To the point-- I fail to understand the comparably immense popularity of
the 1650 game. If I'm not mistaken, each 1650 game features the exact
same nations in the exact same starting locations with the exact same
pop center size and fortifications manned by the exact same characters
and exact same armies. Likewise, I believe the number assigned to
artifacts remains the same, and they retain the same powers from game to
game, with the only variable being the locations at which they are
hidden.
Yes, chess, Monopoly etc. etc. all have fixed starts. That doesn't
diminish them as games. In fact it opens the realm of the "opening" and
the "winning technique". That doesn't mean that there is an opening that
always wins, but it does mean that you've got to learn the standard
openings and the standard defences, and cope with all the subtle
variations which your opponents or allies might try.
As such, everyone knows who the "favorites to win" will be, who
is most likely to get swamped very quickly,
Ah yes, this is why you don't understand - you're thinking from the
perspective the single nation/player. If you enter 1650 as part of a
team, and think team thoughts, your emotional response would be
better. With good team work it really shouldn't matter who plays what
nation. Like Rugby there's the big guys with all the muscle, the nippy
little guy, who's going to get "swamped very quickly" if left exposed, but
can be jolly useful if he gets away, and the guy with the magic kick
special ability.
which artifacts everyone
will be pursuing, which characters will be wandering about challenging
and kidnapping/assassinating, etc. If I'm wrong on any account here,
please make me aware of my error(s)-- I hope I'm not making false
assumptions.
Yes you are. You know which artefacts everyone should be pursuing,
but there's always someone with a different idea. You never know
quite where they're going to be, whether the DS will send Ji or Din, or
commit them to army work.
Soooo. . . why is 1650 so popular? Do most of you prefer the static
nature of the game and its relative predictability?!?
Think of a chess board. 32 pieces, fixed positions, 64 squares. After a
few turns there are hundreds of variations possible, then thousands.
Now look at how many hexes there are on the ME map. 200 starting
characters rising to a maximum of 525. How can you possible say
that's static or predictable?
The alternative is 4th age, which is a bit like scattering your chess pieces
over the board at random. Turn 1 your queen gets taken by a pawn,
who happened to start next to her. The randomness has actually
reduced the skill needed to play, because the roll of pure luck has been
dramatically increased - not to mention the fact that the story has been
taken out of the map, and the good Purple Pixies now start in the
middle of Mordor, and the evil Aussie Fanciers start in Eriador, with no
deference to Tolkien's world whatsoever.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
···
Patrick & Stacey McDougall <psmcdoug@home.com> wrote
(Holidays for the others! 