PS Is there anyone else actually on this list...?
Well I am (although last time I looked there was a princely total of 8
people so don't expect too many posts)!
Anyway,
I don't consider myself an expert, I've only started playing the game
recently, but I would say think carefully before making any changes.
The game has been around since 1991 and been very successful. In that time
hardly anything important (anything?) has changed. Clint wrote that the
score was 7-5 to the DS team for Harlequin games - well 58% isn't exactly
dominant is it? I know that there is a general perception that the DS
teams tend to win more often, (Richard made the statement 'the vast
majority of games are won by the DS') - well just how true is this? Is
there any stats to back this up?
I'm not really in a position to comment on what should change or not, but I
think that as the game has been around for so long, its obviously popular,
why change anything?
You can't make a proposal that won't be objected to by someone.
What might seem totally reasonable to you - example limiting the 'Steal
Gold' order, might be unthinkable to a DS player. They would argue that
they need good agents who can steal gold because their economies are so
much inferior to the FP.
And if the cloud lord manages to last until the end game, then why
shouldn't he be able to churn out agents? If he and the rest of the DS can
hold off the initial FP superior armies in the first 10-20 turns then you
could argue they deserve to be stronger by turns 20-30.
Still, what would I know.
Kev