It was an excellent game, full of twists and surprises, experiments and failures, good place and pathetic mistakes on both sides, it seems.
Kudo’s to Clint, he plays a pounding military game…!
Lesson Learned (um, again…duh…): Make a plan and stick with it to fruition/failure. Changing plans before results/consequences mean failure, regardless of how much “better” the “new plan” is.
Turn 22 FP concession to Clint’s DS!
Cheers,
Brad da Freep
Nice Job Clint.
Tim
Thanks Brad (and Wade)
Excellent game; anyone not playing it fancy a go as I’m probably looking for another one shortly.
Clint
Glad the three of you had a good time. Maps, of course, can only give an imperfect sense of what is going on. But it looks like a remarkably fluid game. It also appears that the will to resist was eroded faster than the means to resist.
You’re such a kook sometimes. The lives of my children were not at stake. 6 nations at significant USD$ per run, yeah, the “will to resist” eroded.
:rolleyes:
Yep, I.m the Kook O’Dawoods. Out of curiosity: You will recall that it was surmised that Clint got easily bored and liked constant stimulation. If you accept that profile, then you would want a three week game cycle, which plays to his weakness. A Power game would play to his strength. Which one did you choose?
Heh Ed- does that mean you’d be interested in trying to “bore” me? Sounds very interesting to me.
With the game I showed that they were going to lose W capitals in the next turn for example, X kills, and Y troops moving out of Mordor and estimated their gains they would have in that period. Eoplex was just about to go - leaving 2 hidden PCs in Mirkwood theirs. Generally I’d say that if the DS have taken Mirkwood the game is “over” for the FP. If we allow for the relatively early death of Harad vs the winning going on in the NW (that’s the NW mind - the undefendable defended and aggressing!) and that Corsairs was out of the game that didn’t leave much for them to play with.
They were trying to kick me out with an economic game but that wasn’t going to happen in the next 10 turns (if ever). I think they made the correct decision overall (and if I were going to lose then I’d also surrender to them - death or glory? Nah, prefer to have another fun game instead). It was a fascinating game - both sides made mistakes, it’s hard to play at 100% all the time especially with 12 nations. Yes the game could certainly have gone on but they had such an uphill struggle that why do that?
Clint
Why would one want to play to a purported weakness?
Personally, I would want his or anyone else’s A+ game
Ed,
Wade and I offered the game to Clint based on a 3 week cycle strictly for economic reasons in the beginning. Clint would have preferred a faster game against a solo opponent, but graciously accepted our challenge. It was our turn to accept his offer to resign honourable on a high note. There was ample means to resist, yes.
(Un?)Fortunately, the game was quite interesting on all levels start to finish, so nobody got bored…
Note, Clint is an army/agent type, but don’t take that as an attack on his mage/emissary prowess. His experience and knowledge of the game is exemplary, of course. Worthy opponent. Take him on…
Brad, from your careful wording: Would it be incorrect to conclude that the game started as a three week cycle and then shifted to a Power cycle?
Power cycle, at Our request, that only once went less than 2 weeks. We’d usually get our orders in from 15-19 or so days and weren’t interested in waiting the extra few for the “scheduled” run. I’d rather think my haphazard loss of the 3 main Noldo agent characters by turn 10 played a MUCH larger factor in the game outcome than such an esoteric variable…
Basically, he played his game and pretty much ignored ours, whilst we did the same… He played at a higher overall level more consistently than did we, thus winning.
Interesting. I was wondering how this game was going when the other thread about the 1-1 challenge came up. Something I would be tempted to have a go at some time if I ever had the free time and when I have a few more games under my belt. Got a few ideas to try out but definitely need to at least double my current level of experience. 
What are the finances of such a game?
Would there be any scope for say an 8 nation a side game? Might have less overheads for the players, in terms of both costs and what they have to manage if not too difficult for Harly to set up.
Steve
If you wanted to try a format like this we offer reduced rates - get in touch specifically (off line) if you are interested and we’ll chat.
You can always play with another player (Jason and Steve and Wade and Brad did it as a duo) and play 6 nations each. I think that actually this is the strongest team set-up - I noticed with one nation that I just couldn’t collate all the information efficiently enough (I’m a tad particular sometimes!)
If you want to try out some things I’d advise Gunboat games - 2 nations, similar level of interaction (ie none) so you can experiment to a certain extent and play very much your own game.
Ideally I’m looking to play this game again soon (I’ve had a few interested bites but nothing that has hooked at present, either due to what I want or what the opposition want).
Clint