Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Struggle of Empires» Forums » General

Subject: Why so generous scoring? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Fredrik Sievert
Sweden
Helsingborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When I play this game it puzzles me that the scoring rules are designed so that tied players in a region get the higher level of points, and don't drop down to the lower points (as in El Grande).

And this is even more strange: If you are the third player in a region, it is better for you that the two leaders in that region tie, because then you jump up from third to second for scoring purposes.

It's still a great game, but why this scoring?

If for example 4 players have one control token each and tie for the highest points in an area, none of them would be very interested in conflict there. As it risks their own cheap points. Is this perhaps intended to make valuable alliances easier?

Scoring similar to El Grande would make battle much more likely in contested areas. Wouldn't that be more logical? On the other hand, would it make military dominance too important?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrin Lauritzen
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've not tried any other way of scoring though I wonder if there'll be TOO many areas where you're vulnerable. Whith the current scoring system, there are a lot or areas where it makes no sense for someone to attack you, so they're less likely to do so. That said it makes it easier for the players to decide where the battle is going to be and therefore prepare.

Changing this system of scoring might undermine the delicate balance this game achieves.

Of course, with your suggested scoring, we might actually USE the third-place scoring for the Baltic...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fredrik Sievert
Sweden
Helsingborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes I agree it would alter the balance too much so I'm not seriously considering it as a variant. Just curious why it was designed that way.

And I see your point that El Grande type of scoring would make the nations very vulnerable. It would probably make it too easy to team up against a strong leading player.

What about more odd thing? That the third (or several tied) position player in an area counts as second for scoring, if the two (or more) leaders in that area are tied. Would this be possible to change with less impact on the balance? I find this rule rather strange, but I'm not saying it's entirely bad.

/Fredrik
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff DeBoer
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quite honestly, I think there are enough regions already on the board that adopting that rule would make the game overwhelmingly complex.....it is already up there on the complexity due to the sheer number of tiles available to select. What a wide open structure. Unfavorable ties would make it only worse in that you would be even more frustrated from the limited number of moves than it already is. We've never thought this was odd in any of our games.

You are right, however, that it does create some interesting and unusual situations in certain countries about who wants to fight and who doesn't, but the whole alliance system makes this such a sweet situation and one of the major attractions of this game in my opinion.

If you like a simpler version, try Eagle Games' Conquest of the Empire with Struggle rules. Both great games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Inno Van
United States
San Francisco/East Bay
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The generous ties scoring rewards allies for working together. So does the movement and combat system.

It's a lot easier to motivate players to join into a combined action when the pie is split evenly. "Let's invade Italy together and we'll both tie for 1st" is a lot easier to negotiate than "Stick your neck out for me so I can take first and you can take second".

Battles are expensive, lose you population, and gain you unrest. You really want to chose them carefully, and you need your allies and their actions and troops if you really hope to succeed. The way ties work in the combat system punishes taking chancy actions and instead encourages sure things. And even those aren't quite so... sure.

And yes, you sometimes will refuse to support an ally, or even pay an enemy to come in and attack your ally, so they trim a bit off the top and the two of you become tied for first in a region. This more often happens in the colonies though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Parrott
United States
Wilmington
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Innovan wrote:
And yes, you sometimes will refuse to support an ally, or even pay an enemy to come in and attack your ally, so they trim a bit off the top and the two of you become tied for first in a region. This more often happens in the colonies though.


I think this is the beauty of the scoring system that may be overlooked, it's in the third (or fourth in Europe) place player's interest to encourage a tie for first by supporting the second place player either through alliance or covertly financing a war against an ally. I think it fits the historical time period very well. The leaders will be trying to break ties, while others will be trying to force ties.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Eisen
United States
Menlo Park
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Leaders rarely try to break ties, they already score the maximum points. Yes they can push others down by doing so, but they (1) don't want to become an instant target by being anti-social like that and (2) usually have something more useful to do with the actions elsewhere.

 
 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.