GB game 96 has ended with a DS victory

General
#1

Hi Guys,

Just got word from the GM that game 96 has ended with a DS victory as the FP have decided to fold. The final turn still has to be run but that won’t change anything so I would love to start chatting about this game. It was a great game as far as I was concerned.

Playing Rhudaur/Long Rider I had a very though game in the first 25 turns or so. I put all my resources into protecting Rhudaur with the result there were no resources left to develop with the LR who had lost his Cavalry armies early in the game with Uvatha getting overrun in Harad on turn 5. WK offered little or no help that I can recall (though possibly he was attacking out of my range of sight) and I was attacked by Arthedain, Cardolan, Sinda, Noldo and dwarves.
I was EXTREMELY unlucky in getting no Dragons until well past halfway in the game. I just could not get hold of a recruitable dragon whatever I tried, and I don’t know how many times I cursed about not getting any dragons on my PC’s; and guess what on turn 22, just one turn too late to safe my Rhudaur capital, I find 3 who joined my army on turn 23! I tell you I was pulling my hair out at that time!
So it was only because I kept pouring in conjured mounts and leather from LR into 2008, buying steel for armor at taxes at 90%, blocking incoming armies and by some well placed assassinations by the LR agents that I could survive at all.

Rhudaur started beefed up in this game but it didn’t make much difference as I lost 1910 by turn 11. I lost 2008 to FP emis on turn 15, the very first turn I had to risk to leave it unprotected by an army. But I do guess I did make me hold out longer before I lost all PCs in Rhudaur area. I finally lost my capital at 2008 after what I dare call a very valiant fight as the very last original Rhudaur PC on turn 22.
Around turn 16 I decided to make a countermove with HC and I went to capture the Cardolan capital on turn 18, reducing fortifications with the LR agents before the attack. (Though I did loose all characters in that army and does the army by kidnapping/assassination the turn after)
Around that time also LR had finally built a small PC of the map and had started attacking the Northmen by surprise around that time too.

Turn 22 was nearly the demise of the Rhudaur as my capital was about to fall and I had just lost my back-up MT at 3329 to agents/emissary take over with impeccable timing by the FP. Only by pure luck did I influence 3624 under my control that very same turn having learned that the Dog Lord was eliminated.
It was a turning point in the game though. My multiple enemies had no targets to focus on anymore so they left the Rhudaur alone.
Nursing my wounds I build up a new army at 1812 a PC off the map for the FP and this time the dragons did come. Cardolan lost 1614 on turn 25. He then figured out the PC at 1812 but by the time he took it I had build up another one at 1120. Probably not knowing where I came from, he had lost all of his towns one after the other by turn 33.
I took care never to be on the other FP’s map to make sure he didn’t get any help.

Meanwhile on the other side of the world LR cleaned up the area around the sea of Rhun, 4013 finally fell on turn 29. I then kept the HC going and took on the Eothraim who probably went bankrupt on turn 34 when I sieged their capital in a failed attempt to capture it. He did surprise me with a challenge in his last breath.
Another army took out the Northmen capital on turn 36 together with the WK.

I had plenty of bad luck in this game and still I managed to get over it by never giving up even however grim the situation looked at turn 23 and that does give a good feeling.
I want to thank my fellow DS for doing the same because on turn 19 I found out that we had lost 3 nations (Dragon Lord, Dog Lord and Corsairs) while the FP still had all 12 nations alive. A player (I don’t remember who but probably he was FP) wrote on the forum around May last year I think that he did not expect the game to last much longer as the FP had lost no nations and the DS were down to 9. I am smiling as I think back of this. Never ever give up guys, at least not in a GB game as it can be turned around.

Look forward to hearing some other reactions.

Alain

#2

Good job Alain, what do you think about the no quit aspect of the game.

tim

#3

I seem to recall there actually was a drop from our side around turn 17 which was announced but I don’t remember how it was resolved.
Rob can you fill this in?

All in all though I think it helped make this a better game, especially as there were no 3 nation pairings.

Alain

#4

First, I must say that “no quit” didn’t fix the problem as there were lots of drops in this game. CL/FK started as a duo. Somehow CL ended up paired with BS (getting all the advantage that shouldn’t be there of a major spell casting / artifact locating / character locating nation for CL)

I was SG/EO in this game. We enjoyed early successes, (killing off lots of DragL characters with challenges and thereby keeping EOplex intact even though DragL sent starting forces against me, working with SE to take out DogL and with HA to take out CO. I even got RoW from DragL and went to give it to the Noldo, but he Challenged my mage!!! That was a noodle brain act by the Noldo as he lost his character right before I could transfer RoW to him… And it was on a starting EO character too, so I have no idea why he challenged me… So I went and gave it to the Duns… )

Alain, you’re right that EO went bankrupt when you attacked my capital. As you point out, I challenged your major Cav army comm, and Won! I had anticipated losing my capital and all my sell orders were in the backup capital. I didn’t prepare sell orders for what happens in the event you didn’t take my capital. Boy did I feel stupid after that turn got to me… LOL

Whoever played SE did a great job. I helped him take Morannon with a very timely challenge of a DogL comm and (I think) made an army go poof that made taking Morannon happen. But it was mostly SE forces with a small EO force on the side for moral support.

SG worked with HA to take out CO relatively early in the game. SG took north and western CO, and this eventually became SG’s capital area. In fact, FK/CL (when those two were still paired) took over a bunch of SG’s home territory after FK planted a seed camp and then conjured lots of hordes to use to threat undefended pops. That was my major failing as SG - letting the FK get a foothold there. I should have been more aggressive earlier in stomping him out. Well done FK!

Then somehow FK/CL split and CL got connected with BS (a bad no-no in my opinion on the part of ME Games). After that point, SG kept trying to take back pops in the homeland, but it was a gradually losing battle. The DS kept taking more and more SG comms hostage, further and further reducing the ability of SG to do much and finally the DS took my capital in CO land while I was trying to take back a MT in SG from FK with emmies (but failed). So SG was then out. That was just a couple of turns ago.

I had fun in the game. I don’t think I played particularly well, though there were bright spots. I should have built up much more of a character game in both EO and SG for the inevitable period when the DS character war comes into full bloom (I should have not hired so many pure comms in SG). I was in the process of building up agent & emmie power in the late 20s and early 30s turns before my two nations went kaput…

Finally, based on this game, (94 is still running - we’ll see how that goes) I agree that the experiment to bump up the DS in the northwest is broken and we should revert to the more moderate 2 fort upgrade for (NM/RH). I think the new pairing rules in the revised GB that Clint is considering are mandatory. CL just can’t be paired with BS, QA, DrgL. That’s not the reason for my nations’ defeat (good DS play + my own mistakes are the cause), but it can’t be ignored in the overall mix of what happens in a game. Also, the deplorable tendancy of some people to drop when they lose one of the duo or when finances get tough so that someone else on their team can get threesomes is most unfortunate. Again, I hope the new GB rules prohibit that completely.

Good game DS!
Dave

#5

Well done Alain; you played a blinder.

I don’t begrudge your comment regarding the Wik; some of my main focus was off map. So, I played the Wik/Dkl combo. Here is my story…

With the Wik I decided early on to try and deal a hefty blow on the Woodmen and provide some support for the DrgL with curses and reveal pop centre on 2514. This was perhaps pointless as the DrgL dropped anyway - why, I dont know. I took out the Sinda army with curses at 2514 on turn 4 to stall the big attack on 2715. I also managed to capture 2508 turn 5 which brought back from the front 4200 Woodmen troops which finally defeated my Wik force at 2609. With a nice steal turn 6 too I was hopeful of bankrupting the Woodmen or at the very least force Arthedain to ease up on the home front by supporting Woodmen financially. I think I got some success with this strategy but not as much as I wanted.

Back in Angmar, after repulsing 5,000 Arthedain I went on the offensive with 3,700 + 2 dragons and the hope of bringing down Fornost Erain. I never got to the Arthedain capital though, but did take all towns/villages east of it, until I was eventually seen off by the Noldo.

After the demise of the Rhudaur (in the Trollshaws), there was a lot of sustained pressure from the Noldo, Arthedain, Sinda, Cardolan and Duns with many agents and troops. I was eventually removed from 1804 turn 23 by the Noldo, 1910 turn 24 by the Sinda (retook from Cards) and 2006 turn 27 by the Noldo. The capital incidentally had its castle walls sabotaged and then the city captured by 9,000 troops!

My WiK capital moved 3 times: 1804 --> 2006 --> 2214 --> 2709. After being evicted from the motherland, it was the Cardolan and Sinda player who persisted in chasing me from MT to MT, but my set up in Mirkwood was looking more and more permanent by the end having repulsed a number of initiatives. And I still had the safe haven of the Iron Hills: 3 MTs side by side owned by Dkl, Wik and LR.

The Dkls were the financial backers in this game, although a tax hike to 91% on turn 13 saw that position lose 50% of its pops! I nearly lost it. However I rebuilt and was funding the Wik to the tune of 20K/turn. The emmies did their job taking the Dwarf pop centres and retaking the Wik ones: 1804 fell on turn 23 and was retaken turn 26 with an army in toe :wink: Carrog did his job sabbing the bridge at 3612/3712 to (I hope) help the LR and then putting in the knife e.g. Imlach @2009 was the 2nd kill turn 10. Hats off to Odagavia for capturing and then executing Gothmog. The Dkls also supplied two of the curses which together with Murazor took out nearly 1 a turn, until foolishly I bumped into the Sinda curse squad at 2413 and lost both Urzahil and Murazor. Ouch! Plus they dropped all the Dwarven artifacts I had stolen :mad:

A shame this game ended when it did; I was just planning a big offensive back over the Mistys. :rolleyes: However, I must totally agree with Alain. I decided to stick in there and with the odds at 12:9 it wasn’t looking good. When I saw that NG was out and then the Eo & SG I knew that the game was ours.

Cheers guys for a good game. :slight_smile:

#6

Well done Dave you played a good game despite your disappointments. I couldn’t believe the number of times your cav popped up and rubbed out my camps along the Morder 21s. Very annoying. It was you that (nearly) bankrupted the Dkl when the tax jumped to 91% and I lost 6 camps! That put a lot of pressure on the Wik with their financial backer out of action for a few turns.

Whoever played the Sinda/Card did a very good job though. Nice work.

#7

Ah that’s what happened, you actually did yourself in. Your regent+artifact took out my general but his success was your nations demise. I remember that I took the risk that you would challenge me in this desperate situation because I wanted to make an unexpected move pushing through to the Northmen capital immediately after the capture. You did take out 1250HC in steel with that move because I had so many armies on the map I had no back-up in that army.

Well don’t quite agree with that one. I have played Rhudaur in 3 gunboat games now (2 normal set-ups and one beefed up one) and I feel it is more fair to give Rhudaur a second back-up, making 2208 a MT/Fort, but to leave 1910 as MT/Fort. It still won’t make Rhudaur hold out if the FP do not play outright stupid, but this way Rhudaur has a chance to hold out longer (just enough to build up a new back-up somewhere off the map). Even with a third MT I think it is still one of the toughest positions to play. (Which is probably why I like it so much :slight_smile: )

But I do agree the new pairing rules are a must and especially no 3 nation combinations. Will those be standard now for new games?

Alain

PS Rommel88 who are you?

#8

Come on players. Chime in on how you thought the game played out. After 94 ends we can really compare notes.

Tim

#9

But I do agree the new pairing rules are a must and especially no 3 nation combinations. Will those be standard now for new games?

Yes

Clint (GM)

#10

And I think Rhudaur has a better pairing with LR; when I played Rhudaur it was with DKl (GB97).

It’s Bryn, Alain.

#11

Rh is with the CL in the lastest incaranation and the CL has one its town upgraded to a MT (a town downgraded to a village to keep the economy similar). More robust than the LR.

Clint

#12

Clint,
I just found the writeup on your web site of the new GB rules. Thanks! A couple of questions for clarification:
a. I didn’t see anywhere in that new writeup anything about whether or not old turns are available for nations when they’re picked up. I thought we’d decided (I could be wrong here) that outside players did get access to all old turns, but that inside players (i.e. players with experience in that game already) don’t. Is that correct? whatever, you might want to update your rules to specify something about access to old turns for the nation(s) being picked up.
b. I also thought we were looking for outside players as a priority for picking up one nation? The rules as you show them show that inside the game is first choice for a singleton drop? Maybe I remember wrong here too?

thanks,
Dave

#13

a) if players (from within the game) are picking up a nation, and therefore they’ve got one nation, they get the old turns. Players with 1 nation are at a major disadvantage and this offsets that making a more level playing field (it would also mean that at least 2 nations are knocked out from that team already, ie under pressure).
b) 1 nation dropped/available we’ll look within the game first. The reasoning for that is that a duo is what the game is designed to run with. 2 nations and we’ll get someone from outside as a priority (and they’d get the old turns).

With the CL we’ll look to keep the double scout nations away from it in that situation (that’s pretty much what I could work out from what people said and without going over the entire discussion that’s what I’d like to see - any nation duoed up with the CL is stronger, due to the inherent strength of the CL nation, but we’ll minimise that with this ruling).

I think that is correct (if it was unclear before, my apologies).

Clint (GM)

#14

Hi Bryn,

I played Rhudaur in pairing with DarkL, in pairing with CL and in pairing with LR.
I would say LR gives the most possibilities as you can use the conjure mounts to strengthen the troops recruitment of the Rhudaur, which also gives him the ability to set up some counter attacks.
CL was not bad too as a combination, DarkL is a little harder.
So all in all my recommendation would be Rhudaur to be combined with the LR from the point of view of Rhudaur. Question is who will you combine the CL with then? The IK?

Alain

#15

How about pairing DrgL with CL and Cor with IK?

Does anyone know what happened to DrgL in G96?

#16

There was a strong disagreement with any Double scout nations with the Cloud Lord. This would also mean that the Rhudaur is left out to dry.

The nations are like they are so that you have strong with weak and different regions. They are not the BEST duos that could happen as that would mean that some other nations are weak. With DS I made it so that all the weak economies have a stronger economy to back it up where ever possible.

With suggesting changes you need to list the entire new set as it’s very holistic - changing one thing changes a lot of things.

Bryn: Would you then suggest 19 (LR)/ Rh (24) - the problem with that is that it weakens the Rhudaur even more as it has less economic support, less agent support as well.

Clint

#17

Yeah, I suppose I would suggest LR/Rh because of the reasons sited by Alain. He has played all three combos: Rh/LR, Rh/Dkl, Rh/CL so I think we should take on board what he says.

#18

Note I created a new thread for GB discussion of combos as it seems more pertinent if we keep that type of discussion together, and this one for actual Game 96.

Clint (GM)

#19

“Rules: Drop Outs:
This is a no-drop game. Players agree to play until end-game conditions are met. Post game, each player’s nation positions will be published.”

Clint & Rob - now that 96 has officially ended, please publish who was who all through the game so that we know who dropped. That was the deal going in.
thanks,
Dave

#20

Here okay?

FP
1/4 Dennis Harris
2/8 Simon Dunsterville
3/7 David Holt
5/9 Jeppe Skytte Spicker
6/23 Wade Frost
10/22 Timofey Dvoskin

DS
11/20 Bryn Lloyd
12/21 Henning Rindbaek
13
14/15 Matt Ashley
16/17 Andrew Jones
18 James Ghiotto
19/24 Alain Deurwaerder

Drops:
Frank Redmond (13/15) Turn 16 and Chris Guerra (12/21) Turn 4