recently two 1650 games have ended (95 and 99) which demonstrated how much influence the market prices have on the game - to opposite effects.
while in g 99 the DS have successfully accumulated enough gold (within the given rules, I am certain) to ignore the economic drawbacks of a quite effective FP military campaign and make it through the first turns until their special advantages made them practically unbeatable, in gb 95 the low prices seem to have been the main reason for their demise.
it is as simple as that: in a grudge game the DS can coordinate to manipulate the market to their advantage, in a GB game they can’t.
given players of equal skill, the DS are thus likely to win grudge games and lose GB games. I have seen enough examples to know that.
for my part I can say I am losing interest in 1650 games, because every time it boils down to the market question.
the question is: what can be done to change that?
I can’t present a solution to the problem, though, are there any ideas?
Imo GB’s hurt DS more than FP, namely due to the whole economy issue…
All FP combos have a counterpart with a huge economy (WM has Arth, EO has SG, and Dun has NG).
Where the DS have a few combos which can have a very hard time both sustaining armies to defend themselves, AND survive economy-wise.
And thus the DS become dependant on the few who has gold, to be wise enough to send it to the nations that traditionally lack gold.
Maybe we could have a static or predertmined market price variant? Perhaps they would start as normal and then decline over the first few turns until they reach an artificial “equilibrium” and then they stay static. What those “equilibrium” prices should be may require a bit of debate, but I’d imagine that something along the lines of:
I thought Clint was trying something new to fix that – not to mentioned I played on the freep side in game 95 and didn’t think the prices where low enough each turn to hurt the evils, and would have sold things for the max – exspecially with the NG but was getting gold stolen like crazy for a couple of turns so stopped selling, except for enough to cover my deficeit. Was down to 9 characters cause of gold stolen with NG to !!
Over the centuries there has been a consensus that Rembrant is one of mankind’s greatest artists. Both art historians and art critics admire his works.
Unlikely as it may seem, some of Rembrant’s paintings have been overpainted by other ‘artists’. In at least one case perspective was ‘improved’. In another case, a classical allusion was ‘corrected’. As might be expected these overpainters are now considered vandals. At this very moment, art restorers are painstakeingly removeing these overpaintings, chip by chip, after years of study.
This game has survived the intellectual efforts of thousands of intelligent men for twenty years. In computer history, it has survived the ‘test-of-time’. I am reluctant to have this game fiddled with further. Particularly by, or at the behest of, persons who showed little awareness of what this game was.
Harley is working on the Kin Strife. Lets see just how creative they are. It will be perfection, I am sure. In any event, like the overpainters, it is easier to change someone else’s creation than be creative one’s self.
Nobody denies the impact of the market. I believe it trully is how a team functions as “ONE” rather than how the market impacts the team or indy combo in GB. If players are of equal skill in GB, then each player should be able to figure out how to address a marketing problem without hurting their combo or team. It only takes one player to hurt the balance in GB.
IMO, it’s not the market but the individual play of each player. ME brings many bright minds to the arena and rarely do these players of brilliance come forth when they have poor strategy or execution, rather we hear alot on the forum about how the market did them or their team in. And of course we hear alot about what works in ME1650.
Personally, I like a rich market for both sides for the exact reason you’re commenting, many DS players feel they need a good market for a chance to win. But the market is only a small part of the rest of the strategy. And once again, it only takes one player on the team to not agree and fail to carry out part of the plan. I’ve been part of losing teams where players commend the victors for great strategy and market manipulation, yet rarely take account for why that happened in the first place. It’s tough for some people to say their strategy was poor. It’s about the choices each player makes and some make decisions based on a prior game or other players experience.
So, I like the current setup and the ability to work the market. The market is not the reason I win or lose, it’s the whole package. Every once in a while I find myself with a group that is willing to share, sacrifice and coordiate for a winning experience and that’s what’s keeping me here. It’s still fun!
Market can be affected by either side. it’s a very interesting element of the game to try to make sure that you can do what you want, yet don’t assist the opposition too much. GB games - the split is very much 50/50 for DS v FP in 1650 so I don’t see any real need to change things here. Correct me if I’m wrong please.
