I have to be honest, I love reading them - they give me ideas or the satisfaction of believing they are wrong. There haven’t been any new nation strategy articles (that I’ve seen) for a while. I wondered if we could start a few discussions about nation strategies that we could then boil down into a few posts and/or a sticky?
New players will often look for these articles and right now they only really have the stuff from the Mouth and GSI - which, whilst great for their time, aren’t as relevant in an age of instant communication with allies.
And, of course, articles needn’t be limited to nations - they can be specific tactics, troops etc…?
To be honest, what I’m particularly interested in - should people be willing to share anything - are strategies around teams. I think a lot of us who have played for a while get bogged down in “standard opening moves” that sometimes we are oblivious to new possibilities. Or perhaps that’s just me… Perhaps even articles relating to “theatres”? Eg, Rhun?
I love reading this sort of thing too! If only to see hoew other people think and maybe open myself to new ways of looking at aspects of the game. News from Bree is an excellent place to have such things published, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a will amongst players to actually write strategy articles - nothing like there was in the old days.
Who knows why this is? Though several people have commented to me that they don’t want their strategies being picked up on by other people
That may be fair enough - but for me I’m happy to raise the general standard of gameplay and that means giving others “what works for me” - otherwise I find something “unbeatable” and just use ad nausium - where’s the challenge in that? If it’s actually unbeatable then there’s nothing wrong in sharing it - it can’t be countered! If not, then not sharing it is just done out of fear of losing… I’d rather enjoy the game and be challenged that win to “inferior” opponents… <shrugs>
I don’t think there are any “unbeatable” strategies. For every strategy so fare devised, I personally believe there are one or more competent counter-strategies.
The real key is recognizing what the enemy is doing and adapting accordingly. When you catch the enemy by surprise with an effective strategy, often this is sufficient to take out a nation or two, and that is many times sufficient to lead to a win.
This game is an awesome game because of the complexity. Our team (Veta Schola) is experiencing this in spades. In our prior game, we executed a well thought out team strategy, where we really spent a lot of time on the detail, and we won in 10 turns. In our current game, we got cocky early, let the oversight and attention to detail slack a bit, and now we’re paying for that. Because we didn’t execute at 100%, our initial strategy looks like total #$*#.
I guess my points are that strategy needs to be:
a. holistic (i.e. consider effects on entire map/team)
b. detailed in analysis (enemy moves/countermoves; economics; many turns in advance; etc.)
c. agreed upon by the team
I think strategies in the team games are very different things than the “nation strategies” of old MOS days (and I wrote some of those early MOS articles and now look at them as very naive). I don’t think you can ask for, or expect a “team strategy” to be published. Too much work is required to create it, and frankly, an interesting part of it is dependent upon starting spells, character locations, etc.
We’re presently looking for strategy articles and even tips for Bree. As usual you’ll get a free turn for an article in there so it has some monetary value (more a thankyou than big time money of course).
I’ve been writing some tips for the latest Bree but would like others to come forward (ditto articles) but they’re from my perspective as a player and I realise very much that mine’s not the only way to play.
Amen to that David. Many times I have seen players attempt to force the enemy to their will instead of adapting to the enemy. They insist on being the bull to someone else’s bullfighter.
Like yourself I wrote several articles in the Olde Days (under a pen name—I wanted Ed to remain an anonymous newbie). Harley has tried hard to convert this game to a “team” game instead of an “alliance” game and has forced it into that particular vision. The Harley game IS a good team game, but that is all it is. The GSI game COULD be a good team game but it could be more.
Do you play GB? I find that I really enjoy GB these days because it brings back a bunch of the fog of war, and ability to try nation-specific strategies.
Today’s MEPBM can be divided into three basic game types I think:
GB - wild & wooly strategies can be attempted. No teamwork possible because no communication is allowed. Want to try out a new “nation strategy?” This is a great venue for it.
Open Games - these aren’t really team games the way Grudge Games are. Sometimes teams coalesce and really cooperate. But the level of coordination and cooperation varies highly. Nation strategies are likely to be used by many players and Team strategies usually take a few turns to develop (if they develop at all). And of course, there are neutrals in these games and that adds 5 wildcards into the mix in everyone’s planning and thinking.
Grudge Games - this is where the true team strategies come into play. You better be thinking holistically and worrying about the whole game board; all of the positions; the economy; many turns in advance; etc. If you don’t, you are likely to suffer for it as the other team is likely doing this.
anyway, all are fun, and all present different challenges. I find that I gravitate more and more toward GB as it allows for individual creativity with a minimum requirement for communication. My team game produces a prodigious amount of email each turn, and I think I can only deal with one such game at a time. But I can run several GBs at a time, no sweat.
So? Write/read for entertainment and potential educational perspectives…
As for specific turn to turn order based “team” strategies, of course these are highly variable, but there are some potentially insightful starting points that can be considered “team strategies”. Ie create a FP assassin for a turn 3 kill, create a dragon killer, regardless of spells a team can decide to pour everything “here” or “there” etc, then micro-strategize when the real pdf details are revealed upon Turn 0…
As for Nation Strategies, well, I only write Neutral ones… One must qualify many “general/foundation” type global visions so to speak with various “If-Then”'s…
David, while I have never played GB, I approve of the concept. A partial roll back of the TEAM fixation. As I understand it, English cricket ethics still apply—don’t knowingly hurt an “ally”.
Yes Ed, true GB doesn’t even allow doubling of unknown chars. In all of the GB “variants” that I help get going, we dispense with the limitation on doubling and make it unlimited. But you can’t 210/K/A unknown chars (except on your own pop centers), and never known friendly chars.
Given the game is designed to beat the other side (not get individual VCs), then there’s absolutely no point in doing that kind of thing that i can conceive of, so I don’t find the 210/K/A limitations to be an issue.
All in all, GB is huge fun. I think you’d enjoy it. And if you really want fog-of-war, play GB FA. Talk about not knowing anything about your own side or the other side…
Good question - I’d like to know too - I have more than a few thoughts that I’m quite happy to be generally ripped to shreds by the community
I take your point, Ed, although I also think that sometimes there’s an element of “who blinks first” - if you spend your whole time reacting then you’re never going to win. Sometimes you have to react, but I personally believe that the best form of defence is offence.
I guess this is kinda what I had in mind - so much of initial moves can be dependent on starting spells (eg in my 1vScott Moyes I had enough DS mages for a curse/sickness/weakness squad - this let me kill Elladan when he went after RoW but freed up my assassins to take out the Dwarves I’d blocked SE of Goblin Gate - otherwise I might have done things differently) - but ultimately it’s the broad strategies that I’m interested in. For example, there are those who believe that defeating the DS means destroying Mordor - whilst others believe the most efficient way is to trash the economy. Others still try for a combination - it’s these things that interest me.
Whilst I’m on that, it would be great if there was a tutorial on some of the in-game staples like transferring command of armies to avoid assassins who scout army, or setting up buyouts, even thwarting them, etc.
Scott, I don’t regard you as an “inferior” player! More’s the point, I deliberately used the speech marks because I don’t believe for a moment I’m “all that”! But I have definitely played with people whose grasp of the rules was below my own, whose definition of “acceptable losses” or “acceptable risks” was different to my own, and whose knowledge of the role of their nation in the team was different to my own - and in a number of these cases I feel no shame at all in naming those inferior players.
I totally agree - I was just illustrating my belief that some people don’t publish their strategies because they are afraid that they might be used against them in other games.
So the work put into developing a strategy defines whether or not it should be put in the public domain? I don’t think that’s what you mean, but I would certainly disagree with that.
Teams put huge quantities of time into proposing, eliminating, selecting, refining and implementing successful strategies. But, to my mind at least, they only work in exactly that way for that game: with those starting spells, those players, those character bonuses, etc. From that perspective I genuinely see nothing wrong with teams releasing the rationales behind their moves.
If it isn’t fear of losing then I presume it’s some form of pride. Which is fine to an extent - teams who develop these successful strategies have much to be proud of! But from my perspective there’s a lot to be said for the metagame - I’d rather there were hundreds of players who were aware of “advanced strategies” than dozens - if nothing else it makes open and gunboat games more interesting
Quiet Dude:
I said adapt not react. A finite difference between the two.
David:
Yes the infamous VCs. Many people don’t understand them. Just like many people didn’t understand the usefulness of ransom demands. What we don’t understand we disparage and want to get rid of.
It would be an interesting idea to bring back some variant where individual nation VCs somehow mattered and there was no moratorium on intra-allegiance, er, em, “actions”…
I addresssed that in another thread, it was ignored…guess there nobody wanted to “let the cat out of the bag” also, eh? Better keep getting FP playing newbies on an increasingly regular basis then, eh?
oh pshaw. our team just won a game as FP against a competent, previously unbeaten DS team, in 10 turns. I don’t believe for a minute that being DS means you’re “unbeatable”. We’re currently playing DS and the FP are whooping it up on us (mostly because we made too many stupid mistakes early).
Anyway, I think your inference that playing DS in 12v12 is “unbeatable” is silly.
The truth is not relevant - perception rules. I’d asked and been ignored as to the actual results - games won by each allegiance, updated since the old GSI data was published. I suspect 1650 is at least 66+% DS victory, and I presume that’s not worth publishing “officially” because it takes the presumed “fairness” out of the set up.
As a result of the perception, and the differences in game play tendancies between the “character” DS and the “military” FP, I would hazard to presume that there is a significant community of players who simply do not play FP.
I don’t agree, and end up as FP more often than not, but I’m pretty convinced of my assumptions here…happy to be proven wrong.
Agree with you, Brad, perception rules. My considered opinion is that the FP have a slight edge, but not many share that view.
What the DS have going for them is that ‘combined arms’ is a requirement while many FP just try and get by with military and economic actions.
In a recent grudge game I was Cardolan. When I started making more than the minimum of agents and emissaries, a famous player (scores well on the PRS) went into rage over it. Insisting that I should make C/As. Afterall I was a military nation–hired armies for free, commanders at 40, etc, etc Cardolan’s emmi attack on and capture of Dol Goldor broke the DS will to resist. But this guy had a military fixation and didn’t think long-term about combined arms. A lot of people are like that.
This game can be played on many levels. Some levels are invisible to some people…
Perhaps even articles relating to “theatres”? Eg, Rhun?