In a message dated 3/19/01 9:48:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
allsorts@compuserve.com writes:
<< Okay having seen the odd FA set-up now, we had a little discussion in the
office, (yes the hours do fly), about the Worst FA set-up. The aim is to
go bankrupt on turn 1.
Harbours are nice and cheap so we'll have a coastal set of camps with every
place with a harbour, obviously spending those extra points on
fotifications (towers everywhere - not sure if Port or high level
fortifications is best here).
Then we buy warships using the 20k and obviously the biggest army that you
can. Character-wise which is best single classed big lads or multi-classed
no doubt we can go into that tomorrow. (Useless abilities would be cool as
well but heh that might be going too far).
Clint
>>
And you have transports, too or the warships would have nothing to protect,
and nobody else has anything on the coast or river so there is nothing to
invade ? And your army is all MA and too far from anyone else's PC to get
there in one turn? And your spell is Conjure Hordes so you can add more MA?
Am I getting it, Clint?
<;-) <- me wears dunce cap
(I have never played FA and have no intention of doing so, thereby preventing
my potential allies from having this nation inflicted on them.)
As an aside not related to this thread, let me pose this question, do the
better players always choose the "better" nations -- I have seen Noldo
Elves, Cloud Lord, Dk.Lts. mentioned in this forum -- thus leaving the
"worse" nations -- I have seen Woodmen, Northmen, Silvan Elves, Dragon Lord
mentioned -- for the beginners and suckers? (Does not apply to grudge games
where presumably the leaders try to assemble as strong a team as possible and
then use some sort of diplomacy (arm-twisting?) to sort out who plays which
nation.), and further, do some players accept neutral nations having decided
in advance which side they will ally with? There are opportunities for what
some might consider "cherry picking" but others consider merely expressing a
preference. Are there any ethics regarding choice of a nation? Would it be
fairer to eliminate player choice, though this would not be popular with
certain players, in non-grudge games and assign nations randomly to those who
apply to play? In team games teams would be kept within an alliance and would
not be given neutral nations, but without choice of which alliance. Think of
the added anticipation while waiting to see which nation one would get and
the thrill of being one of the "lucky" ones! Players who built up a record
of dropping games just because they didn't want to play that nation could be
suspended from entering another game for a time as punishment. While some
might howl and protest, I don't think many would quit what they recognize as
one of the best games on the PBM market. The many suggestions for
"improvements" reveal that.
Ed