Actually, it’s in the Grudge Team arena’s where players can best work together to allow a single nation to hoard their gold, by whatever creative means, to best maximize the DS advantage from this particular aspect of the code you have just agreed needs to be fixed…
Recall, it was an Indie game where the DS, regardless of OBN’ing, lost - simply because it was an Indie game with all the rest that goes with that…a Grudge?? Give the Huiatt a call… 
Kevin, et. al.,
Thanks for the details on game 85. I can see that attempting an OMN was not without cost. I think if the FP had known you were doing that, they could have employed some counter measures. I’d play against the DS as a FP in that scenario.
But let me point out one crucial detail that makes me NOT like the OMN possibility. As you’ve mentioned Harad can ramp up quite rapidly.
The counter to this would be to physically attack Harad (probably North) with the FP military in the early turns, i.e. before turn 5. That way Harad doesn’t have the “tax” base to run up his economy. Once Harad gets it ramped up…the others will follow on shortly. I have seen evidence of this.
This dictates strategy on the FP that they HAVE to employ…giving the DS the advantage of knowing that Mordor is very likely not going to be receiving a full on Gondor assault. I don’t like the FP being forced into “having” to atack a certain area, in a certain time frame, or they’ll be dealing with an unlimited economy situation.
That still smacks of “game unbalancing” to me.
And after talking to Tim for the past day on this via phone…and reviewing your responses…yeppirs, I can see ways that this can be defeated. It just makes the FP a little more complicated to win with.
I still would like to see the FP win against a DS team employing such a strategy (with full knowledge of how to employ this by the DS, vice the accidental implementation of years past). Then I’d be more convinced. I do recall playing against the Spanish team where we employed the OBN, and even with that I felt things were touch and go until we eliminated the Eothraim economically.
Hmmm, your points about the devastation of “thwarting” a OMN strategy and the potential impacts are very interesting. If an OMN is discovered, defeated…it might be end of game for the DS.
I think a code change is the only solution. Clint, please don’t enforce any limits on players actions with the “treasury limit” more so than the “not allowed to transfer gold options” already in place. Too many negative consequences, unintended or otherwise.
Brad, nice apology. I can see how you and your team mates felt that you were “wronged” either by the opponents or the GM. I don’t think any attempt at fraud was intended by either party.
I’d only encourage your former allies to not take it as a personal affront, and get the rematch on and employ it yourselves to full advantage. I’d look forward to hearing how Kevin and Drew counter your “strategy”…
later
tony huiatt
[quote=“pseudiferus,post:162,topic:3473”]
Yeah, harad is a problem. The other individual DS positions don’t really have the ability to ramp up reserves quickly and to that scale. The speed at which Harad can generate reserves coupled with the lack of resources on the market could easily make the Market shoot up very fast.
Perhaps something like an 80K cap for the first 6 or 7 turns for the DS, then the cap comes off. All the restrictions on the original OBN involving gold transfers would be retained. This would have the effect of:
Kevin
PS FTR, Drew wasn’t in 85
I was not involved in Game 85 and have avoided commenting thus far. However, the concept of turning this into a semantic discussion of OBN vs. OMN compels to me to make this comment: it is clear that the CL was accumulating gold with the sole purpose of driving up market prices by a mechanism that, while not specifically illegal, was clearly stated as not intended. There is a term for this in gaming, that term is ‘exploiting’.
Yes, it takes advantage of the mechanics of the game. It may not have been intended by the original programmers - but what of it? Suppose they had tied the market to total reserves, something which is certainly more appealing from a real-world perspective. If the DS then strove to maximize their Total reserves, would that then be an ‘exploit’? How about if the FP strove to keep their reserves low, is that not also an exploit as well? And what about the time-honored practice of using Market Buyouts to drive up the sell price of a specific product - that’s clearly as much as an exploit as anything being discussed. I can bring up a host of other exploits in other non-economic aspects of the game, and no one gives them a second thought.
That’s because the question is not whether the tactic is something that Bill and Peter intended when they designed the game. I sincerely doubt that they extrapolated that far ahead - do you really think they were planning for two decades of playing by untold numbers of people world-wide, and at a time when your phone has more computer capability than the devices they were using to program this sucker? Just by having “Grudge Teams” and assigned neutrals, we’ve already progressed beyond the vision they had for the game at it’s inception.
The question is more of maintaining game balance - and in that context the distinction between OMN and OBN is no longer semantic. The OBN that was investigated back in the fall of 2006 was clearly unbalanced and had no counter - everyone agreed to that then and now. On the other hand, I submit there is not a consensus on whether OMN - in all forms - is unbalanced, and it clearly has potential to be countered. That makes it an “exploit” of a different color…
Nope. It’s the difference between nutrition and steroids. You’re seeing it along a continuum - but there’s a definite Break, and it’s not the same as “We never saw the power of internet communications”…it’s a Break.
It is not an issue of what the original programmers may have intended and it is an issue of what the current Game Master intends - and you full well know because he told you. To claim otherwise is being obtuse - you even got the rationale for why OBN was unbalanced. From the descriptions by the DS of the CL’s actions, it was clear that he was accumulating gold (to the detriment of the tactical situation) strictly to influence the market in a way that Clint had clearly stated was not as intended and that’s an exploit.
Notice I did not say it was cheating, illegal or unethical. I know some very decent people who believe that in wargames, all is fair, including exploiting. It is what it is.
Market buyouts? This was specifically referenced as an acceptable tactic in the OBN ruling. Making this comparison is being obtuse as well.
But I will agree with you that there are other exploits in the game and some players utilize them.
Haha, so if the 948 order it is ‘clearly unbalanced and has no counter’ but if no 948s are used then it’s not unbalanced and/or easier to counter?
I have nothing against you or your team. I don’t know the details of the game so I don’t have a strong opinion on that. But do you seriously want to spend more time discussing why OBN is not OBN when no TranCars are involved?
Man am I looking forward to playing nothing but the free people in games in the future.
NO Gold reserves allowed to be built by the dark servants, as it unbalances the game.
Or better yet, have Clint implement his code change. I can see all kinds of ways to exploit this even not knowing how it works. Oh wait, I am not allowed to do that either because it would be cheating and exploiting something that has no known defense.
What the original intent was, or was not by the original game designers of 20+ YEARS AGO needs to be looked at again. I thought that was the point of this thread. My understanding is the game was designed so that individual nations were trying to win the game even though it is within a team environment. This is no longer the case as the computer, internet, yahoo groups and Grudge games among others have all developed.
Why do so many people think that if the dark servants build reserves and the market goes above five or six on bronze and steel the free can’t win this game? Is this cheating? So many are saying yes.
I have been called saddistic (in a nice way) because I think I can win a game no matter what the economics are. I did not say I would win. I still think it comes down to which team has the best tactics.
This game will not end in the next few years. But right now we are in danger of losing a lot of very talented, and very enjoyable players in the game. This will make the game suffer in the long run and untimately lead to the demise of the game.
Tim Huiatt
I have to agree , I have been playing this game since it first came out when it was all snail mail and contact between players was done by phone or letters – Now comes the world of Computers, real time teamwork etc , etc and of course the programmers are gonna say wow , thats not what we intended !! I agree OBN is unfair with all nations pooling their resources – but I don’t think OMN is !!
I still don’t see how a high market is so unfair to the freep side – they are working off the same market – this is a war game – your supposed to exploit things in a war game – what makes it so much fun !! Would like to do a grudge with OMN with Ben and Kevin and Tim bet we could beat and DS side !!
Aside from possibly one or two members of the Free team in Game 85, who said that bronze getting above 5 or 6 was cheating? I sure didn’t.
The intent of the OBN ruling was pretty clear. Players found another mechanism to do the same thing and the Game Master has said that this is outside the intent of the game. If you have an issue with it, discuss it here or in email.
Debating semantics about OBN and OMN has - let’s be clear about this - done nothing to change the fundamental issue. As things stand now, there will be changes in the future to prevent both. If you have an issue with that, then I’d suggest addressing that point.
Or just play the Free…
DS have the mages. DS have the emissaries and toys. DS have the agents. FP have millitary and economy. DS have dragons to help with the military. OB/MN gives DS the economy. Well played, the FP have to max their military and max their economy with product transfers, etc, to ensure max HCav recruitment and continuous pressure on the DS early to knock out nations and reduce their economies as quickly as possible such that the DS character onslaught from the mid-game onwards is both reduced in scale and scope. Thus, even if the FP don’t pop the DS early enough, they have more momentum and military capaiblity (even some characters at this point…) such that they can continue to move forward - the DS character game would merely slow it, but the overall degradation of the DS positions continues.
The OB/MN saves the DS after they’ve lost 3 nations and multiple accessory MT’s. They can build new ones at will. They can afford what characters they have left. They can hire desperate blocking armies at will. Those costs do not rise with the market.
In the regimented Grudge world where teams push their Allegiance capability to the maximum, this is pretty much where things appear to stand. I’ve played on numerous Teams (I don’t have a team of my own, unlike many who play with the same guys a lot…) and this is all I can find. Older Tymes might have produced more variety, but likely less allegiance cohesion. Indie games most certainly.
Tim, I wish you all the best and would love to be in other games with you while you try to take on an OB/MN DS as a FP grudge so we can stay in touch to keep updated on your discoveries. But I assure you, I have no interest in either side of such an endeavor~! I guess I’ll have to get bored with 2950, then FA and Kinstrife when it comes on board…
I can’t see why removing OMN would make people want to play FP over DS…
DS has a lot more flavour (mainly in 1650) and can recruit allmost all dragons.
DS is just waaaay more fun, unless you really love having huge armies.
FP’s strength is surposed to be their massive economy that is surported by their tax-base. If you have high amrket prices, then they really loose this advantage, as Tax-base becomes less of a factor.
Even if they make a 80k gold limit, I’d still chose DS any day over FP, unless it was a grudge-game.
A couple of things:
FTR, in 85, Bronze never got above 4 (after T1). I would be more than happy to post the Market data and CL reserves for any turn in that game. They were not that exceptional, however, they did not meet the FP’s expectation of all products (except MI) selling at 1.
Clint’s ruling was explicitly against gold transfers, as expressed in the original OBN scheme. Let me quote from the ruling:
"I intend to take no action about using high tax rates or market buy-outs to affect the market prices. They are tactical choices, with both positives and negatives, and there are strategies which opposing teams can employ to counter them. "
Given what we know about the market mechanics, how would having high tax rates affect market prices except through the accumulation of reserves? Or is it your contention that if the CL had jacked their taxes to 80 or 90% it would be OK, but once they held their taxes to 60% it was barred by Clint’s ruling?
The most telling point about the ruling is Clint’s rationale for not taking action, and it bears repeating - “there are strategies which opposing teams can employ to counter them”. Clearly the “spirit” of the ruling was that any strategy for which there is no counter is barred.
Clint’s ruling was desigend to eliminate a strategy that obviously had no counter - stacking gold reserves in one position on T1 (OBN). Those who are trying to extend that to include all strategies that use reserve accumulation to influence prices are reading something in the ruling that quite frankly, isn’t there. It is even more apparent if you reread the original discussions and ruling, and not just rely on the truncated version of the preamble to the ruling that’s found in the turn coversheet.
That doesn’t mean that OMN may not need some restriction on it’s use. However, I submit that there are in-game counters to that strategy may exist, and they can be explored. Game 85, where one side was operating under the assumption that OMN could not exist, is hardly a test-case to see if OMN can be countered. It is, howeve, a good test case for seeing the impact of OMN if it’s allowed to run unchecked.
Clint, again I implore you, now that this strategy is out in the open, please let it play out and let’s see if the FP can counter it. Let me remind you that when you did look at game 85, your opinion of the market was (and I’m paraphrasing; the exact wording is in an earlier part of the thread) “it’s a little high, but not unusual”. That was in a game where there were no countermeasures being employed. Rein in the possibility of Harad doing it in the early part of the game, and I bet we’ll find OMN isn’t the Monstrous Evil it’s being portrayed as.
Kevin
I never really thought about the above but got me thinking – so have just gone over all ten FP and all ten DS – while if we take any character that starts with a skill level of 30 or more in a praticular skill level , I did find out the that the DS start with more Mages and Agents , but the freeps have more and better commanders and both side start with 5 emmies above 30 with the freeps being the better !!
The DS start with 10 command arties , 5 agent/stealth arties , 2 emmy arties , 12 mage arties – the FP start with 8 command arties , 3 agent/stealth arties , 0 emmy arties and 5 mage arties !! So all arties are give or take two relativly even except the mage arties evils to start off with 2 to 1 advantage on them !!
Freeps do have 7 Palintirs and 1 hiding pop arty to the DS 0 !! FP also get Eagles, Ents, Hobbits ,etc as well as at least two dragon also !!
If we start to delve into 20’s and 10’s on starting skill rank the freeps start to even it out in almost every category then except commander – freep definately win there !!
I can list it by skill ranks – but over all FP start with 57 commanders , 1 agent , 5 emmies , and 14 mages all over 30 on skill level , the DS start with 39 commanders , 14 agents , 5 emmies , and 36 mages all over 30 on skill level !! And as I looked further – if count 20’s and exspecially 10’s on skill level starts to pretty much even up
take what you want from it !!
Dark sevant characters are better, Commanders is the only place the freep win and I would think that we all agree across the board that commanders is the least important category of skill ranks.
Brad,
As soon as we finish game 7 I will concentrate on playing grudge games as free against the dark servants employing OMN. Not that the outcome is all determining.
tim
Actually the FP win in the emmissary category also , least thats what I found out and I don’t necessary agree with the command skill being the least important – try running a nation without any commanders , Overall I would guess it would be command skill – but if think about it I find myself making 10/20 , staight emmies , straight agents and sometimes even straight commanders , but very rarely making any kind of new mage, let alone even making a character with 10 on mage skill , so if go by that standard – mage skill for me is least important
When I first started playing (Florida GSI days, game 237 was my first), the guys who taught me said to build up your economy as fast as you can. As DS or FP, you will need the market sells/tax revenue. Limiting that now limits nations. I thought that this game was about winning, as individuals AND as a team. I have played more FP nations than DS nations. Telling me that I MUST issue a certain order because I have run my nation well sounds like socialism to me rather than freedom. Take my gold and give it to a poorer nation or just take it from me, I do not think so. The day that happens, I leave. Not that you are losing a great player in me, but a loyal one yes.
If you must limit something, make the total DS and FP gold reserves run the market. The NP can not affect this until they flip to a side. That should be easy to fix. But limiting how much gold one nation can have is bad. How about I limit how much money that you can personaly have in the bank. If you have too much, I will take it from you. Not that I give it to anyone, but I just take it and burn it. We do not want you getting TOO rich now. Sounds like the Democrats in Washington. Leave me alone to run my nation as I see fit. The only people that have any input on what I do with my nation are my team mates. I will do anything for them. Although I seem to be on the asking end all too often in my current game.
True, nation costs do not increase as the market does, but the commodity prices do. So, yes, doing a 770 on T1 or T20 still costs 5k. However, HC in st/st will certainly cost you more on T20 than it did on T1 because FO, ST, LE, and MO will cost more. Unless you have built up your nation to be able to support those 500 HC ST/ST per turn on your nation production alone. This goes back to rule one when I was learning. I have done this in many of the games I have been in.
So, leave it be or adjust it to look only at the FP/DS reserves and leave the N out of it until they flip. DO NOT FORCE me to issue orders.
Andrew
Can’t agree - I think command rank is easily the most important skill rank. However, much of the value of command rank is gained just by having it; even a 10pt commander can create companies, recruit, move and fight armies, etc. It takes beacoup time and effort to develop emissaries and agents to do much more than InfYour and guarding, respectively.
Kevin
“Tax @100% basically doubles the market if everyone did it (upto half if some players did it) and although has an inherent disadvantage (low loyalties throughout the nations on high tax) is probably okay.”
That is what is being referenced when when Clint said he was not taking action against high tax rates.
The reason that OBN was barred is because it was revealed that gold in the hands of one nation has a far greater effect on the economy than the same amount of gold in the hands of multiple nations. But of course, you already knew that.
The DS clearly understood that the CL accumulating 150k gold would have a greater impact on the market than the CL, BS and LR, for example, each having 50k. Can you remind me what the ‘O’ in ‘OMN’ stands for?
The real issue is not how much gold you accumulate but to what purpose you are accumulating it. If you have a deficit of 30K it would be prudent to have a running reserve of 70+K (2 turns reserve with which to recover from a catastophy) If you are running a 10 -15K deficit and are running a 80+K reserve you would have to question “why so much money needed in reserve?” The real question should not be how much reserve is too much but why too much reserve is too much. Most of us will know when someone is “milking the system” let’s use peer group pressure to keep everyone honest. Those that want to exploit the system, name and shame them. Lets face it no one like to be seen as a “cheat”
especially when they know what they are doing is on the wrong side of the right/wrong line.
Regards Herman