I am thinking about signing up for 1650 GB with limited diplos. Basicly it is the standard GB game, except each player is allowed a message of max 100 words to each other player every 5 turns (please correct me here if I am wrong Clint). The reason why I would like the limited diplo is because I think it is nice to be able to get a little interaction with alliace/enemies. To get knowledge of status elsewhere on the map, to taunt enemies and to get a feeling of the other players. Still I am not interested in full scale coordination etc. of standard games, but I think the no-communication of the GB is a little detoriating.
Are people interested in such a format? I am also interested in hearing from people who have already signed up for game 97.
we played a game similar to the one you propose last fall-this spring (1650 GB, #71).
It was unanimously agreed by people who participated in discussion post-game, that the limited diplo format favors the FP based upon our experience in that game. The simple explanation is that FP can coordinate attacks using diplos, as attacks are principally strategic in nature. The DS’ need for communication is tactical, within the confines of any given turn. DS need to coordinate character actions, defense, etc. They did not feel there were any valuable DS diplos, whereas the FP felt that several had contributed to the coordination and successful, concerted attacks against specific nations.
In the post-mortem for GB71, we all came away with the thought that GB shouldn’t have any communication what so-ever. The DS are already in a disadvantage in standard GB, & the diplos just made it worse.
GB94 & GB96 (the 2 no-quit games now running) were fashioned to allow no diplos at all, and to beef up the DS a bit in the northwest to make it a more even match. We will see how they develop. It’s my hope that they are both long games, evenly matched. Time will tell.
cheers,
Dave
player in both “no-quit” GB games, 94 & 96
player, Frank Redmond’s team, DS, Game 84
Dave’s got some good points. Personally I think both sides are equally viable and the diplo could help out with buyouts for DS - something they need big time - but generically agree that diplos probably assist FP more.
Couldn’t resist: With that in mind any more for the latest GB game? We need 3 more players.
Clint if you can organise a buyout with the dark servants with a one turn delay and make it work your a better player than I give you credit for.
I dont think I could make it work to be truthful and thus I am not that good a player to do it either.
When more than one player proposes a buyout of more than one good all at the same time and faced with a choice as to which one to do, what not to sell and my monies on it all going wrong.
Its helps the free people by a mile diplomacy and as I said stick me on the free side any time and I fancy my chances of victory.
“Clint if you can organise a buyout with the dark servants with a one turn delay and make it work your a better player than I give you credit for.”
Yes it could be done. I’ve done it indvidually in games with 2 nations before - just need to look for the opportunity - and with multiple players then it’s quite likely you can pull it off with appropriate allies. Obviously in a GB game you don’t know what they’re like so it’s more awkward but still doable.
In the case of multiple players trying to organise it (seems unlikely but waiting a little and allocating players to do so on turns could work for example with your diplo on turns 1-5) it would be more difficult but still doable.
Eg Turn 1 diplo. “I suggest that on turns 4 WK player organise a buyout and sends diplo for team to enact on turn 6 say if Mithril less than XX, Bronze less than YY, turn 5 Dragon does it, turn 7 DogLord does it” Lots of inference to be made for who does it on turn 8 etc so it could be done. Not saying it would be easy. But a nice challenge…
Also DS need to co-ordinate troops - there are many examples as a DS that knowing what my ally was going to do would have been a great help (and vice versa). Funny when your ally dies on the walls expecting you to attack but not so funny when you’re the one dying! (Been on both ends!)
I think the diplo favors the free side as well, but the only test game was game 71, and the dark servants did not diplo more than once in ten turns, some pairings never diploed, plus the short in gold for the dark servants, plus the superior opponents on the free side.
But I agree with Vandal, let anyone who wants to do a diplo game take the dark servants and I will take the free side. The advantage in being able to send a diplo helps the free side far more than the dark servants, in my opinion.
Okay, after have listened to your experiences, I have come to the conclussion that what I would like for a GB was a threat to post on. A place where I could taunt my opponents and find out who was playing who, but of no strategic value.
Why is it that the players are not told who play what nations? The participants are still bound by honor not to communicate, so I do not see a problem? The benefit is that you know your opponent.
I think If I new who my opponents were, I might target their nations specifically to eliminate/damage that nation as much as possible. I guess this could be good or bad, but I know with the players I respect, If I new their nation pairings I would prioritize attacking them.
Why is it that the players are not told who play what nations?
you wouldn’t know in a normal game for one.
you would be aware of a player’s style and play to it.
some players prefer you didn’t know.
you might decide to attack a player or avoid a player.
If I knew who I was playing against then that would certainly change my style of game as appropriate. If a strong player then I’d play a certain way, if not so strong then another way.
Sounds about right to me, but of course for those who like that type of game there is nothing to stop you setting up a game where the positions are known I am sure.
But the normal game is a real test as you dont know who the other guy is, how he may play and have to cover all the bases in your thoughts.
it IS fun to taunt. no doubt about it.
yet, it’s hard not to give something away if you open your mouth (or type on your keyboard).
I agree with Clint, Vandal and Tim - if i knew who was playing what on the opposition, it would definitely affect my play. After a while, all of us probably form opinions about the play style, the skill, and the tendancies for risk (or not) of our opponents. that would definitelY be helpful. huge maybe even.
imagine that turn where it’s critical to AttEnmy & ForcMar on to the next pop. But the question is: does the enemy army have a high challenge backup commander? Some people I wouldn’t credit for a minute having this in place… others… oh boy… decisions decisions.
But a nice challenge…