Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Runewars» Forums » General

Subject: Reason to attack neutrals? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Fabio Henrique
Australia
Brisbane
QLD
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, is there a good reason to attack neutrals besides take the region?

I mean, let's say there are 2 regions, one with neutrals and other empty. Both have the same resources. I just need the resources. Why should I attack the region with neutrals (risking to lose units) if I can take the other for free?

Or asking in another way, is there any rewards for defeating neutrals?

At least a tactics card would be nice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is no intrinsic reward. However, if memory serves in almost all cases, areas with no neutrals are not as resource rich as those with neutrals. They are just roadblocks and potential recruits (if you use diplomacy).
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
eurofabio wrote:
So, is there a good reason to attack neutrals besides take the region?

I mean, let's say there are 2 regions, one with neutrals and other empty. Both have the same resources. I just need the resources. Why should I attack the region with neutrals (risking to lose units) if I can take the other for free?

Or asking in another way, is there any rewards for defeating neutrals?

At least a tactics card would be nice.

Don't attack them, use diplomacy. This not only gives you a chance to recruit powerful units, but also allows you to avoid the limit of battles per turn, even if you just make them withdraw you will be able to capture two territories per turn.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fabio Henrique
Australia
Brisbane
QLD
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
borsook wrote:
Don't attack them, use diplomacy.


If one action (diplomacy) is always better than the other (attack) then there is something wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong I love it, I'm just trying to give some incentive to someone to attack neutrals instead use diplomacy.

As I said I will probably house rule to give one tactic card if the player defeat all creatures in a territory.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cracky McCracken
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eurofabio wrote:
borsook wrote:
Don't attack them, use diplomacy.


If one action (diplomacy) is always better than the other (attack) then there is something wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong I love it, I'm just trying to give some incentive to someone to attack neutrals instead use diplomacy.

As I said I will probably house rule to give one tactic card if the player defeat all creatures in a territory.


Why do you assume something is wrong with the game? It's been out for years, don't you think it's more likely that there is something wrong with your opinion about it? Maybe there are reasons the rules are the way they are and you just don't fully get it.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott M.
United States
Winter Springs
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eurofabio wrote:


If one action (diplomacy) is always better than the other (attack) then there is something wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong I love it, I'm just trying to give some incentive to someone to attack neutrals instead use diplomacy.


I dont belive you looking at this correctly...

Reasons for Attacking:
The reasont to attack a neutral is a strategic one. Your comment sugests you looking at it as an attack an plunder type of effect. Not so..

Resouce aquisition
Movement nessesity
Denial of possible ally to enemy
Limit of Attack per turn
Protection (routing the neutral and unable to finish them off)

Reasons for Diplomacy:
Diplomacy is the harder to pull of of the two but yeilds the greater reward.

Aquire Ally unit, some times a very powerfull one.
Deny enemy ally
Cuz your a nice leader... ! XD
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Penrose
United States
Derby
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In addition, there are some missions (2 for each side, I think) that require a certain type of neutral enemy (Giants/Dragons) to be removed from the board for Evil, while others require that you have them allied with you for Good. Defeating the neutrals (instead of diplomacy) can aid your mission or prevent your opponent for completing theirs.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Williams
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
BITS FOR THE BITS GOD!
badge
Staring in dumbfounded terror at Frans Raynor's neckbeard.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All the sweet double ore hexes have nasty neutrals guarding them. But by all means, take that empty single wood instead. My future Frost Wyrms thank you.

Another angle of this comes during board setup. When you're seeding the starting dragon runes, don't just drop them in a field. Put them where the annoying neutrals are so they have a minor level of defense in case you don't end up near that hex.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mike m
United States
palisades park
nj
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eurofabio wrote:
borsook wrote:
Don't attack them, use diplomacy.


If one action (diplomacy) is always better than the other (attack) then there is something wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong I love it, I'm just trying to give some incentive to someone to attack neutrals instead use diplomacy.

As I said I will probably house rule to give one tactic card if the player defeat all creatures in a territory.

i rarely try diplomacy simply bec there are usually other things i want to do with my influence, and i have seen too many occasions where someone burns a bunch of influence with nothing to show for it. so i agree with you that diplomacy might not always be best.

having said that, i havent found any need for additional incentive required to defeat all creatures. The territory's resources are incentive enough, and as scott points out, the territories with no neutrals usually have only one resource, while the tougher neutral groups are guarding 3 resources.

but of course you can houserule your game any way you like! let us know if you do and how it works.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eurofabio wrote:
borsook wrote:
Don't attack them, use diplomacy.


If one action (diplomacy) is always better than the other (attack) then there is something wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong I love it, I'm just trying to give some incentive to someone to attack neutrals instead use diplomacy.

Why does there need to be an incentive to attack? The biggest incentive to attack would just be to get them out of the way without having to spend influence to do it, especially since with influence you may end up having to fight them anyway.

The incentive to attacking in general is just to gain territory occupied by another entity. There doesn't need to be any special incentive on top of that.

Quote:
As I said I will probably house rule to give one tactic card if the player defeat all creatures in a territory.

It's your game, but that makes getting a tactic card really, really easy. Fighting neutrals and winning is almost always a piece of cake, except maybe in the very first year, or unless a group of neutrals clumps up.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aswin Agastya
Indonesia
Bekasi
Jawa Barat
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eurofabio wrote:
borsook wrote:
Don't attack them, use diplomacy.


If one action (diplomacy) is always better than the other (attack) then there is something wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong I love it, I'm just trying to give some incentive to someone to attack neutrals instead use diplomacy.

As I said I will probably house rule to give one tactic card if the player defeat all creatures in a territory.


This isn't like most Euros where most variables are there for your decision during discussion. Whether you want to attack, take an empty land, or do diplomacy, that all depends on your current situation.

Taking an empty land might be preferable, if the resource within it is just the right amount to reach a new unit threshold in the resource dial. Otherwise the territory with neutrals are most likely to have more resources.

Of course if there are two territories with the same resources and one is empty, get the empty one. The thing is this kind of opportunity doesn't always rise, since the game has variable map, and there's other players.

If you have extra influence (not always) and you somehow have an area filled with couple of dragons, it's worthwhile to attempt diplomacy. Two bats? Not so much.

To answer your question, the reward is you gain a new territory, new resources, and possibly dragon runes. When you get it for free, consider it a bonus, not the norm.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly Fischer
United States
Ellendale
North Dakota
flag msg tools
badge
And like that... he's gone
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mobilize.

Activate vacant area, move in a single unit

Activate area with neutrals, either attempt diplomacy or not, but now you've cut off their potential retreat that would just slow you up more later.

2 areas taken , 1 order spent
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fabio Henrique
Australia
Brisbane
QLD
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eurofabio wrote:
So, is there a good reason to attack neutrals besides take the region?

I mean, let's say there are 2 regions, one with neutrals and other empty. Both have the same resources. I just need the resources. Why should I attack the region with neutrals (risking to lose units) if I can take the other for free?

Or asking in another way, is there any rewards for defeating neutrals?


IncrediSteve wrote:
All the sweet double ore hexes have nasty neutrals guarding them. But by all means, take that empty single wood instead. My future Frost Wyrms thank you.


You probably have ignored the "same resources" part of my question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fabio Henrique
Australia
Brisbane
QLD
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cracky wrote:
eurofabio wrote:
borsook wrote:
Don't attack them, use diplomacy.


If one action (diplomacy) is always better than the other (attack) then there is something wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong I love it, I'm just trying to give some incentive to someone to attack neutrals instead use diplomacy.

As I said I will probably house rule to give one tactic card if the player defeat all creatures in a territory.


Why do you assume something is wrong with the game? It's been out for years, don't you think it's more likely that there is something wrong with your opinion about it? Maybe there are reasons the rules are the way they are and you just don't fully get it.


Yes, it is probably me. I don't like games were I have 2 options and option A (take a empty territory) is always best than option B (fight neutral creatures with no reward)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eurofabio wrote:
Cracky wrote:
eurofabio wrote:
borsook wrote:
Don't attack them, use diplomacy.


If one action (diplomacy) is always better than the other (attack) then there is something wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong I love it, I'm just trying to give some incentive to someone to attack neutrals instead use diplomacy.

As I said I will probably house rule to give one tactic card if the player defeat all creatures in a territory.


Why do you assume something is wrong with the game? It's been out for years, don't you think it's more likely that there is something wrong with your opinion about it? Maybe there are reasons the rules are the way they are and you just don't fully get it.

Yes, it is probably me. I don't like games were I have 2 options and option A (take a empty territory) is always best than option B (fight neutral creatures with no reward)

I've yet to play a game where that is definitively so. At worst, one may be easier now, but ultimately I would want both areas. And, as mentioned, I'm pretty sure in most cases, empty areas are not as lucrative. Keep in mind, often its more than just resources to consider, but location, proximity to other areas, and even the neutrals themselves.

It's rarely a cut-and-dry decision.
 
 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.