GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
8,578 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
19 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
54 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Nations» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Two player - broken? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
I've played two player a small number of times and noticed a clear trend.

(Note- we play that you can only put as many meeples on a card as it shows, i.e. if there are two meeples on the bottom you can put only two meeples on the card. This forces diversification. I don't think this really effects the 'brokeness')

Rome side B starts out with +2 military. This means that Rome can usually put itself in a situation where it wins military without cost. Rome also has a big jump on conquering colonies, so (if its available) it can pick up the 2 fighting colony and further cement the free military win.

This creates an immense problem for the other player because he will lose every war and most events. The counter strategy of stability is sometimes available, sometimes not.

The end result is that Rome gets first pick for all cards, forces the opponent to waste an early turning buying (and throwing away) a war - a tax of 1 gold & 1 action - and wins the events and effectively has a edge in colonies and therefore production. The other side doesn't have a chance.

Does anyone else have this experience? I almost think this game is broken for two player because the war advantage is so huge. Even without playing Rome B side I think the player that secures an early military edge (often with first pick in the cards) will have a big advantage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Chiappa
United States
lincoln park
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
...so you are stating that a game is broken without in fact ever played it as it should supposed to.....shake
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bredon
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Playing that you can only put scoring meeples on the cards definitely increases this problem - to counter 2 Roman Legions, another player may need 3 military units. By preventing this, you completely change the balance of the game.


A few things that make this less significant:

1. Your post assumes that Rome is available in a 2 player game (you randomly select nations equal to the number of players to choose from, so there is only a 40% chance that Rome is even available). This is important.
2. You select nations in reverse turn order. That means that the second player will choose Rome. The first player will get first pick for military units, and if there is only 1 good unit, this will tend to even out Rome's starting strength. This is important.
3. The war strength is equal to the buyer's strength at the time of the purchase and does not change, so if the war is bought early on, it is fairly easy for both players to win it. If the war is not bought by Rome in the first 2 or 3 picks, the other player is only giving up 0-2 gold and maybe a Battle or Golden Age - the other good cards will be gone by then.

What you describe is only a problem when all of the below apply:
in the 40% of games in which Rome is available
There is either 0 or 2+ decent military units in the card row in Age I
There are no good stability buildings available
There is a War available
Rome prioritizes on getting military strength at the expense of production so that the other player cannot catch up.

It is possible for this to be a problem in turn 2,3 or 4 if Rome gets a +military colony and/or leader, but by then, the other player will have been able to react, and should be able to increase stability or other resources and possibly buy a Golden Age to get back the VP he will lose from the War.

By Age 2 or 3, the strength of milirary units dwarfs Rome's military advantage, and in order to keep the lead, Rome will have to buy military units before wars. A more efficient economy should be able to keep pace.

If Sun Tzu is available, that is a critical leader purchase for non-Rome - it allows the weaker player to buy a war AND a building as his first action.
8 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rustan Håkansson
Sweden
Norrköping
flag msg tools
designer
bgdev.club is really a site address, no www or .com needed :)
badge
New version of Tribes from Kosmos at Spiel 2018!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem you see is a direct consequence of your change... Please try it as intended and the problem will disappear.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
abredon wrote:
Playing that you can only put scoring meeples on the cards definitely increases this problem - to counter 2 Roman Legions, another player may need 3 military units. By preventing this, you completely change the balance of the game.


A few things that make this less significant:

1. Your post assumes that Rome is available in a 2 player game (you randomly select nations equal to the number of players to choose from, so there is only a 40% chance that Rome is even available). This is important.
2. You select nations in reverse turn order. That means that the second player will choose Rome. The first player will get first pick for military units, and if there is only 1 good unit, this will tend to even out Rome's starting strength. This is important.
3. The war strength is equal to the buyer's strength at the time of the purchase and does not change, so if the war is bought early on, it is fairly easy for both players to win it. If the war is not bought by Rome in the first 2 or 3 picks, the other player is only giving up 0-2 gold and maybe a Battle or Golden Age - the other good cards will be gone by then.

What you describe is only a problem when all of the below apply:
in the 40% of games in which Rome is available
There is either 0 or 2+ decent military units in the card row in Age I
There are no good stability buildings available
There is a War available
Rome prioritizes on getting military strength at the expense of production so that the other player cannot catch up.

It is possible for this to be a problem in turn 2,3 or 4 if Rome gets a +military colony and/or leader, but by then, the other player will have been able to react, and should be able to increase stability or other resources and possibly buy a Golden Age to get back the VP he will lose from the War.

By Age 2 or 3, the strength of milirary units dwarfs Rome's military advantage, and in order to keep the lead, Rome will have to buy military units before wars. A more efficient economy should be able to keep pace.

If Sun Tzu is available, that is a critical leader purchase for non-Rome - it allows the weaker player to buy a war AND a building as his first action.


Thanks for the reply.

1 - Let me change my opening statement - I see Rome as too powerful but military in general as powerful early. Given that Rome exists I don't think the 40% argument matters. If its broken for two players than its broken for two players.
2 - I see this as minor as Rome starts with an excellent military unit as well so they will still always win military. After turn 1 they will be going first. So the other nation sacrifices first pick in order to gain nothing.
3 - Yes, however if the other nation buys the war they have wasted gold and an action and Rome can either wait to buy the war or buy it if they currently have high military. Even if the other nation can catch up it will cost them ore and actions to do so. Rome +2 fighting for free is a huge advantage here.
4 - Stability is a reasonable response when available but its also a dead resource. Rome will still win military events and maintains a military advantage at no cost while the other nation has to invest actions and resources into maintaining a stability advantage. Furthermore, Rome's military advantage has additional benefits (colonies, war, battles) while the stability advantage is much less relevant. Yes it could be traded for population but then you face war again.
5 - Yes later age military units are important, but I think Rome can get a meaningful early advantage and will always be in a position to buy that military unit first - albeit at the cost of gold and action. Military is a strictly greater than / less than relation so I think +2 military is meaningful at any stage. Rome should get a big jump out of the gate thanks to the advantage and really just has to coast to the finish.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul M
United States
Elkhart
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
...I don't think this really effects the 'brokeness'...


It probably does.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
RustanR wrote:
The problem you see is a direct consequence of your change... Please try it as intended and the problem will disappear.


Thanks for your reply. I'll give it a shot, however-

Rome +2 for free is a huge advantage both in terms of cost and time. Rome starts out ahead and has the jump if the other player tries to match military. Rome also starts with a great Age 1 military. So if the other player buys a great military (gold + action) and puts men on it then Rome can just do the same with a big time advantage. As long as Rome just paces they can always stay ahead. And Rome will win early colonies and early events. So I don't think the restriction really matter that much.

All that being said I will definitely try the game as intended.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rustan Håkansson
Sweden
Norrköping
flag msg tools
designer
bgdev.club is really a site address, no www or .com needed :)
badge
New version of Tribes from Kosmos at Spiel 2018!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It matters a great deal, putting several workers on each card is done from the very first round. With your change there are boatfuls of balancing that is thrown away, including Rome. Yes, with your change Rome (and many other things in the game) would be unbalanced. Please try the game as it is, and keep in mind it can be hugely beneficial to completely remove your whole military at times. Constantly increasing strength is an anomaly in this game, often encountered in the first game of beginners followed by said beginners not trying the game again sadly
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RustanR wrote:
It matters a great deal, putting several workers on each card is done from the very first round. With your change there are boatfuls of balancing that is thrown away, including Rome. Yes, with your change Rome (and many other things in the game) would be unbalanced. Please try the game as it is, and keep in mind it can be hugely beneficial to completely remove your whole military at times. Constantly increasing strength is an anomaly in this game, often encountered in the first game of beginners followed by said beginners not trying the game again sadly
I agree about several workers on each card being an important part of the game. In fact, in each game, I usually have at least one complete realignment of sorts, and move over half my workforce to a new focus to either grab the book lead, or commonly, put most of my people on Military to grab a colony, then move them immediately off again.

It's all about pushing your engine's advantages, and not succumbing to its faults.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
RustanR wrote:
It matters a great deal, putting several workers on each card is done from the very first round. With your change there are boatfuls of balancing that is thrown away, including Rome. Yes, with your change Rome (and many other things in the game) would be unbalanced. Please try the game as it is, and keep in mind it can be hugely beneficial to completely remove your whole military at times. Constantly increasing strength is an anomaly in this game, often encountered in the first game of beginners followed by said beginners not trying the game again sadly


My thought process on this issue is that even with no restrictions on meeple placement (I accept that I should have played this way from the beginning) Rome still has a near lock on military. They start with +2 for free and have an excellent first round unit. In a two player game they can 'pace' the opponent at the beginning of the game and reactively adjust their miilitary to beat their opponent. They have a big time jump on early colonies as they can get to 5 with one action on round 1 and will start with first play on round 2. They also start with a big jump on war and can sort of force a military race which they are guaranteed to win. Finally, by winning military they win the events.

I don't see a good way around this. If the other side counters by building military, Rome just stays ahead. If the other side goes stability (not always on option) then military should win as it is better in colonies, battles, war (assuming the punishment is high enough) and is more often better in events. Since Rome is going first they can also draft a high stability building and win this as well.

Covering up military, particularly against Rome, seems like a bad idea in 2p. I think you give up too much optionality if the opp knows they can always stay ahead and punish you with wars and you have no response.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grant
United States
Cuyahoga Falls
Ohio
flag msg tools
One of the best gaming weekends in Ohio since 2010. Search facebook for "BOGA Weekend Retreat" for more info!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
RustanR wrote:
It matters a great deal, putting several workers on each card is done from the very first round. With your change there are boatfuls of balancing that is thrown away, including Rome. Yes, with your change Rome (and many other things in the game) would be unbalanced. Please try the game as it is, and keep in mind it can be hugely beneficial to completely remove your whole military at times. Constantly increasing strength is an anomaly in this game, often encountered in the first game of beginners followed by said beginners not trying the game again sadly


My thought process on this issue is that even with no restrictions on meeple placement (I accept that I should have played this way from the beginning) Rome still has a near lock on military. They start with +2 for free and have an excellent first round unit. In a two player game they can 'pace' the opponent at the beginning of the game and reactively adjust their miilitary to beat their opponent. They have a big time jump on early colonies as they can get to 5 with one action on round 1 and will start with first play on round 2. They also start with a big jump on war and can sort of force a military race which they are guaranteed to win. Finally, by winning military they win the events.

I don't see a good way around this. If the other side counters by building military, Rome just stays ahead. If the other side goes stability (not always on option) then military should win as it is better in colonies, battles, war (assuming the punishment is high enough) and is more often better in events. Since Rome is going first they can also draft a high stability building and win this as well.

Covering up military, particularly against Rome, seems like a bad idea in 2p. I think you give up too much optionality if the opp knows they can always stay ahead and punish you with wars and you have no response.

You are drastically overvaluing military in this game. It is entirely possible to win Nations without EVER being in the military lead. It's ok, really it is.

I think your play may be suffering from some group think issues.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
RustanR wrote:
It matters a great deal, putting several workers on each card is done from the very first round. With your change there are boatfuls of balancing that is thrown away, including Rome. Yes, with your change Rome (and many other things in the game) would be unbalanced. Please try the game as it is, and keep in mind it can be hugely beneficial to completely remove your whole military at times. Constantly increasing strength is an anomaly in this game, often encountered in the first game of beginners followed by said beginners not trying the game again sadly


My thought process on this issue is that even with no restrictions on meeple placement (I accept that I should have played this way from the beginning) Rome still has a near lock on military. They start with +2 for free and have an excellent first round unit. In a two player game they can 'pace' the opponent at the beginning of the game and reactively adjust their miilitary to beat their opponent. They have a big time jump on early colonies as they can get to 5 with one action on round 1 and will start with first play on round 2. They also start with a big jump on war and can sort of force a military race which they are guaranteed to win. Finally, by winning military they win the events.

I don't see a good way around this. If the other side counters by building military, Rome just stays ahead. If the other side goes stability (not always on option) then military should win as it is better in colonies, battles, war (assuming the punishment is high enough) and is more often better in events. Since Rome is going first they can also draft a high stability building and win this as well.

Covering up military, particularly against Rome, seems like a bad idea in 2p. I think you give up too much optionality if the opp knows they can always stay ahead and punish you with wars and you have no response.

You are drastically overvaluing military in this game. It is entirely possible to win Nations without EVER being in the military lead. It's ok, really it is.

I think your play may be suffering from some group think issues.


In 2P, military is a big deal. In addition to colonies and winning events, which are great at any number, it forces your opp to lose events and to do something about war. Rome is also really, really efficient early on. I think you are underestimating their early advantage. Later in the game they can abandon war altogether and just milk the early lead.

I'm not sure I buy the 'group think' argument here. It's almost the opposite. War is a frequent and powerful strategy so people spend time thinking up ways around it. In 2P I don't see a way around Rome.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fernando Robert Yu
Philippines
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In any case, I would believe the designer of the game!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
freddieyu wrote:
In any case, I would believe the designer of the game!


Because every designer can be trusted implicitly to provide an unbiased opinion of their games and readily admit to any design weaknesses pointed out in a forum. Good point!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lucio Pierobon
Germany
Bad Tölz
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
freddieyu wrote:
In any case, I would believe the designer of the game!


Because every designer can be trusted implicitly to provide an unbiased opinion of their games and readily admit to any design weaknesses pointed out in a forum. Good point!


No, just because it is more reliable than someone who has played the game a couple of times with the WRONG RULES and is already bitching about the balance of the game...

Forgive me but you are really annoying...

Lucio
13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
Iago71 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
freddieyu wrote:
In any case, I would believe the designer of the game!


Because every designer can be trusted implicitly to provide an unbiased opinion of their games and readily admit to any design weaknesses pointed out in a forum. Good point!


No, just because it is more reliable than someone who has played the game a couple of times with the WRONG RULES and is already bitching about the balance of the game...

Forgive me but you are really annoying...

Lucio


Except that I've played a number of games with the right rules as well AND I don't see how my change has any effect on what I am claiming. Of course it would be asking too much for someone like you to bother addressing either of those issues.

I have to say I've heard about the phenomenon of fanboys rushing blindly to the defense of their games but I've never witnessed it in person. It certainly is fascinating in principle, although I think you are probably more classless then most.

And I'll disagree with you again - I would trust anyone over a designer on the opinion of their game balance and flaws. I have never seen a designer opening admit flaws and I've seen plenty argue lost points.

Let's just call Rome the next Halifax Hammer.

And why is that so wrong? Nations isn't meant to be a two person game so the fact that it doesn't work as a two player game isn't a big deal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lucio Pierobon
Germany
Bad Tölz
Bayern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
First of all, sorry but not a fanboy... I own the game and like it but I still prefer TTA to it and definitely I don't go around suggesting it to any person asking for suggestions for, say, a short filler...

Second, I don't have any personal or economical interest in the game or in any of it's publishers around the universe...

Third, you based the statement you made (and you made it in at least two other threads you opened) on the basis of a game you invented since you applied to th eNations board, cards and meeples rules of your own that DO NOT EXIST in the game rules of Nations... from this more than me being a fanboy, it's seems you are the troll...

Fourth, I have had some experience of talking with authors and while I have heard people defending their work against any evidence, I have also heard people being overcritic of their own work, so I wouldn't be so adamant in categorizing them, unless I have a different agenda, like being a troll...

Fifth, stating that the WRONG rule you have applied does not change the balance of the game when is cristal clear that it does, since YOUR Nation has a rule tha almost guarantees that Rome Bonus cannot be coutered in any way, even if Rome decides not to bother to build military, while the REAL Nations has not that rule seems to me a bit out of reality, but, of course, I am a fanboy after all...

Having people that tells you repeatedly that you can commonly win at REAL Nations even without ever being the highest in Military (and I can tell you, even losing some wars from time to time) and ignoring it makes me feel strongly again that you are just trolling around...

What's wrong is not having a feeling but trying to sell it as pure Gold when it's not even clear if it's just fools gold or even yellow painted manure...

And btw, it's you who is making a big deal out of it...

I am only telling you you are annoying...

Have a good life
Lucio
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grant
United States
Cuyahoga Falls
Ohio
flag msg tools
One of the best gaming weekends in Ohio since 2010. Search facebook for "BOGA Weekend Retreat" for more info!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
Iago71 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
freddieyu wrote:
In any case, I would believe the designer of the game!


Because every designer can be trusted implicitly to provide an unbiased opinion of their games and readily admit to any design weaknesses pointed out in a forum. Good point!


No, just because it is more reliable than someone who has played the game a couple of times with the WRONG RULES and is already bitching about the balance of the game...

Forgive me but you are really annoying...

Lucio


Except that I've played a number of games with the right rules as well AND I don't see how my change has any effect on what I am claiming. Of course it would be asking too much for someone like you to bother addressing either of those issues.

Ok, let me address the issues then. This is how it breaks down:

A) Your idea about changing the rules is a bad one.
B) You fail to acknowledge that.
C) Therefore, you're probably not a very perceptive player of the game.
D) Nobody else in these forums, in all the time the game has been out, has brought up the issue of Rome being broken (or even merely overpowered) in 2p games.
E) This means that either you are a visionary who identified a previously undetected flaw, or you don't know what you're talking about.
F) As a result of (C), it makes it very likely the latter: you don't know what you're talking about.

Does that make sense? Has it been sufficiently addressed now?

Quote:

I have to say I've heard about the phenomenon of fanboys rushing blindly to the defense of their games but I've never witnessed it in person. It certainly is fascinating in principle, although I think you are probably more classless then most.

Have you also heard of the phenomenon where a person finds out nobody agrees with him, but rather than admit he might be wrong he just starts with the ad hominem attacks and calls anyone disagreeing with him a fanboy who can't possibly have an objective opinion?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
Iago71 wrote:
First of all, sorry but not a fanboy... I own the game and like it but I still prefer TTA to it and definitely I don't go around suggesting it to any person asking for suggestions for, say, a short filler...

Second, I don't have any personal or economical interest in the game or in any of it's publishers around the universe...

Third, you based the statement you made (and you made it in at least two other threads you opened) on the basis of a game you invented since you applied to th eNations board, cards and meeples rules of your own that DO NOT EXIST in the game rules of Nations... from this more than me being a fanboy, it's seems you are the troll...

Fourth, I have had some experience of talking with authors and while I have heard people defending their work against any evidence, I have also heard people being overcritic of their own work, so I wouldn't be so adamant in categorizing them, unless I have a different agenda, like being a troll...

Fifth, stating that the WRONG rule you have applied does not change the balance of the game when is cristal clear that it does, since YOUR Nation has a rule tha almost guarantees that Rome Bonus cannot be coutered in any way, even if Rome decides not to bother to build military, while the REAL Nations has not that rule seems to me a bit out of reality, but, of course, I am a fanboy after all...

Having people that tells you repeatedly that you can commonly win at REAL Nations even without ever being the highest in Military (and I can tell you, even losing some wars from time to time) and ignoring it makes me feel strongly again that you are just trolling around...

What's wrong is not having a feeling but trying to sell it as pure Gold when it's not even clear if it's just fools gold or even yellow painted manure...

And btw, it's you who is making a big deal out of it...

I am only telling you you are annoying...

Have a good life
Lucio


Forgot my thematic variant. First, it DOESN'T in effect the balance issue I am proposing and second, the balance issue is present regardless of how many workers you can put on a card. I've also posted that many times - why keep beating a dead horse? If you don't like my thematic variant fine - just stick to addressing the balance issue. If you think it changes balance (apparently it is so obvious) - maybe you can actually EXPLAIN THAT instead of just throwing dust in the air?

Nothing in your post identifies the problem - Nations at 2P is different than 4P or 5P. I'm sure people win at 5P with no military. I'm sure Rome isn't dominant at 5P. 2P is a different issue.

I posted here because I've identified a clear problem and was hoping for someone to provide intelligent insight as to why my insight might be wrong or what could be done. Surprisingly (or maybe not) I don't anyone has addressed any point I've made.

As a side note - the designer identified a balance issue in another post regarding how the game changes down to 2P. He even says he's surprised that more people haven't pointed out scaling balance issues. The fact that you are so blind to this makes your posts very uninteresting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Iago71 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
freddieyu wrote:
In any case, I would believe the designer of the game!


Because every designer can be trusted implicitly to provide an unbiased opinion of their games and readily admit to any design weaknesses pointed out in a forum. Good point!


No, just because it is more reliable than someone who has played the game a couple of times with the WRONG RULES and is already bitching about the balance of the game...

Forgive me but you are really annoying...

Lucio


Except that I've played a number of games with the right rules as well AND I don't see how my change has any effect on what I am claiming. Of course it would be asking too much for someone like you to bother addressing either of those issues.

Ok, let me address the issues then. This is how it breaks down:

A) Your idea about changing the rules is a bad one.
B) You fail to acknowledge that.
C) Therefore, you're probably not a very perceptive player of the game.
D) Nobody else in these forums, in all the time the game has been out, has brought up the issue of Rome being broken (or even merely overpowered) in 2p games.
E) This means that either you are a visionary who identified a previously undetected flaw, or you don't know what you're talking about.
F) As a result of (C), it makes it very likely the latter: you don't know what you're talking about.

Does that make sense? Has it been sufficiently addressed now?

Quote:

I have to say I've heard about the phenomenon of fanboys rushing blindly to the defense of their games but I've never witnessed it in person. It certainly is fascinating in principle, although I think you are probably more classless then most.

Have you also heard of the phenomenon where a person finds out nobody agrees with him, but rather than admit he might be wrong he just starts with the ad hominem attacks and calls anyone disagreeing with him a fanboy who can't possibly have an objective opinion?


Actually no, you haven't addressed any of the issues I've raised but you did succeed in pursuing an ad hominem attack on me while accusing me of the same. And no, I don't care about your opinion of my thematic change. Thematic changes are opinion - if you want to address balance, maybe you should actually do so. Here's a start - can you name a resource that changes in value with player count? They exist and the game doesn't address this. Can you name other aspects of the rules that change importance based on player count? They exist as well. And yet, apparently you believe there is perfect balance across all player counts for all nations independent of all of this.

Could I ask for future posters - please just address any issue I've raised? That's the reason I posted this in the first place.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grant
United States
Cuyahoga Falls
Ohio
flag msg tools
One of the best gaming weekends in Ohio since 2010. Search facebook for "BOGA Weekend Retreat" for more info!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
Actually no, you haven't addressed any of the issues I've raised but you did succeed in pursuing an ad hominem attack on me while accusing me of the same.

All of my statements, A-F, are logical conclusions that follow one from the next, or else have been objectively observed. None of them are an attack.
Quote:
And no, I don't care about your opinion of my thematic change. Thematic changes are opinion - if you want to address balance, maybe you should actually do so.

I have given no optinion on your change as it relates to the theme. Only on how if negatively impacts the mechanics and balance of the game.

Quote:
Here's a start - can you name a resource that changes in value with player count? They exist and the game doesn't address this. Can you name other aspects of the rules that change importance based on player count? They exist as well. And yet, apparently you believe there is perfect balance across all player counts for all nations independent of all of this.

You seem to have some preconceived notion that a game can't possibly remain balanced unless changes are made at different player counts. Why must this be true? You state it as a fact when it is not one.

Quote:
Could I ask for future posters - please just address any issue I've raised? That's the reason I posted this in the first place.

Fortunately you do not get to dictate what other people post.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bredon
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
Forgot my thematic variant. First, it DOESN'T in effect the balance issue I am proposing.


FALSE - here is a concrete example:

There is an Age I colony that costs 9 military. No player other than Rome can viably get that with your variant (Rome would need 1 military from a leader or other colony, all other players would need either 2 Age 1 Military cards or a leader or colony AND an Age I and starting military card).
Also, only Rome can afford to buy colonies costing 7 or 8 with your variant.

In the normal game, anyone can buy that card by putting 3 workers on an Age I military unit.

This is merely 1 example of how your variant ACTUALLY CHANGES THE BALANCE OF THE GAME!

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
abredon wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Forgot my thematic variant. First, it DOESN'T in effect the balance issue I am proposing.


FALSE - here is a concrete example:

There is an Age I colony that costs 9 military. No player other than Rome can viably get that with your variant (Rome would need 1 military from a leader or other colony, all other players would need either 2 Age 1 Military cards or a leader or colony AND an Age I and starting military card).
Also, only Rome can afford to buy colonies costing 7 or 8 with your variant.

In the normal game, anyone can buy that card by putting 3 workers on an Age I military unit.

This is merely 1 example of how your variant ACTUALLY CHANGES THE BALANCE OF THE GAME!



Your example is false for two reasons. First, I can buy multiple military units and reach the higher colony values. Second, if I'm competing with Rome, Rome is always MUCH faster and can beat me to them regardless of what I do. Finally, elephant gets you there and its round 1. Your examples are also extreme and rare - there are plenty of lower priced colonies for which this doesn't apply. Therefore even if there is a balance issue its minor. However, I would like to thank you for at least posting something concrete.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Actually no, you haven't addressed any of the issues I've raised but you did succeed in pursuing an ad hominem attack on me while accusing me of the same.

All of my statements, A-F, are logical conclusions that follow one from the next, or else have been objectively observed. None of them are an attack.
Quote:
And no, I don't care about your opinion of my thematic change. Thematic changes are opinion - if you want to address balance, maybe you should actually do so.

I have given no optinion on your change as it relates to the theme. Only on how if negatively impacts the mechanics and balance of the game.

Quote:
Here's a start - can you name a resource that changes in value with player count? They exist and the game doesn't address this. Can you name other aspects of the rules that change importance based on player count? They exist as well. And yet, apparently you believe there is perfect balance across all player counts for all nations independent of all of this.

You seem to have some preconceived notion that a game can't possibly remain balanced unless changes are made at different player counts. Why must this be true? You state it as a fact when it is not one.

Quote:
Could I ask for future posters - please just address any issue I've raised? That's the reason I posted this in the first place.

Fortunately you do not get to dictate what other people post.


Your entire post is laughable. Here is an appropriate response:

1) You don't understand logical reasoning.
2) Your assumptions and derived conclusions are both faulty
3) Your post is worthless and should be ignored.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bredon
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
abredon wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Forgot my thematic variant. First, it DOESN'T in effect the balance issue I am proposing.


FALSE - here is a concrete example:

There is an Age I colony that costs 9 military. No player other than Rome can viably get that with your variant (Rome would need 1 military from a leader or other colony, all other players would need either 2 Age 1 Military cards or a leader or colony AND an Age I and starting military card).
Also, only Rome can afford to buy colonies costing 7 or 8 with your variant.

In the normal game, anyone can buy that card by putting 3 workers on an Age I military unit.

This is merely 1 example of how your variant ACTUALLY CHANGES THE BALANCE OF THE GAME!



Your example is false for two reasons. First, I can buy multiple military units and reach the higher colony values. Second, if I'm competing with Rome, Rome is always MUCH faster and can beat me to them regardless of what I do. Finally, elephant gets you there and its round 1. Your examples are also extreme and rare - there are plenty of lower priced colonies for which this doesn't apply. Therefore even if there is a balance issue its minor. However, I would like to thank you for at least posting something concrete.


Really? In your variant, you would need multiple military CARDS, since you could only put 2 workers on each CARD (only 2 VP spots so only 2 workers.)
You are limited to 4 card slots on the B side, so you are using up HALF of your card slots for military (this is a significant balance shift), and you are relying on enough military cards being available for purchase (not always the case). It also costs 2 actions and extra gold to buy 2 military cards, so the balance is altered here as well.

we are talking a MAJOR balance shift here, not a minor one, and even a minor balance shift in age I can easily multiply over the 4 ages into a major balance shift in an engine building game like this.


Here is a second example of a balance shift in your variant:
Neither Rome nor Greece is available, and there is only 1 military unit available on the card row in the first turn. The first player buys it, puts 1 military unit on it, and is then guaranteed to win any strength events and be first player on the next turn, as the other player can only put 1 worker on his Axemen for 2 strength.
In this situation in the normal game, the other player may put 2 or even 3 workers on the Axemen (possibly after the first player passes) if the event is important enough.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.