that isn't fully offset by Early Leader Syndrome in a 19 player variant.
I think the "logical" thing to do under the current board setup is to just viciously eliminate the Nomads. It only makes matters worse that they're surrounded by Pirates, Undead and Ogres
I'm looking forward to Michael's board tweaks. No variant is ever going to be perfect (doesn't Italy's performance in Standard tell us that?) but this is a really, really good board and a good one to build off for a "World War" variant.
My expectations for board changes
slight tweaks to the barbarians and perhaps elves and leprechauns starting positions to make them just a tiny bit better off.
slight tweaks that might weaken the Ogres and Fairies
potentially major tweaks to connect north and south and potentially make the Nomads stronger
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Mike Hoffman <mrh(at)panix.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)
I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.
What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.
Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.
I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!
So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.
Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".
Mike
--
The square root of soon is never[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - laxrulz777 (May 23, 2011, 2:39 pm) |
I may have sounded more bitter then I meant. I will absolutely play again and I recognize that political intrigue is a necessary and healthily unhealthy component of diplomacy. I also recognize that a certain amount of "consider the human not just the country" meta-gaming is inevitable in a hobby where you see the same people time and time again. I played against Bruce Ray (that some of you know) in a A&E game in which he lied to me nearly every turn as to his intentions. I can't and won't be able to forget that if/when I play with him again.
In diplomacy, experience is a double edged sword and it showed here. Experience means your ally grows strong. It also means that on that turn when he gets three builds and you get none, you're likely to feel the knife quickly and professionally placed into your back. I was virtually eliminated by the time knowledge of the Vets broke around the table. Ultimately, I think Max would have helped me but he was probably one year away from being able to provide any meaningful help.
My own mistake was in not taking advantage of the one turn that the Warren (Gnomes) left himself open. I feel reasonably certain that had I moved decisively in that one year, Gary would have happily hung him out to dry (only Gary can confirm this I suppose). I also feel reasonably comfortable that the Fairies would not have stabbed me as quickly, either.
As for your original proposition, I think it falls flat (both in theory and, now, in practice). A large alliance is probably good for securing a survival but it presents very real problems when / if progress begins to stall. A single defect can have tremendous negative ramifications (not unlike OPEC and oil). I also think that specific board experience is less important then general diplomacy experience. Granted, this is a somewhat tricky board but it's far, far more important that you have open, frequent, concise and substantive discussions with lots of people really, really quickly. Just in my sphere of influence, both the Centaurs and the Archers were eliminated because they failed to reach out (in my opinion) in those kinds of ways.
A couple suggestions for people who play the next time around (which will hopefully include me
Once the triangle at the roof of the world resolves (Centaurs/Knights/Barbarians) into one power, I think it's really, really unlikely that they'll be stopped short of 8-10 SCs at least (enough to probably demand a part in a draw). The Gnomes don't have particularly great attack avenues and the Trolls are too distant. I tried with the "You're giving the game to Gary" thing with the Fairies and the Gnomes but they'd already made up their mind.
I still think the Fairies have the strongest position in the game. It took a backstab and some piling on for Michael to be truly torn apart. The fairies are the only race to have never been eliminated (although this was very close). I think that the biggest thing is that they have SUCH a good chance to get a 3 build first year and that that isn't fully offset by Early Leader Syndrome in a 19 player variant.
I think the "logical" thing to do under the current board setup is to just viciously eliminate the Nomads. It only makes matters worse that they're surrounded by Pirates, Undead and Ogres
I'm looking forward to Michael's board tweaks. No variant is ever going to be perfect (doesn't Italy's performance in Standard tell us that?) but this is a really, really good board and a good one to build off for a "World War" variant.
My expectations for board changes
slight tweaks to the barbarians and perhaps elves and leprechauns starting positions to make them just a tiny bit better off.
slight tweaks that might weaken the Ogres and Fairies
potentially major tweaks to connect north and south and potentially make the Nomads stronger
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Mike Hoffman <mrh(at)panix.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)
I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.
What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.
Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.
I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!
So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.
Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".
Mike
--
The square root of soon is never[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - offdisc (May 23, 2011, 12:51 pm) |
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)
I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.
What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.
Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.
I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!
So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.
Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".
Mike[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! Hobbits - ConradW (May 21, 2011, 3:35 pm) |
Initially, I was convinced my long term partner would be the Samurais. The game could have turned out quite differently, probably with the Hobbits gone, unless the code of honor would have held. But it didn't in my case. Like the Wizards, I was skeptical that the Hobbits and Wizs could get along without a stab, but as things seemed to hold together through the first years the relationship, along with the addition of the Pirates with whom I had an initial separate arrangement, it ended up a huge source of strength. I gave me about a 180 degree scope of protection. The downside of working with the Sams is that the position against the edge did worry me. In consideration, perhaps this isn't such a problem given their route of expansion toward the Ogres.
I also focused early on the underground. From my perspective I didn't want anyone popping up near my home centers and there was an easy path to a second front against the Leps/Ogres. At first I was content to let the Dwarves be after getting the very useful Spirt Pond, but eventually it seemed safest to just grab the whole area.
I don't think I would to like to see the Nomads done away with completely. The suggestion to allow the consideration of the second provinces captured has merit to me. I think it is worth thinking about giving the Nomads an additional unit at the start in one of the empty provinces - even chose an additional home center - or you could allow the Nomads to pick with or more exosting units.
I'm not sure about linking up the N/S. The issue of what to do with Devils Canyon is there, perhaps split it with Crystal Lake?
So thanks very much Mike for running the game. I am definititely in the next one. Thanks too to Max and Baz for helping this be a 'successful experience'! [Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! Leprechauns - MattKelly (May 20, 2011, 6:13 pm) |
Apologies for the delay in checking in. Recovering from celebrating Leprechaun survival! While I am honored to be referred to as a, "veteran, " as part of the M7 it is not really the case. In my two prior experiences with Haven, both as the Leprechauns, I was gone before anyone knew I was there. Thus the celebration! S09 and WE LIVE. Whoooha! All that aside my role in the now famous M7 was more as a bystander than participant and spent most of the game fighting for my life. As is usually the case everyone wanted all the centers around me. While the Ogres were my supposed ally we never really coordinated our moves beyond letting me have Whoville which was my high water mark in 02. The UnDead took great offense with my request for Terabithia and we went at it getting us both into trouble early. Next the Hobbits moved in from the sea. Relations with the Elves
never went anywhere either. Most communications were limited to being notified if I didn't attack the Ogres I was his enemy. Even thought I was a supposed part of the Grand Alliance I was never asked to assist the Ogres nor did I make any moves against the Elves until the end of the game and that was more for survival than spite. The Elves on the other hand moved in for their piece of the action with the Hobitts and UnDead. Thanks to the UnDeads CD I could hold my own have and shift back and forth between Elves and Hobbits. The Elves developed problems elsewhere and some pressure was off but by that time the Hobbits were really coming on strong and the rest of the game was just trying to hold them off. Interestingly enough the Elves came back to tell me that thought I had been the Orges ally against him he was now willing to offer me an alliance. Let that one drop. Seeing the writing on the wall
I made a dash for it to secure centers for survival and the Elves came out short on that deal. I hope they relaize that with my last army was facing the Hobbits and I would have bought him a turn or two before going down. Needless to say I jumped at the 4-way and headed to the nearest pub to celebrate. Look forward to the next game.
-Matt-
[Reply] |
| 8Big surprise! - initdoby5 (May 20, 2011, 11:19 am) |
65
My friend gave me a web zabty.com, there they have a variety of
fashionable things,they not only offer prices reductions, also a 30%
off on freight, you can go their web to have a look , thanks!
Good
luck!
tQ[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - mgsmuhammad (May 19, 2011, 1:23 pm) |
"Due to his strange messages, everyone in the south believed the Samurai to be working with the other powers, while he actually stayed on his own, and became a non-factor soon after."
You heard it from the lion's mouth, people..
Well, let my.. "performance" be a lesson to all: don't try to roleplay in a diplomacy game.
Especially not with an honour code as strict as the Samurai.
Nonetheless, it was fun while it lasted, and my clearing of the Nomad menace from the south allowed greater gains for those around me.
To balance: I don't feel the Samurai are that over-powered. From the very start of the game, I had to consider leaving a unit back in Magrathea, as both the Hobbits and Leprechauns can reach it in two seasons.
My gamble paid off (even if it was ruined by my diplomacy), but it shows how vulnerable more cautious Samurai can be - having only two units mobile is a significant disadvantage.
That said, the Nomads are painfully weak in the south, there's no denying it.
I'd heartily approve of starting up with a Nomad homeland in the south between the Samurai and Ogres, for future games.
When all's be said and done - Thank you, Mike. Thank you, everyone.
--- On Thu, 19/5/11, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
To: "max victory" <maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "Matthias Matzinger" <Spinozas(at)gmx.net>, "Balthazar Logan" <baz.dip(at)gmail.com>, alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com, pjh5000(at)hotmail.com, dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com, michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com, tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com, mrh(at)panix.com, wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com, kelly058(at)verizon.net, markjsmith60(at)gmail.com, justin(at)darkenedpath.com, jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com, dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com, githraine(at)yahoo.com, kielmarch(at)hotmail.com, welsh_stroud(at)msn.com, mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com, ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 16:58
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my
opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
As for board fixes
Mike and I have talked a bit about tweaking the Barbarians. I think that there initial position is untenable but not so bad that it can't be remedied. I think the Leprechauns and Mages and Undead could also use a slight look. The Fairies are the only race that strike me as being too strong (and probably were set up well in this game for success if not for the
above mentioned alliance). Wizards and Samurai also strike me as being slightly above average. The nice thing about diplomacy, however, is that those things tend to be somewhat self-balancing. Mike could rearrange it so that the Trolls started with 6 units and it wouldn't result in the Trolls having an overwhelming victory percentage because others would gang up. If the Fairies are recognized as being particularly strong then people will be predisposed to move aggressively against them earlier. However, weaker powers often work the other way. Why not put the Nomads out of their misery early? Or the Barbarians?
I view the Nomads (and the Dwarves to a lesser degree) like playing diplomacy on expert mode. You're disadvantaged from the start (although the Dwarves are at least in a defensible position) but if you can make "lemonade out of lemons" then you can be very proud of yourself. The nomads especially have some issues. I can think of four
individual tweaks that might lead to better Nomad performance (although all of these are almost certainly too "strong" they could at least get you thinking).
1) Don't allow their home SCs to be conquered in Y1. This would give them some additional flexibility in pursuing builds.
2) They start with 6 units (but only 3 SCs means that they're bound to lose some if they don't capture some neutrals.
3) The map is rearranged such that they have an adjacent "natural" that can only be taken away from them by an ALLIANCE of two players (i.e. no ONE player can force it away from them in year one)... This one might require significant board alterations.
4) The Nomads have a special power that all conquered spaces are buildable (that feels very "nomad-y".
The only issue with the Dwarves is that they've got 3 starting units and they sit on the games only real "resource" (underworld access). They also have terrible stalemate lines to defend
against (the "concurrent" spaces architecture creates very, very difficult to hold stalemate lines (in fact, only Mount Nimrod can be held from the underground). Those are more considerations for the Dwarven player then considerations for the map maker however.
I know Michael has considered bridging across the north and south. I think that should be done delicately so as not to create a completely untenable position for the Knights/Ogres and to avoid Icereach becoming some sort of hypercritical stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are merged) or a super easy stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are deemed to be touching). A better (but unfortunately more extensive) solution is to model the north/south border similar to the east/west border such that there's not an easy stalemate line.
Definitely the biggest problem with the map (and I mean problem in the sense of "strategic challenge" not a problem with the actual map)
is that where, in normal diplomacy, if you make your first conquest successfully you're generally on a good start. In this variant, when you make that first conquest you need to be immediately positioning yourself to make your second conquest. And the supply lines are long with the EBCs helping alleviate that slightly but not significantly. Someone earlier suggested more EBCs. That's one way to go (certainly other "world" variants have opted for either all EBCs or "convertable" EBCs in essence). The idea of a home SC for each race being an EBC makes a lot of sense (although that Nomad EBC would be TOAST without some additional consideration). It creates an interesting conflict dynamic in how a victim is parsed out to the allies.
Either way, the lesson I learned from this game is that you have to capitalize on your momentum more than in regular dip. Many times, I've conquered France as England and then taken 1 year to "catch my breath"...
finishing off French stragglers and/or repositioning for moving to Germany/Russia/Italy as needed. In this variant, you can't catch your breath until you've made a couple conquests and have comfortably created a corner for yourself (As the Knights did early).
I enjoyed the game and I'd love to play in a second game.[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - laxrulz777 (May 19, 2011, 11:58 am) |
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
As for board fixes
Mike and I have talked a bit about tweaking the Barbarians. I think that there initial position is untenable but not so bad that it can't be remedied. I think the Leprechauns and Mages and Undead could also use a slight look. The Fairies are the only race that strike me as being too strong (and probably were set up well in this game for success if not for the above mentioned alliance). Wizards and Samurai also strike me as being slightly above average. The nice thing about diplomacy, however, is that those things tend to be somewhat self-balancing. Mike could rearrange it so that the Trolls started with 6 units and it wouldn't result in the Trolls having an overwhelming victory percentage because others would gang up. If the Fairies are recognized as being particularly strong then people will be predisposed to move aggressively against them earlier. However, weaker powers often work the other way. Why not put the Nomads out of their misery early? Or the Barbarians?
I view the Nomads (and the Dwarves to a lesser degree) like playing diplomacy on expert mode. You're disadvantaged from the start (although the Dwarves are at least in a defensible position) but if you can make "lemonade out of lemons" then you can be very proud of yourself. The nomads especially have some issues. I can think of four individual tweaks that might lead to better Nomad performance (although all of these are almost certainly too "strong" they could at least get you thinking).
1) Don't allow their home SCs to be conquered in Y1. This would give them some additional flexibility in pursuing builds.
2) They start with 6 units (but only 3 SCs means that they're bound to lose some if they don't capture some neutrals.
3) The map is rearranged such that they have an adjacent "natural" that can only be taken away from them by an ALLIANCE of two players (i.e. no ONE player can force it away from them in year one)... This one might require significant board alterations.
4) The Nomads have a special power that all conquered spaces are buildable (that feels very "nomad-y".
The only issue with the Dwarves is that they've got 3 starting units and they sit on the games only real "resource" (underworld access). They also have terrible stalemate lines to defend against (the "concurrent" spaces architecture creates very, very difficult to hold stalemate lines (in fact, only Mount Nimrod can be held from the underground). Those are more considerations for the Dwarven player then considerations for the map maker however.
I know Michael has considered bridging across the north and south. I think that should be done delicately so as not to create a completely untenable position for the Knights/Ogres and to avoid Icereach becoming some sort of hypercritical stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are merged) or a super easy stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are deemed to be touching). A better (but unfortunately more extensive) solution is to model the north/south border similar to the east/west border such that there's not an easy stalemate line.
Definitely the biggest problem with the map (and I mean problem in the sense of "strategic challenge" not a problem with the actual map) is that where, in normal diplomacy, if you make your first conquest successfully you're generally on a good start. In this variant, when you make that first conquest you need to be immediately positioning yourself to make your second conquest. And the supply lines are long with the EBCs helping alleviate that slightly but not significantly. Someone earlier suggested more EBCs. That's one way to go (certainly other "world" variants have opted for either all EBCs or "convertable" EBCs in essence). The idea of a home SC for each race being an EBC makes a lot of sense (although that Nomad EBC would be TOAST without some additional consideration). It creates an interesting conflict dynamic in how a victim is parsed out to the allies.
Either way, the lesson I learned from this game is that you have to capitalize on your momentum more than in regular dip. Many times, I've conquered France as England and then taken 1 year to "catch my breath"... finishing off French stragglers and/or repositioning for moving to Germany/Russia/Italy as needed. In this variant, you can't catch your breath until you've made a couple conquests and have comfortably created a corner for yourself (As the Knights did early).
I enjoyed the game and I'd love to play in a second game.[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - pieandmash (May 19, 2011, 9:26 am) |
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - Spinoza (May 19, 2011, 8:03 am) |
Hi guys,
I agree with Mike and Baz that the starting positions as they are only work in a fog of war game.
The Nomads are spread around the board, and can't really form a coherent strategy. The Ogres and Samurai are secure, and have relatively easy early grabs, making their positions nearly impregnable if they work together (in contrast to the north, where there are three border-powers, and three always turn into a two-against-one sooner or later).
The problem of Elves, Leps and Archers is that their most obvious early moves either pit them against each other, or force them to move some armies away from defensive lines against the guys in their backs. Both options lead to easy dominance by Ogres/Samurai or Barbarians/Gnomes.
I'd suggest to radically alter the southern starting positions for regular games:
Nomads start with F TGR, F OLD and F PWY (relocating the SC from FAN). This gives them a base, creates a naval power in the central ocean (which is lacking as of now), and is within their "racial profile" as seafaring wanderers.
Elves start F GEL, F AUR, A MOM, wedging them in between Ogres and Samurai. The SC in GAR is relocated to POW, to give the Leps an easier early grab and incentives to move against the Samurai (or vice versa).
The Ogres start in the same place, but with two armies instead of one.
I can't say anything about the Archers, as I've not payed enough attention to the peculiarities of their position.
These changes might be too much, but I can't see how the Leps, Nomads, Elves or Archers will survive otherwise in a regular game (short of massive amounts of luck/sweet-talk extraordinaire). The record of games thus far speaks for itself.
To the game:
I foolishly chose the Elves, as I was operating under the misconception that this would be a Fog of War game. After my rude awakening, I came to the conclusion that the Elves couldn't co-exist with the Ogres in the long run (especially when they're played by a veteran), and had a stab lined up as soon as fall 01, but it collapsed when the Nomad went AWOL, and I had to reconsider my strategy.
After the Ogres' massive gains, my only option was to throw myself at their feet, and to start working to bring around Wizards and Hobbits against him.
Due to his strange messages, everyone in the south believed the Samurai to be working with the other powers, while he actually stayed on his own, and became a non-factor soon after.
While initially reluctant to move openly against the Ogre, Hobbits and Wizards came around when Max defected from the VA. The prospect of experienced players mopping us up in cold blood was terrifying enough to pressure us to work together. Lucky for me, this was just before the Ogre tried to stab me, and allowed me to prolong my mediocre existence for a while.
I tried to get another front moving with Dwarves and Undead, to prevent Rogues and Trolls from linking up with Leps/Ogres, but that again collapsed when the Undead finally decided to shed the Un-, and was thrown into CD.
The Lep and I got off on the wrong foot, and never managed to come to terms, which in the end allowed the Hobbits to nearly finish us of. I still maintained cordial relations with the Dwarves, as we both were reduced to life our lives out on the pastures, he being chased around the map by the Wizards, and I cowering before the steam-rolling Hobbits.
I still think that Charles could have pulled off a solo, if he had waited with his stab on me until the Ogre was dead. He was superbly positioned to stab the Wizards and/or Pirates, and had a firm grip on the underworld. Lucky for me (and others) that he was content with the draw.
This being my first game on the site, and generally the first in a long time, I had my share of panic reactions and paranoia, not to speak of ridiculous misconceptions and delusions of grandeur. But I really enjoyed this game, and look forward to play against or with you in games to come.
Cheers, Matt
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 18 May 2011 20:51:03 -0400
Von: Balthazar Logan
An: Warren Fleming
CC: Nathan Deily , mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com, welsh_stroud(at)msn.com, Garry Bledsoe , githraine(at)yahoo.com, dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com, jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com, justin(at)darkenedpath.com, markjsmith60(at)gmail.com, hall.jeff(at)gmail.com, kelly058(at)verizon.net, wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com, Mike Hoffman , maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk, spinozas(at)gmx.net, tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com, michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com, dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com, pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Betreff: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
Helle everyone,
Regarding the starting positions: Like Mike said, in a fog of war game,
the
Nomad's initial spread and special power worked to their advantage with a
wider view of the map, especially if they could hide the fact that they
only
had one unit in any given area. In a regular game, they're made too easy
of
a target. With the Magicians, their problem is a localized version of the
Nomads issue. With none of their home centers bordering each other, it's
difficult to keep a line of defense once their position gets jeopardized.
Perhaps something as simple as making Sable's Swamp a home center and
Tarsis a neutral territory could fix it.
The only other starting position issue I could see is the advantage of the
Ogres/Samurai in the south and the Knights/Centaurs in the north. No
other
power on the board can have an unassailable rear. Perhaps something to
make
the map wrap north-south could resolve this. Maybe splitting Devil's
Canyon
into an East and West, and then connecting them to Icereach and Crystal
Lake? Just a though, I'm not really sure how it would play.
As far as this game, my initial strategy was going to be to move
aggressively against the Elves and Hobbits, eliminate those powers closest
to me, and expand from there. After seeing the potential strength of the
Ogres/Samurai in previous games, I tried to organize the Elves, Hobbits,
and
Leps against them and that also fell through. Perhaps it was my status as
a
newcomer to the site that people didn't trust.
Thankfully, Charles reached out to me from the beginning, and I resolved
myself to working with him, at least in the early years. The hardest
decision for me was whether or not to stab the Hobbits immediately in
spring
of 02. I was seriously tempted, but I didn't have many other alliance
prospects. Once the Pirates were brought in and the Elves were willing to
replace my units in the south, I was able to capitalize on the chaos in
the
middle of the map. The Nomads and Archers were eradicated fairly quickly,
the Pirates didn't bring any fleets in my direction, the Dwarves got
hemmed
in, and the Faeries were late to the party, allowing me to secure Myth
Drannor and Great Glacier. I think I was able to expand without pissing
anyone off (at least, until they weren't in any position to do anything
about it), which allowed me to continue working with the Dwarves and
Faeries
until the very end.
I think the last thing that worked in our favor was that people were
clearly
concerned about the veterans alliance. All you had to do was look at
their
profiles and see what kind of quality players the Rogues, Trolls, and
Ogres
were. Anyone joining their alliance was more than likely going to end up
as
the odd man out by the endgame, whereas our group was more of an unknown
quality, perhaps allowing the Elves, Dwarves, and Faeries to think they'd
fare better factoring into the draw on our side.
Of course, Garry was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had hoped
we
could turn him for a few seasons before he finally jumped ship, but it
made
sense once he got hemmed in up north. It would have been a good fight if
Garry had stayed with the Rogues, Trolls, and Gnomes and we had to fight
it
out to the bloody end.
Overall, great game. This map was the reason I joined DC to begin with,
and
I had a hell of a time trying to stay afloat. I look forward to playing
with each and every one of you again, especially the next time the Haven
map
gets played.
-Baz
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Warren Fleming
wrote:
I agree with Nathan about the nomads... but consider the poor
Magicians,
who fell rapidly again. A few things about that spot make them targets
imho.
Warren
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:15:49 -0700
From: ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
To: mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com;
welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; kielmarch(at)hotmail.com; githraine(at)yahoo.com;
dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com;
markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net;
wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk;
Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com;
dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Interestingly the phrase: "There is no honor among thieves" (or Rogues)
was
disproven and the idea that Knights abide by a code of honor and
chivalry
was utterly discredited...
In all seriousness - I think the model is balancing well but the Nomads
seem to me to be at a huge disadvantage relative to any other power...
All in all the variant continues to trend positive and I enjoyed my
experience (even the utter reaming I took).
Nathan
*From:* Michael Sims
*To:* alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com;
Garry Bledsoe ; Jason Koelewyn
;
dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com;
markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net;
wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com;
Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com;
michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354 ;
pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
*Subject:* dc354 game end - draw!
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers
on
the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that
lingers
is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do
better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this
variant,
and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max,
Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only
half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take
away
from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your
love
for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits?
And
why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that?
Why
is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have
access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves
that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and
more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a
little
bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a
game
let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - Githraine (May 19, 2011, 7:18 am) |
I will Parrot the line about the M7. from the start it seemed like a fun and different way to cut down the field on this very large map.
My opening moves and chatter were of course based on that and when the pressure on the wizards from the pirates failed to appear, I was badly out of position and over extended.
I had the option of flipping sides and growing at the expense of M7 ally Leprechauns, but decided to try and make it work anyway. And we all know how that turned out
Good game everyone!
I will of course be willing to play again!
From: Balthazar Logan <baz.dip(at)gmail.com>
To: Warren Fleming <alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Deily <ndeily(at)yahoo.com>; mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; githraine(at)yahoo.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; Mike Hoffman <mrh(at)panix.com>; maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 8:51:03 PM
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
Helle everyone,
Regarding the starting positions: Like Mike said, in a fog of war game, the Nomad's initial spread and special power worked to their advantage with a wider view of the map, especially if they could hide the fact that they only had one unit in any given area. In a regular game, they're made too easy of a target. With the Magicians, their problem is a localized version of the Nomads issue. With none of their home centers bordering each other, it's difficult to keep a line of defense once their position gets jeopardized. Perhaps something as simple as making Sable's Swamp a home center and Tarsis a neutral territory could fix it.
The only other starting position issue I could see is the advantage of the Ogres/Samurai in the south and the Knights/Centaurs in the north. No other power on the board can have an unassailable rear. Perhaps something to make the map wrap north-south could resolve this. Maybe splitting Devil's Canyon into an East and West, and then connecting them to Icereach and Crystal Lake? Just a though, I'm not really sure how it would play.
As far as this game, my initial strategy was going to be to move aggressively against the Elves and Hobbits, eliminate those powers closest to me, and expand from there. After seeing the potential strength of the Ogres/Samurai in previous games, I tried to organize the Elves, Hobbits, and Leps against them and that also fell through. Perhaps it was my status as a newcomer to the site that people didn't trust.
Thankfully, Charles reached out to me from the beginning, and I resolved myself to working with him, at least in the early years. The hardest decision for me was whether or not to stab the Hobbits immediately in spring of 02. I was seriously tempted, but I didn't have many other alliance prospects. Once the Pirates were brought in and the Elves were willing to replace my units in the south, I was able to capitalize on the chaos in the middle of the map. The Nomads and Archers were eradicated fairly quickly, the Pirates didn't bring any fleets in my direction, the Dwarves got hemmed in, and the Faeries were late to the party, allowing me to secure Myth Drannor and Great Glacier. I think I was able to expand without pissing anyone off (at least, until they weren't in any position to do anything about it), which allowed me to continue working with the Dwarves and Faeries until the very end.
I think the last thing that worked in our favor was that people were clearly concerned about the veterans alliance. All you had to do was look at their profiles and see what kind of quality players the Rogues, Trolls, and Ogres were. Anyone joining their alliance was more than likely going to end up as the odd man out by the endgame, whereas our group was more of an unknown quality, perhaps allowing the Elves, Dwarves, and Faeries to think they'd fare better factoring into the draw on our side.
Of course, Garry was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had hoped we could turn him for a few seasons before he finally jumped ship, but it made sense once he got hemmed in up north. It would have been a good fight if Garry had stayed with the Rogues, Trolls, and Gnomes and we had to fight it out to the bloody end.
Overall, great game. This map was the reason I joined DC to begin with, and I had a hell of a time trying to stay afloat. I look forward to playing with each and every one of you again, especially the next time the Haven map gets played.
-Baz
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Warren Fleming <alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Nathan about the nomads... but consider the poor Magicians, who fell rapidly again. A few things about that spot make them targets imho.
Warren
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:15:49 -0700
From: ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
To: mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; kielmarch(at)hotmail.com; githraine(at)yahoo.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Interestingly the phrase: "There is no honor among thieves" (or Rogues) was disproven and the idea that Knights abide by a code of honor and chivalry was utterly discredited...
In all seriousness - I think the model is balancing well but the Nomads seem to me to be at a huge disadvantage relative to any other power...
All in all the variant continues to trend positive and I enjoyed my experience (even the utter reaming I took).
Nathan
From: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com>
To: alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; Jason Koelewyn <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354 <dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com>;
pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
Subject: dc354 game end - draw!
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers on the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that lingers is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this variant, and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max, Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take away from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your love for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits? And why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that? Why is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a little bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a game let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - balthazar (May 18, 2011, 7:51 pm) |
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - alwayshunted (May 18, 2011, 4:36 pm) |
I agree with Nathan about the nomads... but consider the poor Magicians, who fell rapidly again. A few things about that spot make them targets imho.
Warren
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:15:49 -0700
From: ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
To: mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; kielmarch(at)hotmail.com; githraine(at)yahoo.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Interestingly the phrase: "There is no honor among thieves" (or Rogues) was disproven and the idea that Knights abide by a code of honor and chivalry was utterly discredited...
In all seriousness - I think the model is balancing well but the Nomads seem to me to be at a huge disadvantage relative to any other power...
All in all the variant continues to trend positive and I enjoyed my experience (even the utter reaming I took).
Nathan
From: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com>
To: alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; Jason Koelewyn <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354 <dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com>;
pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
Subject: dc354 game end - draw!
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers on the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that lingers is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this variant, and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max, Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take away from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your love for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits? And why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that? Why is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a little bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a game let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - offdisc (May 18, 2011, 4:36 pm) |
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - ndeily (May 18, 2011, 4:15 pm) |
Interestingly the phrase: "There is no honor among thieves" (or Rogues) was disproven and the idea that Knights abide by a code of honor and chivalry was utterly discredited...
In all seriousness - I think the model is balancing well but the Nomads seem to me to be at a huge disadvantage relative to any other power...
All in all the variant continues to trend positive and I enjoyed my experience (even the utter reaming I took).
Nathan
From: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com>
To: alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; Jason Koelewyn <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354 <dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com>;
pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
Subject: dc354 game end - draw!
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers on the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that lingers is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this variant, and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max, Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take away from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your love for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits? And why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that? Why is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a little bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a game let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! - FuzzyLogic (May 18, 2011, 4:08 pm) |
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers on the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that lingers is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this variant, and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max, Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take away from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your love for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits? And why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that? Why is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a little bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a game let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
[Reply] |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) ndeily May 18, 04:15 pm |
Interestingly the phrase: "There is no honor among thieves" (or Rogues) was disproven and the idea that Knights abide by a code of honor and chivalry was utterly discredited...
In all seriousness - I think the model is balancing well but the Nomads seem to me to be at a huge disadvantage relative to any other power...
All in all the variant continues to trend positive and I enjoyed my experience (even the utter reaming I took).
Nathan
From: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com>
To: alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; Jason Koelewyn <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354 <dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com>;
pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
Subject: dc354 game end - draw!
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers on the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that lingers is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this variant, and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max, Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take away from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your love for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits? And why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that? Why is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a little bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a game let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
|
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) offdisc May 18, 04:36 pm |
|
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) alwayshunted May 18, 04:36 pm |
I agree with Nathan about the nomads... but consider the poor Magicians, who fell rapidly again. A few things about that spot make them targets imho.
Warren
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:15:49 -0700
From: ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
To: mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; kielmarch(at)hotmail.com; githraine(at)yahoo.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Interestingly the phrase: "There is no honor among thieves" (or Rogues) was disproven and the idea that Knights abide by a code of honor and chivalry was utterly discredited...
In all seriousness - I think the model is balancing well but the Nomads seem to me to be at a huge disadvantage relative to any other power...
All in all the variant continues to trend positive and I enjoyed my experience (even the utter reaming I took).
Nathan
From: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com>
To: alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; Jason Koelewyn <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354 <dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com>;
pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
Subject: dc354 game end - draw!
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers on the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that lingers is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this variant, and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max, Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take away from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your love for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits? And why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that? Why is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a little bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a game let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
|
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) balthazar May 18, 07:51 pm |
|
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) Githraine May 19, 07:18 am |
I will Parrot the line about the M7. from the start it seemed like a fun and different way to cut down the field on this very large map.
My opening moves and chatter were of course based on that and when the pressure on the wizards from the pirates failed to appear, I was badly out of position and over extended.
I had the option of flipping sides and growing at the expense of M7 ally Leprechauns, but decided to try and make it work anyway. And we all know how that turned out
Good game everyone!
I will of course be willing to play again!
From: Balthazar Logan <baz.dip(at)gmail.com>
To: Warren Fleming <alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Deily <ndeily(at)yahoo.com>; mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; githraine(at)yahoo.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; Mike Hoffman <mrh(at)panix.com>; maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 8:51:03 PM
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
Helle everyone,
Regarding the starting positions: Like Mike said, in a fog of war game, the Nomad's initial spread and special power worked to their advantage with a wider view of the map, especially if they could hide the fact that they only had one unit in any given area. In a regular game, they're made too easy of a target. With the Magicians, their problem is a localized version of the Nomads issue. With none of their home centers bordering each other, it's difficult to keep a line of defense once their position gets jeopardized. Perhaps something as simple as making Sable's Swamp a home center and Tarsis a neutral territory could fix it.
The only other starting position issue I could see is the advantage of the Ogres/Samurai in the south and the Knights/Centaurs in the north. No other power on the board can have an unassailable rear. Perhaps something to make the map wrap north-south could resolve this. Maybe splitting Devil's Canyon into an East and West, and then connecting them to Icereach and Crystal Lake? Just a though, I'm not really sure how it would play.
As far as this game, my initial strategy was going to be to move aggressively against the Elves and Hobbits, eliminate those powers closest to me, and expand from there. After seeing the potential strength of the Ogres/Samurai in previous games, I tried to organize the Elves, Hobbits, and Leps against them and that also fell through. Perhaps it was my status as a newcomer to the site that people didn't trust.
Thankfully, Charles reached out to me from the beginning, and I resolved myself to working with him, at least in the early years. The hardest decision for me was whether or not to stab the Hobbits immediately in spring of 02. I was seriously tempted, but I didn't have many other alliance prospects. Once the Pirates were brought in and the Elves were willing to replace my units in the south, I was able to capitalize on the chaos in the middle of the map. The Nomads and Archers were eradicated fairly quickly, the Pirates didn't bring any fleets in my direction, the Dwarves got hemmed in, and the Faeries were late to the party, allowing me to secure Myth Drannor and Great Glacier. I think I was able to expand without pissing anyone off (at least, until they weren't in any position to do anything about it), which allowed me to continue working with the Dwarves and Faeries until the very end.
I think the last thing that worked in our favor was that people were clearly concerned about the veterans alliance. All you had to do was look at their profiles and see what kind of quality players the Rogues, Trolls, and Ogres were. Anyone joining their alliance was more than likely going to end up as the odd man out by the endgame, whereas our group was more of an unknown quality, perhaps allowing the Elves, Dwarves, and Faeries to think they'd fare better factoring into the draw on our side.
Of course, Garry was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had hoped we could turn him for a few seasons before he finally jumped ship, but it made sense once he got hemmed in up north. It would have been a good fight if Garry had stayed with the Rogues, Trolls, and Gnomes and we had to fight it out to the bloody end.
Overall, great game. This map was the reason I joined DC to begin with, and I had a hell of a time trying to stay afloat. I look forward to playing with each and every one of you again, especially the next time the Haven map gets played.
-Baz
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Warren Fleming <alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Nathan about the nomads... but consider the poor Magicians, who fell rapidly again. A few things about that spot make them targets imho.
Warren
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:15:49 -0700
From: ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
To: mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; kielmarch(at)hotmail.com; githraine(at)yahoo.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Interestingly the phrase: "There is no honor among thieves" (or Rogues) was disproven and the idea that Knights abide by a code of honor and chivalry was utterly discredited...
In all seriousness - I think the model is balancing well but the Nomads seem to me to be at a huge disadvantage relative to any other power...
All in all the variant continues to trend positive and I enjoyed my experience (even the utter reaming I took).
Nathan
From: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com>
To: alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; Jason Koelewyn <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354 <dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com>;
pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
Subject: dc354 game end - draw!
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers on the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that lingers is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this variant, and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max, Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take away from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your love for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits? And why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that? Why is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a little bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a game let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
|
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) Spinoza May 19, 08:03 am |
Hi guys,
I agree with Mike and Baz that the starting positions as they are only work in a fog of war game.
The Nomads are spread around the board, and can't really form a coherent strategy. The Ogres and Samurai are secure, and have relatively easy early grabs, making their positions nearly impregnable if they work together (in contrast to the north, where there are three border-powers, and three always turn into a two-against-one sooner or later).
The problem of Elves, Leps and Archers is that their most obvious early moves either pit them against each other, or force them to move some armies away from defensive lines against the guys in their backs. Both options lead to easy dominance by Ogres/Samurai or Barbarians/Gnomes.
I'd suggest to radically alter the southern starting positions for regular games:
Nomads start with F TGR, F OLD and F PWY (relocating the SC from FAN). This gives them a base, creates a naval power in the central ocean (which is lacking as of now), and is within their "racial profile" as seafaring wanderers.
Elves start F GEL, F AUR, A MOM, wedging them in between Ogres and Samurai. The SC in GAR is relocated to POW, to give the Leps an easier early grab and incentives to move against the Samurai (or vice versa).
The Ogres start in the same place, but with two armies instead of one.
I can't say anything about the Archers, as I've not payed enough attention to the peculiarities of their position.
These changes might be too much, but I can't see how the Leps, Nomads, Elves or Archers will survive otherwise in a regular game (short of massive amounts of luck/sweet-talk extraordinaire). The record of games thus far speaks for itself.
To the game:
I foolishly chose the Elves, as I was operating under the misconception that this would be a Fog of War game. After my rude awakening, I came to the conclusion that the Elves couldn't co-exist with the Ogres in the long run (especially when they're played by a veteran), and had a stab lined up as soon as fall 01, but it collapsed when the Nomad went AWOL, and I had to reconsider my strategy.
After the Ogres' massive gains, my only option was to throw myself at their feet, and to start working to bring around Wizards and Hobbits against him.
Due to his strange messages, everyone in the south believed the Samurai to be working with the other powers, while he actually stayed on his own, and became a non-factor soon after.
While initially reluctant to move openly against the Ogre, Hobbits and Wizards came around when Max defected from the VA. The prospect of experienced players mopping us up in cold blood was terrifying enough to pressure us to work together. Lucky for me, this was just before the Ogre tried to stab me, and allowed me to prolong my mediocre existence for a while.
I tried to get another front moving with Dwarves and Undead, to prevent Rogues and Trolls from linking up with Leps/Ogres, but that again collapsed when the Undead finally decided to shed the Un-, and was thrown into CD.
The Lep and I got off on the wrong foot, and never managed to come to terms, which in the end allowed the Hobbits to nearly finish us of. I still maintained cordial relations with the Dwarves, as we both were reduced to life our lives out on the pastures, he being chased around the map by the Wizards, and I cowering before the steam-rolling Hobbits.
I still think that Charles could have pulled off a solo, if he had waited with his stab on me until the Ogre was dead. He was superbly positioned to stab the Wizards and/or Pirates, and had a firm grip on the underworld. Lucky for me (and others) that he was content with the draw.
This being my first game on the site, and generally the first in a long time, I had my share of panic reactions and paranoia, not to speak of ridiculous misconceptions and delusions of grandeur. But I really enjoyed this game, and look forward to play against or with you in games to come.
Cheers, Matt
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 18 May 2011 20:51:03 -0400
Von: Balthazar Logan
An: Warren Fleming
CC: Nathan Deily , mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com, welsh_stroud(at)msn.com, Garry Bledsoe , githraine(at)yahoo.com, dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com, jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com, justin(at)darkenedpath.com, markjsmith60(at)gmail.com, hall.jeff(at)gmail.com, kelly058(at)verizon.net, wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com, Mike Hoffman , maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk, spinozas(at)gmx.net, tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com, michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com, dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com, pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Betreff: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
Helle everyone,
Regarding the starting positions: Like Mike said, in a fog of war game,
the
Nomad's initial spread and special power worked to their advantage with a
wider view of the map, especially if they could hide the fact that they
only
had one unit in any given area. In a regular game, they're made too easy
of
a target. With the Magicians, their problem is a localized version of the
Nomads issue. With none of their home centers bordering each other, it's
difficult to keep a line of defense once their position gets jeopardized.
Perhaps something as simple as making Sable's Swamp a home center and
Tarsis a neutral territory could fix it.
The only other starting position issue I could see is the advantage of the
Ogres/Samurai in the south and the Knights/Centaurs in the north. No
other
power on the board can have an unassailable rear. Perhaps something to
make
the map wrap north-south could resolve this. Maybe splitting Devil's
Canyon
into an East and West, and then connecting them to Icereach and Crystal
Lake? Just a though, I'm not really sure how it would play.
As far as this game, my initial strategy was going to be to move
aggressively against the Elves and Hobbits, eliminate those powers closest
to me, and expand from there. After seeing the potential strength of the
Ogres/Samurai in previous games, I tried to organize the Elves, Hobbits,
and
Leps against them and that also fell through. Perhaps it was my status as
a
newcomer to the site that people didn't trust.
Thankfully, Charles reached out to me from the beginning, and I resolved
myself to working with him, at least in the early years. The hardest
decision for me was whether or not to stab the Hobbits immediately in
spring
of 02. I was seriously tempted, but I didn't have many other alliance
prospects. Once the Pirates were brought in and the Elves were willing to
replace my units in the south, I was able to capitalize on the chaos in
the
middle of the map. The Nomads and Archers were eradicated fairly quickly,
the Pirates didn't bring any fleets in my direction, the Dwarves got
hemmed
in, and the Faeries were late to the party, allowing me to secure Myth
Drannor and Great Glacier. I think I was able to expand without pissing
anyone off (at least, until they weren't in any position to do anything
about it), which allowed me to continue working with the Dwarves and
Faeries
until the very end.
I think the last thing that worked in our favor was that people were
clearly
concerned about the veterans alliance. All you had to do was look at
their
profiles and see what kind of quality players the Rogues, Trolls, and
Ogres
were. Anyone joining their alliance was more than likely going to end up
as
the odd man out by the endgame, whereas our group was more of an unknown
quality, perhaps allowing the Elves, Dwarves, and Faeries to think they'd
fare better factoring into the draw on our side.
Of course, Garry was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had hoped
we
could turn him for a few seasons before he finally jumped ship, but it
made
sense once he got hemmed in up north. It would have been a good fight if
Garry had stayed with the Rogues, Trolls, and Gnomes and we had to fight
it
out to the bloody end.
Overall, great game. This map was the reason I joined DC to begin with,
and
I had a hell of a time trying to stay afloat. I look forward to playing
with each and every one of you again, especially the next time the Haven
map
gets played.
-Baz
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Warren Fleming
wrote:
I agree with Nathan about the nomads... but consider the poor
Magicians,
who fell rapidly again. A few things about that spot make them targets
imho.
Warren
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:15:49 -0700
From: ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
To: mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com;
welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; kielmarch(at)hotmail.com; githraine(at)yahoo.com;
dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com;
markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net;
wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk;
Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com;
dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com
Interestingly the phrase: "There is no honor among thieves" (or Rogues)
was
disproven and the idea that Knights abide by a code of honor and
chivalry
was utterly discredited...
In all seriousness - I think the model is balancing well but the Nomads
seem to me to be at a huge disadvantage relative to any other power...
All in all the variant continues to trend positive and I enjoyed my
experience (even the utter reaming I took).
Nathan
*From:* Michael Sims
*To:* alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com;
Garry Bledsoe ; Jason Koelewyn
;
dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com;
markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net;
wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; mrh(at)panix.com;
Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com;
michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; dc354 ;
pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
*Subject:* dc354 game end - draw!
Surrender or die!
You can make demands like that when 4 powers control 2/3 of the centers
on
the board. 63 to 39 is pretty overwhelming. The real question that
lingers
is what might have happened if the game played on for a bit. Can one do
better in the game? I dunno - nobody has ever managed to solo this
variant,
and it's already a pretty small draw. So congrats to our top 4! Max,
Garry, Charles, and Baz. The other 8 do squeak out survivals, some only
half a year away from elimination.
So now that everyone has all agreed to world peace, what do you take
away
from the game? Has it made you a better person? Has it altered your
love
for Ogres and Trolls? Perhaps your belief in Leprechauns and Hobbits?
And
why oh why do such seemingly happy peaceful creatures fight like that?
Why
is it that Wizards consistently outperform Magicians, even tho both have
access to the same books of spells? What about those Nomads and Dwarves
that start scattered - they didn't so so well this round. All this, and
more, I'm sure, to follow in many EGS's.
I would like to make a few map tweaks and then run another game in a
little
bit. So any ideas you have be sure to bring up!
Also we're in need of the next Standard GM... so if you want to run a
game
let me know!
Enjoy,
-mike
--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) pieandmash May 19, 09:26 am |
|
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) laxrulz777 May 19, 11:58 am |
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
As for board fixes
Mike and I have talked a bit about tweaking the Barbarians. I think that there initial position is untenable but not so bad that it can't be remedied. I think the Leprechauns and Mages and Undead could also use a slight look. The Fairies are the only race that strike me as being too strong (and probably were set up well in this game for success if not for the above mentioned alliance). Wizards and Samurai also strike me as being slightly above average. The nice thing about diplomacy, however, is that those things tend to be somewhat self-balancing. Mike could rearrange it so that the Trolls started with 6 units and it wouldn't result in the Trolls having an overwhelming victory percentage because others would gang up. If the Fairies are recognized as being particularly strong then people will be predisposed to move aggressively against them earlier. However, weaker powers often work the other way. Why not put the Nomads out of their misery early? Or the Barbarians?
I view the Nomads (and the Dwarves to a lesser degree) like playing diplomacy on expert mode. You're disadvantaged from the start (although the Dwarves are at least in a defensible position) but if you can make "lemonade out of lemons" then you can be very proud of yourself. The nomads especially have some issues. I can think of four individual tweaks that might lead to better Nomad performance (although all of these are almost certainly too "strong" they could at least get you thinking).
1) Don't allow their home SCs to be conquered in Y1. This would give them some additional flexibility in pursuing builds.
2) They start with 6 units (but only 3 SCs means that they're bound to lose some if they don't capture some neutrals.
3) The map is rearranged such that they have an adjacent "natural" that can only be taken away from them by an ALLIANCE of two players (i.e. no ONE player can force it away from them in year one)... This one might require significant board alterations.
4) The Nomads have a special power that all conquered spaces are buildable (that feels very "nomad-y".
The only issue with the Dwarves is that they've got 3 starting units and they sit on the games only real "resource" (underworld access). They also have terrible stalemate lines to defend against (the "concurrent" spaces architecture creates very, very difficult to hold stalemate lines (in fact, only Mount Nimrod can be held from the underground). Those are more considerations for the Dwarven player then considerations for the map maker however.
I know Michael has considered bridging across the north and south. I think that should be done delicately so as not to create a completely untenable position for the Knights/Ogres and to avoid Icereach becoming some sort of hypercritical stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are merged) or a super easy stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are deemed to be touching). A better (but unfortunately more extensive) solution is to model the north/south border similar to the east/west border such that there's not an easy stalemate line.
Definitely the biggest problem with the map (and I mean problem in the sense of "strategic challenge" not a problem with the actual map) is that where, in normal diplomacy, if you make your first conquest successfully you're generally on a good start. In this variant, when you make that first conquest you need to be immediately positioning yourself to make your second conquest. And the supply lines are long with the EBCs helping alleviate that slightly but not significantly. Someone earlier suggested more EBCs. That's one way to go (certainly other "world" variants have opted for either all EBCs or "convertable" EBCs in essence). The idea of a home SC for each race being an EBC makes a lot of sense (although that Nomad EBC would be TOAST without some additional consideration). It creates an interesting conflict dynamic in how a victim is parsed out to the allies.
Either way, the lesson I learned from this game is that you have to capitalize on your momentum more than in regular dip. Many times, I've conquered France as England and then taken 1 year to "catch my breath"... finishing off French stragglers and/or repositioning for moving to Germany/Russia/Italy as needed. In this variant, you can't catch your breath until you've made a couple conquests and have comfortably created a corner for yourself (As the Knights did early).
I enjoyed the game and I'd love to play in a second game. |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) mgsmuhammad May 19, 01:23 pm |
"Due to his strange messages, everyone in the south believed the Samurai to be working with the other powers, while he actually stayed on his own, and became a non-factor soon after."
You heard it from the lion's mouth, people..
Well, let my.. "performance" be a lesson to all: don't try to roleplay in a diplomacy game.
Especially not with an honour code as strict as the Samurai.
Nonetheless, it was fun while it lasted, and my clearing of the Nomad menace from the south allowed greater gains for those around me.
To balance: I don't feel the Samurai are that over-powered. From the very start of the game, I had to consider leaving a unit back in Magrathea, as both the Hobbits and Leprechauns can reach it in two seasons.
My gamble paid off (even if it was ruined by my diplomacy), but it shows how vulnerable more cautious Samurai can be - having only two units mobile is a significant disadvantage.
That said, the Nomads are painfully weak in the south, there's no denying it.
I'd heartily approve of starting up with a Nomad homeland in the south between the Samurai and Ogres, for future games.
When all's be said and done - Thank you, Mike. Thank you, everyone.
--- On Thu, 19/5/11, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
To: "max victory" <maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "Matthias Matzinger" <Spinozas(at)gmx.net>, "Balthazar Logan" <baz.dip(at)gmail.com>, alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com, pjh5000(at)hotmail.com, dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com, michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com, tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com, mrh(at)panix.com, wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com, kelly058(at)verizon.net, markjsmith60(at)gmail.com, justin(at)darkenedpath.com, jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com, dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com, githraine(at)yahoo.com, kielmarch(at)hotmail.com, welsh_stroud(at)msn.com, mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com, ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 16:58
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my
opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
As for board fixes
Mike and I have talked a bit about tweaking the Barbarians. I think that there initial position is untenable but not so bad that it can't be remedied. I think the Leprechauns and Mages and Undead could also use a slight look. The Fairies are the only race that strike me as being too strong (and probably were set up well in this game for success if not for the
above mentioned alliance). Wizards and Samurai also strike me as being slightly above average. The nice thing about diplomacy, however, is that those things tend to be somewhat self-balancing. Mike could rearrange it so that the Trolls started with 6 units and it wouldn't result in the Trolls having an overwhelming victory percentage because others would gang up. If the Fairies are recognized as being particularly strong then people will be predisposed to move aggressively against them earlier. However, weaker powers often work the other way. Why not put the Nomads out of their misery early? Or the Barbarians?
I view the Nomads (and the Dwarves to a lesser degree) like playing diplomacy on expert mode. You're disadvantaged from the start (although the Dwarves are at least in a defensible position) but if you can make "lemonade out of lemons" then you can be very proud of yourself. The nomads especially have some issues. I can think of four
individual tweaks that might lead to better Nomad performance (although all of these are almost certainly too "strong" they could at least get you thinking).
1) Don't allow their home SCs to be conquered in Y1. This would give them some additional flexibility in pursuing builds.
2) They start with 6 units (but only 3 SCs means that they're bound to lose some if they don't capture some neutrals.
3) The map is rearranged such that they have an adjacent "natural" that can only be taken away from them by an ALLIANCE of two players (i.e. no ONE player can force it away from them in year one)... This one might require significant board alterations.
4) The Nomads have a special power that all conquered spaces are buildable (that feels very "nomad-y".
The only issue with the Dwarves is that they've got 3 starting units and they sit on the games only real "resource" (underworld access). They also have terrible stalemate lines to defend
against (the "concurrent" spaces architecture creates very, very difficult to hold stalemate lines (in fact, only Mount Nimrod can be held from the underground). Those are more considerations for the Dwarven player then considerations for the map maker however.
I know Michael has considered bridging across the north and south. I think that should be done delicately so as not to create a completely untenable position for the Knights/Ogres and to avoid Icereach becoming some sort of hypercritical stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are merged) or a super easy stalemate line (if Icereach and Devil's Canyon are deemed to be touching). A better (but unfortunately more extensive) solution is to model the north/south border similar to the east/west border such that there's not an easy stalemate line.
Definitely the biggest problem with the map (and I mean problem in the sense of "strategic challenge" not a problem with the actual map)
is that where, in normal diplomacy, if you make your first conquest successfully you're generally on a good start. In this variant, when you make that first conquest you need to be immediately positioning yourself to make your second conquest. And the supply lines are long with the EBCs helping alleviate that slightly but not significantly. Someone earlier suggested more EBCs. That's one way to go (certainly other "world" variants have opted for either all EBCs or "convertable" EBCs in essence). The idea of a home SC for each race being an EBC makes a lot of sense (although that Nomad EBC would be TOAST without some additional consideration). It creates an interesting conflict dynamic in how a victim is parsed out to the allies.
Either way, the lesson I learned from this game is that you have to capitalize on your momentum more than in regular dip. Many times, I've conquered France as England and then taken 1 year to "catch my breath"...
finishing off French stragglers and/or repositioning for moving to Germany/Russia/Italy as needed. In this variant, you can't catch your breath until you've made a couple conquests and have comfortably created a corner for yourself (As the Knights did early).
I enjoyed the game and I'd love to play in a second game. |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) offdisc May 23, 12:51 pm |
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)
I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.
What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.
Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.
I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!
So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.
Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".
Mike |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) laxrulz777 May 23, 02:39 pm |
I may have sounded more bitter then I meant. I will absolutely play again and I recognize that political intrigue is a necessary and healthily unhealthy component of diplomacy. I also recognize that a certain amount of "consider the human not just the country" meta-gaming is inevitable in a hobby where you see the same people time and time again. I played against Bruce Ray (that some of you know) in a A&E game in which he lied to me nearly every turn as to his intentions. I can't and won't be able to forget that if/when I play with him again.
In diplomacy, experience is a double edged sword and it showed here. Experience means your ally grows strong. It also means that on that turn when he gets three builds and you get none, you're likely to feel the knife quickly and professionally placed into your back. I was virtually eliminated by the time knowledge of the Vets broke around the table. Ultimately, I think Max would have helped me but he was probably one year away from being able to provide any meaningful help.
My own mistake was in not taking advantage of the one turn that the Warren (Gnomes) left himself open. I feel reasonably certain that had I moved decisively in that one year, Gary would have happily hung him out to dry (only Gary can confirm this I suppose). I also feel reasonably comfortable that the Fairies would not have stabbed me as quickly, either.
As for your original proposition, I think it falls flat (both in theory and, now, in practice). A large alliance is probably good for securing a survival but it presents very real problems when / if progress begins to stall. A single defect can have tremendous negative ramifications (not unlike OPEC and oil). I also think that specific board experience is less important then general diplomacy experience. Granted, this is a somewhat tricky board but it's far, far more important that you have open, frequent, concise and substantive discussions with lots of people really, really quickly. Just in my sphere of influence, both the Centaurs and the Archers were eliminated because they failed to reach out (in my opinion) in those kinds of ways.
A couple suggestions for people who play the next time around (which will hopefully include me
Once the triangle at the roof of the world resolves (Centaurs/Knights/Barbarians) into one power, I think it's really, really unlikely that they'll be stopped short of 8-10 SCs at least (enough to probably demand a part in a draw). The Gnomes don't have particularly great attack avenues and the Trolls are too distant. I tried with the "You're giving the game to Gary" thing with the Fairies and the Gnomes but they'd already made up their mind.
I still think the Fairies have the strongest position in the game. It took a backstab and some piling on for Michael to be truly torn apart. The fairies are the only race to have never been eliminated (although this was very close). I think that the biggest thing is that they have SUCH a good chance to get a 3 build first year and that that isn't fully offset by Early Leader Syndrome in a 19 player variant.
I think the "logical" thing to do under the current board setup is to just viciously eliminate the Nomads. It only makes matters worse that they're surrounded by Pirates, Undead and Ogres
I'm looking forward to Michael's board tweaks. No variant is ever going to be perfect (doesn't Italy's performance in Standard tell us that?) but this is a really, really good board and a good one to build off for a "World War" variant.
My expectations for board changes
slight tweaks to the barbarians and perhaps elves and leprechauns starting positions to make them just a tiny bit better off.
slight tweaks that might weaken the Ogres and Fairies
potentially major tweaks to connect north and south and potentially make the Nomads stronger
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Mike Hoffman <mrh(at)panix.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)
I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.
What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.
Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.
I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!
So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.
Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".
Mike
--
The square root of soon is never |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) FuzzyLogic May 23, 03:27 pm |
Many have brought up this link of of the north to south poles. I am thinking about this a lot because it has significant ramifications...
The Pros...
Gives the victorious northern power and victorious southern power another front behind their lines, so they can't just sit with back to the wall and expand outward.
The Cons...
Looking at the Ogre position, with which I'm most familiar from the game I played in which Hoffman was the Ogres - they are indeed very strong - if they get situated, they will become invulnerable. Their problem is going to be supply lines. The Ogres inevitably build so many armies that when their conquering of the southern continent is complete, they have nowhere else to go. New fleets built at home take several years to reach open waters, and the closest useful EBC is way out in NNL, sure to be held by someone other than the Ogres. This dynamic ultimately limits the Ogres to around 1/3 of the centers of the board, with no chance for solo. Compare that to say, if the Elves take out the southern continent, at that point they are ready to go to tackle the central island and beyond. ANY other power that wins out in the south would end up better off than the Ogres.
Now if we connect the south to the north, and the Ogres capture that passage, now they need never build a single fleet - for if they do conquer their continent, they can still proceed, via the land bridge, right to the other large continent. Does this not oversimplify the Ogre goals too much? Now instead of worrying about when to stop building armies and when to start building fleets, they just go army army army all the way.
"but so-and-so can just block the pass" I hear you say.
Of course they can. But if the pass will just be blocked then what's the point? Whether it requires 1 or 2 or 3 armies to block, Once (for example) the Ogres win out in the south and the Knights win out in the north and both agree to block it, it's closed off anyways.
From: Jeff Hall [mailto:hall.jeff(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 5/23/2011 2:39 PM
To: mrh(at)panix.com
Cc: max victory; Matthias Matzinger; Balthazar Logan; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn; Garry Bledsoe; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Michael Sims; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
I may have sounded more bitter then I meant. I will absolutely play again and I recognize that political intrigue is a necessary and healthily unhealthy component of diplomacy. I also recognize that a certain amount of "consider the human not just the country" meta-gaming is inevitable in a hobby where you see the same people time and time again. I played against Bruce Ray (that some of you know) in a A&E game in which he lied to me nearly every turn as to his intentions. I can't and won't be able to forget that if/when I play with him again.
In diplomacy, experience is a double edged sword and it showed here. Experience means your ally grows strong. It also means that on that turn when he gets three builds and you get none, you're likely to feel the knife quickly and professionally placed into your back. I was virtually eliminated by the time knowledge of the Vets broke around the table. Ultimately, I think Max would have helped me but he was probably one year away from being able to provide any meaningful help.
My own mistake was in not taking advantage of the one turn that the Warren (Gnomes) left himself open. I feel reasonably certain that had I moved decisively in that one year, Gary would have happily hung him out to dry (only Gary can confirm this I suppose). I also feel reasonably comfortable that the Fairies would not have stabbed me as quickly, either.
As for your original proposition, I think it falls flat (both in theory and, now, in practice). A large alliance is probably good for securing a survival but it presents very real problems when / if progress begins to stall. A single defect can have tremendous negative ramifications (not unlike OPEC and oil). I also think that specific board experience is less important then general diplomacy experience. Granted, this is a somewhat tricky board but it's far, far more important that you have open, frequent, concise and substantive discussions with lots of people really, really quickly. Just in my sphere of influence, both the Centaurs and the Archers were eliminated because they failed to reach out (in my opinion) in those kinds of ways.
A couple suggestions for people who play the next time around (which will hopefully include me
Once the triangle at the roof of the world resolves (Centaurs/Knights/Barbarians) into one power, I think it's really, really unlikely that they'll be stopped short of 8-10 SCs at least (enough to probably demand a part in a draw). The Gnomes don't have particularly great attack avenues and the Trolls are too distant. I tried with the "You're giving the game to Gary" thing with the Fairies and the Gnomes but they'd already made up their mind.
I still think the Fairies have the strongest position in the game. It took a backstab and some piling on for Michael to be truly torn apart. The fairies are the only race to have never been eliminated (although this was very close). I think that the biggest thing is that they have SUCH a good chance to get a 3 build first year and that that isn't fully offset by Early Leader Syndrome in a 19 player variant.
I think the "logical" thing to do under the current board setup is to just viciously eliminate the Nomads. It only makes matters worse that they're surrounded by Pirates, Undead and Ogres
I'm looking forward to Michael's board tweaks. No variant is ever going to be perfect (doesn't Italy's performance in Standard tell us that?) but this is a really, really good board and a good one to build off for a "World War" variant.
My expectations for board changes
slight tweaks to the barbarians and perhaps elves and leprechauns starting positions to make them just a tiny bit better off.
slight tweaks that might weaken the Ogres and Fairies
potentially major tweaks to connect north and south and potentially make the Nomads stronger
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Mike Hoffman <mrh(at)panix.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)
I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.
What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.
Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.
I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!
So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.
Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".
Mike
--
The square root of soon is never |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) laxrulz777 May 23, 04:33 pm |
I was initially negative on the idea but after further thought I'm coming around. But it needs to be done right. I think the general fear (from both me and others) is that Michael would choose one of the following two bad solutions
1) Icereach connects to Devil's (easy stalemate line... a single army holds it forever)
2) Icereach and Devil's become the same territory (incredibly difficult stalemate line to hold. Now the person that loses it needs to deploy 4-5 units to defend all of the adjacent territories).
Someone earlier suggested splitting devil's canyon and then making Icereach/Crystal Lake/Devil's Canyon A/Devil's Canyon B all border each other. That's a solution that makes a lot of sense. Now it takes two units to hold and allows the conqueror of BOTH of them on one side of the line to actually project some force. I think if this is done, it's probably logical to move ICE as a SC (maybe just move it to Arctic Barrens slightly strengthening the Barbarians??).
The only thing it doesn't do is address Michael's (legitimate) concern about oversimplifying the Ogres' goal. |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) ndeily May 23, 04:39 pm |
W/re to the Polar centers - one possible solution might be to make them connect to the Underground... swapping Hoarluk for Devil's Canyon/Snow Witch and Artic Barrens or Icereach for Tymwevenne or Knurremarre.
That would effectively rule out the stalemate line issues, connect all the regions in all directions and make the Dwarves either much more powerful or vulnerable, depending how one looks at it.
Nathan
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>
To: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com>
Cc: mrh(at)panix.com; max victory <maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk>; Matthias Matzinger <Spinozas(at)gmx.net>; Balthazar Logan <baz.dip(at)gmail.com>; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354 <dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com;
dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn <githraine(at)yahoo.com>; Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
I was initially negative on the idea but after further thought I'm coming around. But it needs to be done right. I think the general fear (from both me and others) is that Michael would choose one of the following two bad solutions
1) Icereach connects to Devil's (easy stalemate line... a single army holds it forever)
2) Icereach and Devil's become the same territory (incredibly difficult stalemate line to hold. Now the person that loses it needs to deploy 4-5 units to defend all of the adjacent territories).
Someone earlier suggested splitting devil's canyon and then making Icereach/Crystal Lake/Devil's Canyon A/Devil's Canyon B all border each other. That's a solution that makes a lot of sense. Now it takes two units to hold and allows the conqueror of BOTH of them on one side of the line to actually project some force. I think if this is done, it's probably logical to move ICE as a SC (maybe just move it to Arctic
Barrens slightly strengthening the Barbarians??).
The only thing it doesn't do is address Michael's (legitimate) concern about oversimplifying the Ogres' goal. |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) laxrulz777 May 23, 05:08 pm |
|
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) alwayshunted May 23, 10:21 pm |
How do you connect north and south on a globe? Everyone is at a pole, just depends which way you hold the globe.... 'cept the nomads.
W
|
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) pieandmash May 24, 02:47 am |
I agree leave poles alone. Its no different from standard, each country has different strength and weakness, combined with player skills and the variables are what make it interesting. If it aint broke dont fix it, except nomads, either improve or remove, they are too weak
On Tue, 24 May 2011 04:21 BST Warren Fleming wrote:
How do you connect north and south on a globe? Everyone is at a pole, just depends which way you hold the globe.... 'cept the nomads.
W
Subject: RE: dc354 game end - draw!
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:27:00 -0500
From: mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com
To: hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; mrh(at)panix.com
CC: maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; Spinozas(at)gmx.net; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354(at)diplomaticcorp.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; githraine(at)yahoo.com; kielmarch(at)hotmail.com; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Many have brought up this link of of the north to south poles. I am thinking about this a lot because it has significant ramifications...
The Pros...
Gives the victorious northern power and victorious southern power another front behind their lines, so they can't just sit with back to the wall and expand outward.
The Cons...
Looking at the Ogre position, with which I'm most familiar from the game I played in which Hoffman was the Ogres - they are indeed very strong - if they get situated, they will become invulnerable. Their problem is going to be supply lines. The Ogres inevitably build so many armies that when their conquering of the southern continent is complete, they have nowhere else to go. New fleets built at home take several years to reach open waters, and the closest useful EBC is way out in NNL, sure to be held by someone other than the Ogres. This dynamic ultimately limits the Ogres to around 1/3 of the centers of the board, with no chance for solo. Compare that to say, if the Elves take out the southern continent, at that point they are ready to go to tackle the central island and beyond. ANY other power that wins out in the south would end up better off than the Ogres.
Now if we connect the south to the north, and the Ogres capture that passage, now they need never build a single fleet - for if they do conquer their continent, they can still proceed, via the land bridge, right to the other large continent. Does this not oversimplify the Ogre goals too much? Now instead of worrying about when to stop building armies and when to start building fleets, they just go army army army all the way.
"but so-and-so can just block the pass" I hear you say.
Of course they can. But if the pass will just be blocked then what's the point? Whether it requires 1 or 2 or 3 armies to block, Once (for example) the Ogres win out in the south and the Knights win out in the north and both agree to block it, it's closed off anyways.
From: Jeff Hall [mailto:hall.jeff(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 5/23/2011 2:39 PM
To: mrh(at)panix.com
Cc: max victory; Matthias Matzinger; Balthazar Logan; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn; Garry Bledsoe; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Michael Sims; ndeily(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: dc354 game end - draw!
I may have sounded more bitter then I meant. I will absolutely play again and I recognize that political intrigue is a necessary and healthily unhealthy component of diplomacy. I also recognize that a certain amount of "consider the human not just the country" meta-gaming is inevitable in a hobby where you see the same people time and time again. I played against Bruce Ray (that some of you know) in a A&E game in which he lied to me nearly every turn as to his intentions. I can't and won't be able to forget that if/when I play with him again.
In diplomacy, experience is a double edged sword and it showed here. Experience means your ally grows strong. It also means that on that turn when he gets three builds and you get none, you're likely to feel the knife quickly and professionally placed into your back. I was virtually eliminated by the time knowledge of the Vets broke around the table. Ultimately, I think Max would have helped me but he was probably one year away from being able to provide any meaningful help.
My own mistake was in not taking advantage of the one turn that the Warren (Gnomes) left himself open. I feel reasonably certain that had I moved decisively in that one year, Gary would have happily hung him out to dry (only Gary can confirm this I suppose). I also feel reasonably comfortable that the Fairies would not have stabbed me as quickly, either.
As for your original proposition, I think it falls flat (both in theory and, now, in practice). A large alliance is probably good for securing a survival but it presents very real problems when / if progress begins to stall. A single defect can have tremendous negative ramifications (not unlike OPEC and oil). I also think that specific board experience is less important then general diplomacy experience. Granted, this is a somewhat tricky board but it's far, far more important that you have open, frequent, concise and substantive discussions with lots of people really, really quickly. Just in my sphere of influence, both the Centaurs and the Archers were eliminated because they failed to reach out (in my opinion) in those kinds of ways.
A couple suggestions for people who play the next time around (which will hopefully include me
Once the triangle at the roof of the world resolves (Centaurs/Knights/Barbarians) into one power, I think it's really, really unlikely that they'll be stopped short of 8-10 SCs at least (enough to probably demand a part in a draw). The Gnomes don't have particularly great attack avenues and the Trolls are too distant. I tried with the "You're giving the game to Gary" thing with the Fairies and the Gnomes but they'd already made up their mind.
I still think the Fairies have the strongest position in the game. It took a backstab and some piling on for Michael to be truly torn apart. The fairies are the only race to have never been eliminated (although this was very close). I think that the biggest thing is that they have SUCH a good chance to get a 3 build first year and that that isn't fully offset by Early Leader Syndrome in a 19 player variant.
I think the "logical" thing to do under the current board setup is to just viciously eliminate the Nomads. It only makes matters worse that they're surrounded by Pirates, Undead and Ogres
I'm looking forward to Michael's board tweaks. No variant is ever going to be perfect (doesn't Italy's performance in Standard tell us that?) but this is a really, really good board and a good one to build off for a "World War" variant.
My expectations for board changes
slight tweaks to the barbarians and perhaps elves and leprechauns starting positions to make them just a tiny bit better off.
slight tweaks that might weaken the Ogres and Fairies
potentially major tweaks to connect north and south and potentially make the Nomads stronger
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Mike Hoffman wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Hall wrote:
I also enjoyed the game but the after action comments are leaving me a bit concerned. I would suggest to those of you that participated in the initial "alliance" that you strongly reconsider whether that's the best thing for the game. It introduces questions of fairness and it strikes me that it's only one step better then me inviting my wife and brother to join the next game. Such metagaming is somewhat inevitable but to do it on such a broad basis right from the start is, to me at least, anathema to the game of Diplomacy. Factoring in past performance when evaluating a potential ally is one thing (hopefully the Archers have a better understanding of how I play so that we can avoid these problems next time... and despite Gary's stab, I felt like he was largely upfront with me and, had I committed to a Gnome assault like I should have he might not have stabbed me when he did). But beyond those considerations, such broad pacts (in my opinion) have a
distinct negative impact on the game. It detracts from the fun of others (it sure feels like, after reading those after game emails, that I wasn't invited to the "cool kids" table and I therefore never had a chance) and it creates situations unlikely to lead to solos (which ought to be most people's goal when they sit down at the table).
/rant off
At least I now recognize that the "fix was in" so to speak on my initial position. Gary was in an enviable position and frankly was well positioned to fight the hobbits for a potential solo.
Being the 'ringleader' of the M7 / Veterans Alliance, I just wanted to clear up my thinking so as not to be cast anyone in a shadow, or relegate them to eating lunch on the steps behind the building. (Jeff, I *know* what it's like NOT to be the "cool kids" Many years ago, but it's still there)
I totally agree that Meta-gaming detracts from the individual game. On the other hand, do we also not carry our historical prejudices against us? We learn each others' play styles and they always sit in the back of our minds.
That being said, I have played in every Haven game, either as an original or as a replacement. I have been eliminated a couple times, survived a couple, and been on the winning side once. I *think* I understand the vagaries of the board after this experience. However, I can safely say that in the M7, I have only played closely with 4 of the members. I have played closely with 3 of the 'uninvited'. My point being that, in making up my call for alliance, I did not focus on my personal experiences (thus true Meta-Gaming), but on the historical experience of the players themselves.
What I was after was a personal 'game-test': Could experience with the board layout, with the poisitonal advantages and disadvantages of each power, be leveraged into a fast victory? A quick elimination of the other powers followed by a fight-to-the-death amongst the experienced? The 'fight-to-the-death was the proposed 'next step' once M7 were the remaining competitors.
Seeing the results, what do you think? Once word of the "Vets" went public, the opposing force was considerable! The final outcome shows that many of the M7 survived, but only 2 were part of the overall Draw win. Without Max' defection, would that outcome be different? Maybe, maybe not. One certain result: I may be part of an alliance like this again, but, obviously, my diplomacy skills weren't strong enough to hold it together and I won't be creating one in the future.
I had always fully expected the M7 to break down once only 1 or 2 others remained -- first to strike usually gains the competitive advantage. I was surprised how quickly Max jumped ship, but I see his reasoning and he absolutely made the correct decision! He read his opponents well and capitalized on his advantage. A veteran move? Definitely!
So, Jeff, I am sorry that you now feel that "uninvited", but I disagree that the "fix was in". I was 100% truthful with you in our negotiations. I was actively attempting to steer both Garry and Warren towards the Faeries instead of you --- mostly so that when the M7 started to break down, I could call on you to help me take either (or both) of them out! Put the Barbs into the final battles and you carry considerable positional advantage! A T/R/B alliance can do a lot of damage against G/K.
Alas, both Warren and Garry were not to be persuaded, and the Faeries assisted in your eventual demise. I had no influence over them, and Garry and Nathan were slow to attack and draw them away from you.
Bad Luck -- but certainly not a "fix".
Mike
--
The square root of soon is never |
| dc354 game end - draw! (dc354) FuzzyLogic May 24, 07:35 am |
Interesting point.
I wonder if we rotated the globe and redrew it so that the Archers were at the north pole and the Magicians were at the south pole, how ppl would view their nations. Is this more a perception thing? The Ogres (south pole) do start surrounded by 3 other players with whom they come into immediate contact.
From: Warren Fleming [mailto:alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: Mon 5/23/2011 10:21 PM
To: Michael Sims; hall.jeff(at)gmail.com; Mike Hoffman
Cc: maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; spinozas(at)gmx.net; baz.dip(at)gmail.com; pjh5000(at)hotmail.com; dc354; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com; tomjnkns.il(at)gmail.com; wealllovekatamari(at)yahoo.com; kelly058(at)verizon.net; markjsmith60(at)gmail.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; jdtsoft(at)jdtsoft.com; dan.i.sinensky(at)gmail.com; Jason Koelewyn; Garry Bledsoe; welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; Nathan Deily
Subject: RE: dc354 game end - draw!
How do you connect north and south on a globe? Everyone is at a pole, just depends which way you hold the globe.... 'cept the nomads.
W
|
| dc354 w08 builds! - FuzzyLogic (May 17, 2011, 4:06 pm) |
A friendly Haven reminder that Spring 09 is due tomorrow! Should be particularly interesting because this will be the 9th spring turn we've had this game...
From: Michael Sims
Sent: Thu 5/12/2011 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: dc354 w08 builds!
Spring 09 moves and votes due Wed 5/18, 3pm Central...
From: Michael Sims
Sent: Thu 5/12/2011 8:42 AM
Subject: dc354 w08 builds!
The Rogues, Trolls, and Faeries leave their removals to chance, leading to perhaps some unexpected units off the board...
We have a 4-way draw proposed for Spring. Hobbits-Knights-Pirates-Wizards. Vote yes/no with spring orders.
Elves:
Remove F Fafhrd
Faeries:
Remove A Daisy Meadows
Remove F CELESTIAL DELTA
Gnomes:
Build A Newa River
Hobbits:
Build A Spirit Pond
Build A Krikkit
Build A Whoville
Build waived
Leprechauns:
Remove F ROARING RAPIDS
Remove A Prekkendorran Hts
Pirates:
Build A Never Never Land
Build A Pans Labyrinth
Rogues:
Remove F BEAVERSDAM
Remove F Walk of Clouds
Trolls:
Remove A Darken Wood
Remove F TROG BOG
Wizards:
Build F Baldurs Gate
Build A Faerun
Build A The Julianthes
Build F Myth Drannor
Build waived
[Reply] |
| dc354 w08 builds! - FuzzyLogic (May 12, 2011, 8:46 am) |
Spring 09 moves and votes due Wed 5/18, 3pm Central...
From: Michael Sims
Sent: Thu 5/12/2011 8:42 AM
Subject: dc354 w08 builds!
The Rogues, Trolls, and Faeries leave their removals to chance, leading to perhaps some unexpected units off the board...
We have a 4-way draw proposed for Spring. Hobbits-Knights-Pirates-Wizards. Vote yes/no with spring orders.
Elves:
Remove F Fafhrd
Faeries:
Remove A Daisy Meadows
Remove F CELESTIAL DELTA
Gnomes:
Build A Newa River
Hobbits:
Build A Spirit Pond
Build A Krikkit
Build A Whoville
Build waived
Leprechauns:
Remove F ROARING RAPIDS
Remove A Prekkendorran Hts
Pirates:
Build A Never Never Land
Build A Pans Labyrinth
Rogues:
Remove F BEAVERSDAM
Remove F Walk of Clouds
Trolls:
Remove A Darken Wood
Remove F TROG BOG
Wizards:
Build F Baldurs Gate
Build A Faerun
Build A The Julianthes
Build F Myth Drannor
Build waived
[Reply] |
| dc354 w08 builds! - FuzzyLogic (May 12, 2011, 8:42 am) |
The Rogues, Trolls, and Faeries leave their removals to chance, leading to perhaps some unexpected units off the board...
We have a 4-way draw proposed for Spring. Hobbits-Knights-Pirates-Wizards. Vote yes/no with spring orders.
Elves:
Remove F Fafhrd
Faeries:
Remove A Daisy Meadows
Remove F CELESTIAL DELTA
Gnomes:
Build A Newa River
Hobbits:
Build A Spirit Pond
Build A Krikkit
Build A Whoville
Build waived
Leprechauns:
Remove F ROARING RAPIDS
Remove A Prekkendorran Hts
Pirates:
Build A Never Never Land
Build A Pans Labyrinth
Rogues:
Remove F BEAVERSDAM
Remove F Walk of Clouds
Trolls:
Remove A Darken Wood
Remove F TROG BOG
Wizards:
Build F Baldurs Gate
Build A Faerun
Build A The Julianthes
Build F Myth Drannor
Build waived
[Reply] |
| dc354 w08 builds! (dc354) FuzzyLogic May 12, 08:46 am |
Spring 09 moves and votes due Wed 5/18, 3pm Central...
From: Michael Sims
Sent: Thu 5/12/2011 8:42 AM
Subject: dc354 w08 builds!
The Rogues, Trolls, and Faeries leave their removals to chance, leading to perhaps some unexpected units off the board...
We have a 4-way draw proposed for Spring. Hobbits-Knights-Pirates-Wizards. Vote yes/no with spring orders.
Elves:
Remove F Fafhrd
Faeries:
Remove A Daisy Meadows
Remove F CELESTIAL DELTA
Gnomes:
Build A Newa River
Hobbits:
Build A Spirit Pond
Build A Krikkit
Build A Whoville
Build waived
Leprechauns:
Remove F ROARING RAPIDS
Remove A Prekkendorran Hts
Pirates:
Build A Never Never Land
Build A Pans Labyrinth
Rogues:
Remove F BEAVERSDAM
Remove F Walk of Clouds
Trolls:
Remove A Darken Wood
Remove F TROG BOG
Wizards:
Build F Baldurs Gate
Build A Faerun
Build A The Julianthes
Build F Myth Drannor
Build waived
|
| dc354 w08 builds! (dc354) FuzzyLogic May 17, 04:06 pm |
A friendly Haven reminder that Spring 09 is due tomorrow! Should be particularly interesting because this will be the 9th spring turn we've had this game...
From: Michael Sims
Sent: Thu 5/12/2011 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: dc354 w08 builds!
Spring 09 moves and votes due Wed 5/18, 3pm Central...
From: Michael Sims
Sent: Thu 5/12/2011 8:42 AM
Subject: dc354 w08 builds!
The Rogues, Trolls, and Faeries leave their removals to chance, leading to perhaps some unexpected units off the board...
We have a 4-way draw proposed for Spring. Hobbits-Knights-Pirates-Wizards. Vote yes/no with spring orders.
Elves:
Remove F Fafhrd
Faeries:
Remove A Daisy Meadows
Remove F CELESTIAL DELTA
Gnomes:
Build A Newa River
Hobbits:
Build A Spirit Pond
Build A Krikkit
Build A Whoville
Build waived
Leprechauns:
Remove F ROARING RAPIDS
Remove A Prekkendorran Hts
Pirates:
Build A Never Never Land
Build A Pans Labyrinth
Rogues:
Remove F BEAVERSDAM
Remove F Walk of Clouds
Trolls:
Remove A Darken Wood
Remove F TROG BOG
Wizards:
Build F Baldurs Gate
Build A Faerun
Build A The Julianthes
Build F Myth Drannor
Build waived
|
