Stefan Scheuermann
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I played several modified Through the Ages with my playgroup and we use modified rules. (completly self created TTA with new cards, wonders, mitliray card draw rules, etc.)

I now play the game online on boardgaming-online.com

I now wonder why I got attacked from different players in a 4 player game.

I mean wasn't there a rule only 1 war/agression against 1 player before his next turn? We play with that rule for years but how is the official?

So for example 4 player game.

3 player on 10 military, 1 on 9.

First Strength 10 attacks->9 and he plays defense.
Now next Strength 10 attack again! Defender either needs to sacrifice or get disadvantage.

Nevertheless he just get attacked constantly from all 3 players.

Sounds stupid but maybe its possible. So is this original rule?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nacho Facello
Uruguay
Montevideo
Montevideo
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The "no more than one aggression against a single player each round" is a variant rule. It's listed in the rulebook as such. In the normal game there's no limit to aggressions, other than what's imposed by the available political turns.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is no limit to how many players can play a war or agression vs a single player.

Edited for clarity
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefan Scheuermann
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
So I can even get potentially 3 War of culture against me in the seond last turn?

Is there any reason to not take the "varian" rule as standard?

This is completly stupid and destroys a very good game at least as 4 player game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Calmon70 wrote:
So I can even get potentially 3 War of culture against me in the seond last turn?

Is there any reason to not take the "varian" rule as standard?

This is completly stupid and destroys a very good game at least as 4 player game.


I disagree, if you have a culture lead in a 4 player game, but have the lowest military, the other players are well within their rights to gang up on you and destroy your relatively weak nation. granted, all of the other players will need to draw a war and be able to play it against you (have the military actions).

In fact, I just lost a 3 player game I was leading yesterday due to this very fact. I saw it coming and tried to build my military up to stop it, but failed. That failure cost me the game and it was apropriate.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Hewson
United Kingdom
Surbiton
Surrey
flag msg tools
I bought this...
badge
...as I had no idea what to spend my GG on!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, surely if you restrict it to one war/aggression per player per turn then surely you give a quite significant advantage to the player to the left of the weakest player (as they get first dibs on attacking them).
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Koskinen
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not often that all the opponents are holding aggressions and choose to play them rather than use their political action for something else. Especially if the defender has cards in hand and has a military strength almost as high as the others.

However, if one player is at 10 military and others at 20+, the low strength player had it coming and there is nothing unfair about it. Military in the full game without using any variants is not something you can ignore.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane Larsen
United States
Salt Lake City
UT
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Calmon70 wrote:
This is completly stupid and destroys a very good game at least as 4 player game.


I disagree. If you know the rule, you realize how important it is to keep your military strength up to par with the rest of the players. If your military strength is low enough that all players can easily attack you, that's nobody's fault but your own.

So one could argue that it is actually "completely stupid" to allow your military to grow weak. (Tongue-in-cheek comment; please take lightly.)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Calmon70 wrote:
So I can even get potentially 3 War of culture against me in the seond last turn?

This is completly stupid and destroys a very good game at least as 4 player game.


I have played many sessions with four players, and do so almost exclusively. It is my experience with the four-player game that you would have to be very unlucky to get more than one war against you over the course of the entire game.

To even get two aggressions on you before your next turn usually require you to have significantly lower strength than any other player (over one defence card's worth difference), significantly higher culture than any other player (otherwise someone else is a better target), and for the attacking player to have nothing better to do with their political action (rare in Age III).

If I were ever to play in a game that used the variant rule, I would just aim for one of the three main culture combos* and ride out the storm, coasting to victory.

*(Shakespeare & buildings, Michelangelo & Basilica, Cook & territories)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
also, if players are attacking with a 10-9 strength advantage, they're probably poor players. You probably have a defense card to use on the first attack, meaning the first person to attack will be wasting their political action and military actions to attack you when they could be using it to pop an event. If they're all tied at 10 strength, they are wasting the one turn that they qualify as the strongest and can benefit from some very powerful events. Meanwhile, now that you've played your defense card, the next guy gets to attack you and benefit from it because you have no defense card left! So whoever chooses to attack you first is often making a very poor play (of course if they have reason to believe you have no defense cards, it might be a great play).

I've played a LOT of games on BGO. I will say there is a kernel of truth to your complaint; I've been beaten into submission by aggressions on a couple games to the point where I resigned early. But it's very rare, if you play well. Generally it's not difficult to maintain an appropriate level of military strength if you prioritize it at the level it should be prioritized.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Uhtoff wrote:
Also, surely if you restrict it to one war/aggression per player per turn then surely you give a quite significant advantage to the player to the left of the weakest player (as they get first dibs on attacking them).


This is a good point.

If you consider this, you could even have "griefing" or a form of collusion between players.

Say player 1 is significantly weaker than others. Player 3 is poised to play a Raid to cripple their culture generation. Player 2 plays a weak aggression, say a previous age "Spy". Now player 3 cannot play their card. Player 2 might even intentionally do this as part of an implicit or explicit collusion with player 1!

Yeah, sounds balanced to me. whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
i have played some 400 games on BGO over the past year. Yeah, I know that's a lot. I assure you I dont spend all day refreshing my BGO screen. I do have typically any where from 3-8 games going at once. I check it periodically throughout the day. Anyways, I digress....

In all those games, I have seen the multi-player beatdown maybe 10 times (so 2-3% of the games played) and in all cases deserrvedly so by a player who had a huge culture lead and ignored military (and yes, it has happened to me - occasionally you get away with it). It is simply bad strategy (more so in a 3 and 4 player) to sink all of your resources into an early Culture Strat. When you do this you are placing a target on your back. That is how the game is played.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Berger
United States
Round Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dcorban wrote:
If I were ever to play in a game that used the variant rule, I would just aim for one of the three main culture combos* and ride out the storm, coasting to victory.

*(Shakespeare & buildings, Michelangelo & Basilica, Cook & territories)


Completely anecdotally - I had a 4p game recently where I went hard on Cook & territories. I did have a turn where I was attacked 3 times in the same round. I let the first one through because it was the one that reduces your population by 1 (Enslave?) and it wasn't worth playing 2 cards or sacrificing a unit to defend it. Then I played defense cards to defeat the other two attacks. I then spent most of the rest of my game building military and actually was the strongest for a decent amount of time. I didn't win, but that's because I was 1 card short of forcing the last turn (hoping that the player after me would take a card from the card row to make the next turn the last, which he did not), and the War on Culture I played was able to be defended against (the target was able to sacrifice enough to force a tie), and I came in second.

No matter what size game, you have to keep your military within striking distance of the other players. If you do have a turn where all 3 players attack you and are able to weather it, then they have all used their military actions on the aggressions and you need to use yours to turn the tables and increase your strength. Granted, it's possible to be totally beat down, and that stinks. I would suggest playing with the variant rule with newer players since a new player might not be good enough to stay close in military and getting totally wrecked by aggressions is not a fun game. But if everyone knows what they're doing, then that situation is very rare and you might even be able to turn it to your advantage.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Gottesman
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dcorban wrote:
Calmon70 wrote:
So I can even get potentially 3 War of culture against me in the seond last turn?

This is completly stupid and destroys a very good game at least as 4 player game.


I have played many sessions with four players, and do so almost exclusively. It is my experience with the four-player game that you would have to be very unlucky to get more than one war against you over the course of the entire game.

To even get two aggressions on you before your next turn usually require you to have significantly lower strength than any other player (over one defence card's worth difference), significantly higher culture than any other player (otherwise someone else is a better target), and for the attacking player to have nothing better to do with their political action (rare in Age III).

If I were ever to play in a game that used the variant rule, I would just aim for one of the three main culture combos* and ride out the storm, coasting to victory.

*(Shakespeare & buildings, Michelangelo & Basilica, Cook & territories)


I had 3 wars against me in one TURN in one game. Admittedly it was my own fault. I had a big lead with Mike and didn't build up enough military to back it up, and at the end of the game was destroyed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nacho Facello
Uruguay
Montevideo
Montevideo
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Joshuaaaaaa wrote:
dcorban wrote:
Calmon70 wrote:
So I can even get potentially 3 War of culture against me in the seond last turn?

This is completly stupid and destroys a very good game at least as 4 player game.


I have played many sessions with four players, and do so almost exclusively. It is my experience with the four-player game that you would have to be very unlucky to get more than one war against you over the course of the entire game.

To even get two aggressions on you before your next turn usually require you to have significantly lower strength than any other player (over one defence card's worth difference), significantly higher culture than any other player (otherwise someone else is a better target), and for the attacking player to have nothing better to do with their political action (rare in Age III).

If I were ever to play in a game that used the variant rule, I would just aim for one of the three main culture combos* and ride out the storm, coasting to victory.

*(Shakespeare & buildings, Michelangelo & Basilica, Cook & territories)


I had 3 wars against me in one TURN in one game. Admittedly it was my own fault. I had a big lead with Mike and didn't build up enough military to back it up, and at the end of the game was destroyed.


If I had three wars against me (and big differences in strength, otherwise why are they playing all these wars?), I would probably just resign. Which probably means the lsat player to play the war didn't think it through.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Gottesman
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nachof wrote:
Joshuaaaaaa wrote:
dcorban wrote:
Calmon70 wrote:
So I can even get potentially 3 War of culture against me in the seond last turn?

This is completly stupid and destroys a very good game at least as 4 player game.


I have played many sessions with four players, and do so almost exclusively. It is my experience with the four-player game that you would have to be very unlucky to get more than one war against you over the course of the entire game.

To even get two aggressions on you before your next turn usually require you to have significantly lower strength than any other player (over one defence card's worth difference), significantly higher culture than any other player (otherwise someone else is a better target), and for the attacking player to have nothing better to do with their political action (rare in Age III).

If I were ever to play in a game that used the variant rule, I would just aim for one of the three main culture combos* and ride out the storm, coasting to victory.

*(Shakespeare & buildings, Michelangelo & Basilica, Cook & territories)


I had 3 wars against me in one TURN in one game. Admittedly it was my own fault. I had a big lead with Mike and didn't build up enough military to back it up, and at the end of the game was destroyed.


If I had three wars against me (and big differences in strength, otherwise why are they playing all these wars?), I would probably just resign. Which probably means the lsat player to play the war didn't think it through.


I resigned after either the 1st or the 2nd. Actually, IIRC, one player had hit me with a war on the turn before, and then all 3 hit me. There was no point in continuing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Flowers

Odenton
Unspecified
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
nachof wrote:

If I had three wars against me (and big differences in strength, otherwise why are they playing all these wars?), I would probably just resign. Which probably means the lsat player to play the war didn't think it through.


Well, sometimes it can make sense to pile on (at least for the 2nd war, maybe not a 3rd). If for some reason you believe that the target might stay in the game for one war, it can be worthwhile to declare another war right away and hope he concedes, rather than give his points to someone else (who may be stronger than you).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nacho Facello
Uruguay
Montevideo
Montevideo
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Epworthian wrote:
nachof wrote:

If I had three wars against me (and big differences in strength, otherwise why are they playing all these wars?), I would probably just resign. Which probably means the lsat player to play the war didn't think it through.


Well, sometimes it can make sense to pile on (at least for the 2nd war, maybe not a 3rd). If for some reason you believe that the target might stay in the game for one war, it can be worthwhile to declare another war right away and hope he concedes, rather than give his points to someone else (who may be stronger than you).


Hm, good point. Now that you mention it, I even did that in a 3 player game, and won that way. Player A was losing. Player B declared a war against A. I wasn't sure if he was going to resign, but just to make sure I also declared a war. Player A resigned. Player B resigned too since that was his chance for a comeback.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri Savola
Finland
Espoo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I initially thought that aggressions and wars are totally ridiculous in this game (especially with 4p) and wanted to propose different house rules (such as the one you were using) to make the game more tolerable. I remember my 150 point culture lead was taken away in a single turn. One of my civilizations was completely wiped out in a holy war. A bit later I lost all my yellow tokens in a war over territory against Napoleon.

Then I just started to build military...
3 
 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.