Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
32 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization» Forums » Rules

Subject: War over territory rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Benjami Pitarch
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just played a war over territory and won it by 22 points. That would mean I have to take 8 population from my rival, but she only have 6. My question is if I take just the 6 she has left on the pool, or she has to sacrifice 2 of her used workers to acomplish the 8 men she has to handle me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Albritton
United States
Tupelo
Mississippi
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
War over territory takes tokens from the yellow bank, it does not affect population. You increase your "population" when you move a token from the yellow bank to the worker pool.

If she has only 6 tokens in her yellow bank, then she loses only 6 tokens and you gain only 6 tokens.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One word...

OUCH!!!

If I was on the receiving end of this I think I'd invoke the "Leaving the table honorably" rule before the War resolved (that is on my next turn after the War was declared).

Wars can be useful, but the effect may not always be what is expected. It's a good way to push someone out of the game though.

In my game last weekend I almost invoked this rule in a War over Culture. The attacker won by 11. I am thinking that I could have sacrificed my entire Military instead and won by 4. I know he would have followed up with an Aggression, which would have lost me more, but the Aggressions just aren't as bad as they seem relative the devastation of a War. The reason I didn't was because I misinterpreted the rule about destroyed Urban Buildings. I thought a destroyed building went back to the Yellow Bank. But it doesn't, a destroyed building goes back to the unused worker pool. This isn't so bad as I had resources to build, and heck, I wouldn't have had to burn a Civil action to decommission the building in the first place.

I find TtA to be the most unforgiving game (except for maybe Go) that I've played. We played our first full game last weekend and had a great time. The eventual winner beat out Mr. Military (after Napoleon with an Air Force put the beat down on me) by combining Tesla with the Scientific Method. He had 3 Labs and just catapulted into the lead at the end of the game.

I can't wait to play this one again. I can see where downtime might be a problem, but we had college football on in the background to help. And eventually the speed of play would increase so downtime would diminish. It's not like you aren't allowed to look at your cards on other player's turns to help speed up your turn. And you know which cards on the card row are going away and which will be available (somewhat anyway).

Great game. Best new game for me in a few years.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tompy wrote:
In my game last weekend I almost invoked this rule in a War over Culture. The attacker won by 11. I am thinking that I could have sacrificed my entire Military instead and won by 4.


I had someone sacrifice his whole military and quit. Because he was going to lose something like 7 VP. It seems awfully childish to me. The rules can call it "honorable", but that doesn't really make it so.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, you can't "quit" in the middle of a turn. You have to "honorably" quit at the very beginning of your turn. Think of it as a political action.

However, I do believe the "honor" in "honorably" must be fulfilled. There is no way a rule can be written to enforce this. But I would almost add a house rule that the only "honorable" time would be the turn in between a War being declared and a War being resolved. This way you do not change the outcome of the game by more than the player's waste of a political action as well as having his hopes dashed.

But David, yes, I see your point. There is no honor in what you describe.

When I mention "I should have sacrificed my whole military and won by 4" I am speaking about doing so in hopes of salvaging my game. I played on once I accepted the war was on. In fact it was kind of fun because after the player to my right declared the War, I picked up Winston Churchill, played him and began constructing a Military much bigger than he suspected I could. That's why I think I should have gone all in, it would have surprised him. Instead I brought the game to even on the score board, but the momentum had shifted dramatically (much the worse for me). Certainly going all in would have shifted the momentum even further, however I would have also had nearly a 20 point lead in culture on 2nd place (and the eventual winner).

I am happy to report the peaceable scientific method promoting Tesla was never involved in any aggressions or wars (although was quite feisty over Territory) and ended up winning the game by a large margin. The military giant took out the leader, but the sacrifice was too great. Lesson learned here is TtA is not about Aggressions and Wars.

This tension makes for an amazing 3 player game. Who bites the bullet and takes down the leader?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tompy wrote:
Lesson learned here is TtA is not about Aggressions and Wars.


Except that in 2 player, it definitely is

All my plays so far (3) were 2 player, all featured military races (each one more than the one before), and two ended in concession.

At least it makes the game shorter!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tompy wrote:
However, I do believe the "honor" in "honorably" must be fulfilled. There is no way a rule can be written to enforce this. But I would almost add a house rule that the only "honorable" time would be the turn in between a War being declared and a War being resolved. This way you do not change the outcome of the game by more than the player's waste of a political action as well as having his hopes dashed.


That would sort of be ok. But I still have a problem when I declare war against someone, he completely sacrifices his military in order to score points from me, and then I declare a second war and he withdraws from the game to avoid the consequences. The cost of sacrificing your military is that you don't have it any more; if someone isn't willing to bear that cost then they shouldn't sacrifice it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Ludlow
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Tompy wrote:
However, I do believe the "honor" in "honorably" must be fulfilled. There is no way a rule can be written to enforce this. But I would almost add a house rule that the only "honorable" time would be the turn in between a War being declared and a War being resolved. This way you do not change the outcome of the game by more than the player's waste of a political action as well as having his hopes dashed.


That would sort of be ok. But I still have a problem when I declare war against someone, he completely sacrifices his military in order to score points from me, and then I declare a second war and he withdraws from the game to avoid the consequences. The cost of sacrificing your military is that you don't have it any more; if someone isn't willing to bear that cost then they shouldn't sacrifice it.


I assume that you're referring to a 3 or 4 player game. In a 2 player game, that type of concession after a two wars would be normal.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jdludlow wrote:
I assume that you're referring to a 3 or 4 player game. In a 2 player game, that type of concession after a two wars would be normal.


Yes, I'm talking about what happened to me in a 3-player tournament game. Conceding in a 2-player game is always fine.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Ludlow
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
jdludlow wrote:
I assume that you're referring to a 3 or 4 player game. In a 2 player game, that type of concession after a two wars would be normal.


Yes, I'm talking about what happened to me in a 3-player tournament game. Conceding in a 2-player game is always fine.


I really don't like the concession rule in multiplayer TtA. Although it's never affected me directly, it smacks of serious kingmaking. It wouldn't be too hard to fix for tournament rules though.

* Can only concede on your turn.
* Can not concede if a war is currently declared on you.

If someone gets up from the table anyway, at least the warring player could get his points.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
David,

I think the rule is in there for a reason. Sun Tzu said, "Never back your enemy into a corner." (or something like that).

My point is that I like the way the Wars can push another player out of the game this way. But also when a war is waged, you may not like what you get. There's something very cool about it. (Of course I haven't been on the attacking end of a War yet, so I can't say from real experience.)

But it's as if this rule, and the brutality of War, give the game a requirement for cooperation and balance among the players. Then in the end they all race to achieve the advantages that will win the game. If you get too far ahead, then someone has to reel you in. This poses dangers to both parties. The 3rd player (or 4th) has to feel like the ultimate victor in such a circumstance. So the players in the back are trying to look weak, giving the strongest among them encouragement to go forth and conquer.

This problem is inherent in all multi-player games.

This discussion has led me to an observation. Before playing TtA it should be understood by all players what can happen. If the backing out honorably rule is in effect, then everyone should be well aware that this is a real possibility when waging war. If not, then you better play stiff because you're in for the long haul even if you are picked clean at the end of the game.

I might even want to amend the rule and say that if anyone ever Sacrifices a military unit during the game, they have forfeited the right to withdraw honorably. (They are left to last resorts like pushing over the table.)

If put up for a vote at the beginning of the game I'll be voting, "No withdrawing". It's the honorable thing to do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
James, I believe the rule states that you may only withdraw at the beginning of your turn. And then it does go on to say that if you declare War on someone, be prepared for the result to be their withdrawal.

But I see David's point about letting the war go through, sacrificing everything they have to screw you, then withdrawing the following turn. If you are going to play that way, then you might as well take the War and Aggression cards out of the game. And that's no fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Last thought.

Play this way...

At the end of the game, you owe $1 per point to everyone who has scored more points than you.

Sure, you might be picked clean, but 30 Culture Points at the end of a 4 player games are worth $90!

If you all have jobs, make it $5 a point.

I'm only semi-joking here. Playing for money is one way to keep everyone "honest". Although you might want to employ a 5th player as a referee. I'd do it for $15 a player and travel expenses.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tompy wrote:
So the players in the back are trying to look weak, giving the strongest among them encouragement to go forth and conquer. This problem is inherent in all multi-player games.


No, it's really not. Some games don't give players the ability to gang up on each other, so there's no reason to appear weak. Try Titan. Or Crude: The Oil Game. Or Dominion.

Quote:
If the backing out honorably rule is in effect, then everyone should be well aware that this is a real possibility when waging war.


Of course I'm aware it's a real possibility. (Note that it's not an optional rule; it's part of the standard rules.) That doesn't mean it can't be misused. Even though I know the rule is in the game, if someone is willing to jettison their own chances in the game just to hurt another player, and then quit, that doesn't sound like much fun. It's the player that's the problem, not the rule.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
David,

Point taken. How about I replace "all" with "many".

Jeff
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Lee
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmb
I think the honorable withdrawal rule is brilliant, and possibly the most underused rule in the game. If two players are in the lead for first and second place, then it doesn't make sense to give the win to whoever hits the weak player harder. The leading civilizations need to compete on their own merits. Not use the weak player as a culture-point ATM.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julien Van Reeth
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
sirdodger wrote:
I think the honorable withdrawal rule is brilliant, and possibly the most underused rule in the game. If two players are in the lead for first and second place, then it doesn't make sense to give the win to whoever hits the weak player harder. The leading civilizations need to compete on their own merits. Not use the weak player as a culture-point ATM.


Sometimes the weak player deliberately went for a culture per turn strategy. In that case I think it's ok to see that player as a culture-point ATM
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcus Kielly
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tompy wrote:
David,

I think the rule is in there for a reason. Sun Tzu said, "Never back your enemy into a corner." (or something like that).


This exact situation occurred last night. There was a serious military build up towards the end of the game - and I switched over to CP production . One of my opponents hit me with a War (over Culture?). They had a strength of 46, I could only summon a total strength of 22 - thus putting a minimum 48 point differential between us IF I had stayed in the game.

Given the conceding rule, I took that opportunity for a Pyrrhic victory and left the game (which I could never have won). If they hadn't established such a massive strength advantage, I would probably have stayed in the game . I like the paradoxes surrounding military aggression in the game (although I don't think my opponent did...)whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sunwukung wrote:
There was a serious military build up towards the end of the game - and I switched over to CP production . One of my opponents hit me with a War (over Culture?).


Yeah, there's no way you could have foreseen that when you decided not to build a military.

This "strategy" (don't build military, if no one attacks you then you win, if someone attacks you then you lose and they also lose) has pretty much ended my interest in playing this game with more than two players. To each his own.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Koskinen
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
sunwukung wrote:
There was a serious military build up towards the end of the game - and I switched over to CP production . One of my opponents hit me with a War (over Culture?).


Yeah, there's no way you could have foreseen that when you decided not to build a military.

This "strategy" (don't build military, if no one attacks you then you win, if someone attacks you then you lose and they also lose) has pretty much ended my interest in playing this game with more than two players. To each his own.


I don't think that's quite how it goes. Using this "strategy" and not building any military results in getting multiple aggressions played against you, which in no way make the attacker "lose". Undefended aggressions are actually rather beneficial for the aggressor.

In my opinion the withdrawal rule can and sometimes even should be used after the war declaration, but before it resolves. Saccing all your units in the war with the intention to resign during the next political action phase is super lame and I know nobody in my playgroup would do that and all of them know it would be intolerable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Padish wrote:

In my opinion the withdrawal rule can and sometimes even should be used after the war declaration, but before it resolves. Saccing all your units in the war with the intention to resign during the next political action phase is super lame and I know nobody in my playgroup would do that and all of them know it would be intolerable.


But wouldn't this be the option for someone who is playing to win? There are 7 culture war cards in the game. Often the luck of the draw leads to a player only drawing one of them. If they've already declared war, and the only two options are resignation and sacrificing everything, won't I first want to sacrifice everything? After all, that will give me a chance at victory and if I'm playing to win I should only resign when I no longer have that chance. Maybe they won't have another war, and I can sneak a victory in.

Then if it turns out they had more than one war card, on war #2, I have no units left, so I resign for the usual resignation reasons.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Koskinen
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BagelManB wrote:
Padish wrote:

In my opinion the withdrawal rule can and sometimes even should be used after the war declaration, but before it resolves. Saccing all your units in the war with the intention to resign during the next political action phase is super lame and I know nobody in my playgroup would do that and all of them know it would be intolerable.


But wouldn't this be the option for someone who is playing to win? There are 7 culture war cards in the game. Often the luck of the draw leads to a player only drawing one of them. If they've already declared war, and the only two options are resignation and sacrificing everything, won't I first want to sacrifice everything? After all, that will give me a chance at victory and if I'm playing to win I should only resign when I no longer have that chance. Maybe they won't have another war, and I can sneak a victory in.

Then if it turns out they had more than one war card, on war #2, I have no units left, so I resign for the usual resignation reasons.


Yeah I thought this might come up. In this case, if you're going to make this gamble I would say it's fair to not resign to the follow-up war (you'll lose anyway, so it shouldn't matter to you). Of course things get complicated when a third player wages a new war instead, or in addition to the first player's second war. To avoid this, the declarer of the first war just should sacrifice all, so that he'll win that first war anyway. If he can't risk it, he shouldn't declare the war in the hope of the defender letting it resolve without sacrificing.

For example, if A has 50 str, B 35, and C 45 (after potential build-ups, so these would be the strengths when the war resolves), A should know the risks of war declaration. It should be trivial to see that B is going to sacrifice all (if he doesn't resign), so A would be dumb to not sacrifice himself. Now he's open to an attack from C, but that's part of the wars when playing with more than two players (whether resignation is allowed or house-ruled to be not allowed).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Padish wrote:
In my opinion the withdrawal rule can and sometimes even should be used after the war declaration, but before it resolves. Saccing all your units in the war with the intention to resign during the next political action phase is super lame and I know nobody in my playgroup would do that and all of them know it would be intolerable.


Well, it may be super lame, but there was a period of time that it happened in most of the games that I played, which is the same time that I stopped playing multiplayer TTA.

Brian has the logic behind it pretty much right. People gamble on not being attacked or that the attacker won't have enough. Then they quit when that doesn't work. Although sometimes, in my experience, they quit even when they still have a good chance to win, just because they don't like being attacked. Some people like to quit more than they like to play.

Also I disagree that undefended aggressions make that much difference. Early in the game, they have a big effect, but later in the game, usually not so much. It's only the wars that make much difference toward the end of the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Padish wrote:
Yeah I thought this might come up. In this case, if you're going to make this gamble I would say it's fair to not resign to the follow-up war (you'll lose anyway, so it shouldn't matter to you).


Isn't this always true when a player resigns in the face of war? If one is opposed to resignation in general, that makes sense to me. But whatever reasons one might have to support resignation in general would also apply in this case.


Quote:
To avoid this, the declarer of the first war just should sacrifice all, so that he'll win that first war anyway. If he can't risk it, he shouldn't declare the war in the hope of the defender letting it resolve without sacrificing.


Agreed- Players should not be putting themselves into situations where their target sacrificing it all will ruin them. They should be expecting that (it is the reasonable thing for a "play to win" player to do), and evaluate the risks of declaring war/pursuing a war strategy appropriately.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BagelManB wrote:
Agreed- Players should not be putting themselves into situations where their target sacrificing it all will ruin them. They should be expecting that (it is the reasonable thing for a "play to win" player to do), and evaluate the risks of declaring war/pursuing a war strategy appropriately.


Any game that people enjoy is a good game for them. I just don't enjoy multiplayer TTA any more since I kept running into the "If you don't attack me, I win, and if you attack me, I quit and Joe over there wins" strategy. To some extent, it's a criticism of the players, but to some extent, it's just a flaw in the design, for me. Other people might think it's the bees knees.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.