Darren Nakamura
United States
Columbus
Mississippi
flag msg tools
http://www.destructoid.com/author.phtml?a=1364
badge
Darren@destructoid.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've made the observation in my group that there is very little PvP raiding going on. Currently we have a bimodal distribution of campaign glory, with the two leaders around 100 and the three trailing players down around 75. We really need to start messing with the guys up front.

Thinking on why I'm reluctant to raid, personally, I think it comes to the fact that it's not a long-term strategy. If I raid the leader next game, then the following game I won't be able to do the same as easily, because I'll leave a bunch of enmity on his province. OR I'll have to save up reputation and fortune tokens to cancel the enmity at the end of the game.

But I realize that with the power of -- we'll say -- collective bargaining, then I can make it a long term strategy. Enmity be damned, let's raze their provinces and sink their ships, but let's do it in a structured way so we never feel the effects of that enmity. We need to plan it over the course of several games and we need to cooperate closely.

For the purpose of this exercise, I'm defining "leader" as somebody with significantly more points than a set of players and "trailer" as somebody with significantly fewer points than the leader(s).

My case: two leaders and three trailers
Leader 1: Purple
Leader 2: Blue
Trailer 1: Green
Trailer 2: Gray
Trailer 3: Red

The goal in this scenario is to perform a single raid that leaves at least three enmity on the province at the end of the game. This might mean performing a raid with a plunder value of 4 (Vault, upgraded Field, massive ship damage) to spend a starting enmity token. This probably means timing the raid to occur during Round 7 (or later in the case of ship raids) in order to prevent a counterattack to get the enmity tokens back.

Sequence

Game N:
Green raids Purple and Blue. Gray raids Purple. Red raids Blue.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Green Green Green Gray Gray Gray
Enmity left on Blue's province: Green Green Green Red Red Red

Game N + 1:
Green is at -3 dice for both the leaders. He sits out on raiding players and focuses on other stuff this game. Gray raids Blue. Red raids Purple
Gray covers Red's stickers. Red covers Green's stickers.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Red Red Red Gray Gray Gray
Enmity left on Blue's province: Green Green Green Gray Gray Gray

Game N + 2:
Green raids Purple. Gray sits out. Red raids Blue.
Green covers Gray's stickers. Red covers Green's stickers.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Red Red Red Green Green Green
Enmity left on Blue's province: Red Red Red Gray Gray Gray

Game N + 3:
Green raids Blue. Gray raids Purple. Red sits out.
Green covers Gray's stickers. Gray covers Red's stickers.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Gray Gray Gray Green Green Green
Enmity left on Blue's province: Red Red Red Green Green Green

This brings us back to where we were at the end of Game N (though the physical positions of the stickers have switched), and we can continue the cycle.

That cycle is a bit complex. If we consider other situations, the cycles are easier to conceptualize.

Case Two: one leader and four trailers
Leader 1: Purple
Trailer 1: Blue
Trailer 2: Green
Trailer 3: Gray
Trailer 4: Red

The goal in this scenario is to perform a single raid that leaves at least three enmity on the province at the end of the game.

Sequence

Game N: Blue, Green, Gray, and Red all raid Purple. Suppose Gray and Red come in last and second-to-last. Their stickers will be immediately covered.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Blue Blue Blue Green Green Green

Game N + 1: Blue and Green sit out. Gray and Red raid Purple.
Gray covers Blue's stickers. Red covers Green's stickers.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Gray Gray Gray Red Red Red

Game N + 2: Blue and Green raid Purple. Gray and Red sit out.
Blue covers Gray's stickers. Green covers Red's stickers.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Blue Blue Blue Green Green Green

This brings us back to where we were at the end of Game N, and we can continue the cycle.

Case Three: one leader and three trailers
Leader 1: Purple
Trailer 1: Blue
Trailer 2: Green
Trailer 3: Gray

The goal in this scenario is to perform a single raid that leaves at least three enmity on the province at the end of the game.

Sequence

Game N: Blue, Green and Gray all raid Purple. Suppose Gray comes in last and places his stickers first. They'll get stickered over immediately.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Blue Blue Blue Green Green Green

Game N + 1: Blue and Green sit out. Gray raids Purple.
Gray covers Blue's stickers.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Gray Gray Gray Green Green Green

Game N + 2: Blue raids Purple. Green and Gray sit out.
Blue covers Green's stickers.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Gray Gray Gray Blue Blue Blue

Game N + 3: Blue sits out. Green raids Purple. Gray sits out.
Green covers Gray's stickers.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Green Green Green Blue Blue Blue

This brings us back to where we were at the end of Game N (though the physical positions of the stickers have switched), and we can continue the cycle.

Case One Through Three Alternate: in which you think you can overcome a -3 penalty and still get a good raid in
For any of the above cases, the trailing players can get even more raids in and still not suffer a worse than -3 penalty in future games, since their stickers will be stickered over immediately. However, depending on turn order, this does run the risk of losing glory by having to place more enmity than there are spaces, so it's not worth it unless you can leave exactly the right amount of enmity or you know you're placing stickers later in turn order so some of yours from the previous round will be covered by the time it comes around to you.

Case Four: two leaders and two trailers
Leader 1: Purple
Leader 2: Blue
Trailer 1: Green
Trailer 2: Gray

In contrast to the previous scenarios, the goal in this scenario is to perform a single raid that leaves at least six enmity on the province at the end of the game. That might involve getting one little raid in (unupgraded fields, one plunder on a ship) and then one big raid on a Treasure Room, or it could involve massive damage on an upgraded [Box 3 spoiler] ship, or it could involve a [Box 4 spoiler] raid. This is probably not easy to pull off.

Sequence

Game N:
Green raids Purple. Gray raids Blue.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Green Green Green Green Green Green
Enmity left on Blue's province: Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray

Game N + 1:
Green raids Blue. Gray raids Purple.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray
Enmity left on Blue's province: Green Green Green Green Green Green

Game N + 2:
Green raids Purple. Gray raids Blue.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Green Green Green Green Green Green
Enmity left on Blue's province: Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray

This brings us back to where we were at the end of Game N, and we can continue the cycle.

Case Five: one leader and two trailers
Leader 1: Purple
Trailer 1: Blue
Trailer 2: Green

The goal in this scenario is to perform a single raid that leaves at least six enmity on the province at the end of the game. This scenario is very similar to Scenario Four.

Sequence

Game N:
Blue and Green both raid Purple. Suppose Green comes in last. His stickers will be canceled immediately.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue

Game N + 1:
Blue sits out. Green raids Purple.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Green Green Green Green Green Green

Game N + 2:
Green sits out. Blue raids Purple.
Enmity left on Purple's province: Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue

This brings us back to where we were at the end of Game N, and we can continue the cycle.

TL;DR
Instead of never raiding enemy players for fear of permanently leaving enmity, trailing players should be consistently raiding leading players and covering each other's stickers up strategically.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathanaël Dufour
France
Lille
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Agreed. After two campaigns, I feel like permanent enmity is only a problem if you're the only one doing it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyle Karhohs
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Instead of never raiding enemy players for fear of permanently leaving enmity, trailing players should be consistently raiding leading players


This is an epic post!

I love the enmity mechanic, because it really makes you think twice. The fear is real! I believe having the consequences of aggression from earlier games come into play in later games enhances the metagame happening between players. The permanent enmity memory effect is what makes legacy games so cool.

note the quote has been expanded for clarity
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I kind of feel as though you're saying the opposite of Darren, whose post you necro'd to agree with. While I agree with your statement as a general description about how enmity is intended to work in SeaFall (and how it often works), he was proposing a way for players to collude to allow them to raid leaders with *no* lasting consequences. The "Instead of" that you snipped from the sentence you quoted is key...

Random aside, Darren's post doesn't take into account enmity tokens distributed during setup. I don't think that changes his overall point, though -- it just means that the players have to raid bigger, but also get a bonus to doing so.

One thing that can throw a monkey wrench into carefully planned-out raiding like the above is ... what happens if your opponent simply raids back? After all, if you raid early in the game, then you've given him a pile of enmity tokens to make raiding you back a piece of cake! You could wait until the second year, but then you risk the chance of missing that key moment where your raid will have the most impact ... and you may even run out of time to get your quota of raiding in at all!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyle Karhohs
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
I kind of feel as though you're saying the opposite of Darren, whose post you necro'd to agree with.


I would not say I disagree with Darren. I admire how thorough and analytic the OP was with his approach to catching a runaway leader. Here’s another take on what I wanted to express: if enmity did not have such lasting consequences Darren might not have been so inspired to think of his solution.

bitfrosting wrote:
I believe having the consequences of aggression from earlier games come into play in later games enhances the metagame happening between players.


I wish the enmity mechanic had existed in Risk Legacy. In Risk Legacy the metagame in my group really depended on players holding grudges against each other. Near the end of our Risk Legacy campaign, we started ganging up on the player who had the most wins. When the campaign leader realized they wouldn't win another game, he started going turn 1 kamikaze on the second place player to prevent the second player from ever winning another game, too. The leader would purposely place their faction last, so he could locate it right next to second place player and immediately attack with everything. The leader's strategy worked and he won the campaign! If enmity, or a similar mechanic, was in Risk Legacy it would have prevented the kamikaze strategy, and I think the last games for our group would have been more fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren Nakamura
United States
Columbus
Mississippi
flag msg tools
http://www.destructoid.com/author.phtml?a=1364
badge
Darren@destructoid.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For what it's worth, now that I have the gift of hindsight... this strategy didn't really pan out. Games just ended up being too short and players too selfish to pile on the leader. If anyone tried to initiate this, it usually ended up in them being crippled and seeing no gain.

I'm actually wondering how much it would break SeaFall if the enmity mechanic were done away with/replaced with something else. It would certainly make raiding more valuable, but maybe that's what the game would need to make raids happen more often.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the enmity system -- at least in theory. My biggest problem with it was that the limit on enmity tokens seems too limited. Consider that in a 5p game (a little less of a problem for smaller games), the leader starts out by handing out 3 enmity tokens. And then it's easy through most of the midgame to need to use up another one or two (or more) for
(Box 2)
Spoiler (click to reveal)
colonies.

At that point, you only have 3-4 tokens left, which is *barely* enough to take an advisor once during the game, and isn't enough to perform the sorts of raids you want to be able to perform, specifically:
(Box 4)
Spoiler (click to reveal)
to conquer colonies

or to
(Box 5+)
Spoiler (click to reveal)
take tablets from people

Heck, it's not even enough to raid an opposing provinces *fields* once they've been upgraded!

I don't think the game would work well without enmity entirely, but it does feel as though it might be better with at least something of a tweak. Perhaps lower enmity costs for raids? Perhaps a bit more passive enmity reduction at the end of the game, and even during the game? I'm not sure.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Collins
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Becq wrote:
I like the enmity system -- at least in theory. My biggest problem with it was that the limit on enmity tokens seems too limited...

I don't think the game would work well without enmity entirely, but it does feel as though it might be better with at least something of a tweak. Perhaps lower enmity costs for raids? Perhaps a bit more passive enmity reduction at the end of the game, and even during the game? I'm not sure.


Yes it could use some work. It feels as if the math of enmity is specifically designed to work with the math of other parts of the game. And it’s a huge limit on raiding if you don’t have enough enmity.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
To say nothing of the near impossibility of raiding to get the Temple once built.


There are two advisors that help with enmity handouts after a Raid. Those could be tweaked perhaps, or a different advisor revised to somehow help. Taking the home enmity award to get it back each Winter is another option that already exists that I think gets overlooked.

I don’t see it as a problem that the leader can use less enmity once they’ve given it out. It feels like part of the catchup mechanics of the game. However it feels somewhat ineffective. Because it doesn’t entirely do what a leveling or catchup mechanic is really supposed to do which is to keep the field on par long term. SeaFall has huge swings in a single game depending on actions taken and/or bad dice luck. But seats rarely change and long term it feels slightly irrelevant.

We’ve just finished game five in our second campaign. We’ve already raided each other (players) three times. In the prior game there were a total of two raids on other players in fifteen games.

Game Three I got raided because I was about to end the game. Two other players put the Count up to it. He took a Treasure from me letting him catch up and bringing me just below target Glory. Then the Duke bought a big treasure and pulled off another milestone putting him over. Well the Prince turned around and raided the Duke sinking a ship which lost him glory from upgrades, catching up himself a bit, and I got enough Glory to on the next month to end the game. It was a very close finish after the Count raided. The next two games did not finish as close together.

So where is this slightly ineffective? Two people changed seats after that game. I flipped to Count and the Prince flipped to Duke. But two games later we were back in the same seats in a Five as in Three. While the enmity handed out in that game still lingers on individual provinces (though a couple stickers were pulled), the play of the next two games saw almost no impact because the sets of actions taken by provinces were very different. Raiding was not an optimal action for leveling the field because of large glory awards that could not be taken away.

So I conclude that enmity is situationally useful to level a field in an individual game but it won’t keep help keep players close in the campaign overall. To go back to Darren’s original postulate in this thread there’s something flawed if three players have to cooperate to keep someone down if it even works that way long term. I would suspect that it doesn’t actually work out for the aforementioned selfishness issue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.