GameIdea

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I have noticed a continuing theme in games lately:

The more experienced players attack the nearby fodder
Their country gets big from fodder or weak players
Once big, the time to manage becomes great

Result:
The stronger players rarely attack one another
and we have what is usually a boring end game.

Idea:
Would a Deity run a game with pre selected allies
or
have 2 'captain' countries choose their allies from the list of
registrants.
(like the old sandlot days where 2 leaders would choose sides)

This way we have enemies decied from the start and wars can begin from the
start.

I know Jeff Cotter tried this once in a StarWars game but the number of
countries playing was only
six and one dropped out. This scenario would require at least 10 countries.

Thistle

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Great idea, I've had that one too.
Lots of complications.

Take an example of the PZ series of games for the cast of players.

Ok, we got a list of countries. But not everyone uses their usual name.
How do we vote on the captains?

One idea I bounced off of Ski was that myself and Ski are then the deity
captains, as we know the identities of the players, and then can pick our teams.
But what if someone gets on the same team as someone they totally despise? what
happens when someone goes on vacation / loses connection for a week due to
hurrican Thistle, etc.

We'd need an option in the server for 'DEITY_HARD_CODED_RELATIONS" to prevent
players from giving all their sectors to allies, or from allies attacking each
other. But then that affects UW farms. I'd guess with SLOW_WAR enabled, the
teams pre-declared AT_WAR, and a deity paying attention to allies declaring war
on each other then correcting it, it might work.


It would take some practice runs to get it right. Not sure how everyone feels
about being GUINNEA_PIGS_2.


-Bungy (looking forward to the reality sheep show)








"Thistle" <mmackubin@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nH0We.69198$p_1.39873@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> I have noticed a continuing theme in games lately:
>
> The more experienced players attack the nearby fodder
> Their country gets big from fodder or weak players
> Once big, the time to manage becomes great
>
> Result:
> The stronger players rarely attack one another
> and we have what is usually a boring end game.
>
> Idea:
> Would a Deity run a game with pre selected allies
> or
> have 2 'captain' countries choose their allies from the list of
> registrants.
> (like the old sandlot days where 2 leaders would choose sides)
>
> This way we have enemies decied from the start and wars can begin from the
> start.
>
> I know Jeff Cotter tried this once in a StarWars game but the number of
> countries playing was only
> six and one dropped out. This scenario would require at least 10 countries.
>
> Thistle
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

To resolve the first issue: everyone would have to identify themselves, so a
Captain
could then consider the player personality/cooperation and past hard
feelings.

The second problem can not always be fixed, which is why I required at least
10 countries. 5 vs 4 for a week is manageable but 3 vs 2 is not. Besides the
same thing
happens in all games. Players drop out for various reasons and the lucky guy
next door
gets an easy kill.

Thistle

"Bungholio" <empire_bungholioNOSAPM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6H2We.3599$YI6.1973@trnddc05...
> Great idea, I've had that one too.
> Lots of complications.
>
> Take an example of the PZ series of games for the cast of players.
>
> Ok, we got a list of countries. But not everyone uses their usual name.
> How do we vote on the captains?
>
> One idea I bounced off of Ski was that myself and Ski are then the deity
> captains, as we know the identities of the players, and then can pick our
> teams.
> But what if someone gets on the same team as someone they totally despise?
> what
> happens when someone goes on vacation / loses connection for a week due to
> hurrican Thistle, etc.
>
> We'd need an option in the server for 'DEITY_HARD_CODED_RELATIONS" to
> prevent
> players from giving all their sectors to allies, or from allies attacking
> each
> other. But then that affects UW farms. I'd guess with SLOW_WAR enabled,
> the
> teams pre-declared AT_WAR, and a deity paying attention to allies
> declaring war
> on each other then correcting it, it might work.
>
>
> It would take some practice runs to get it right. Not sure how everyone
> feels
> about being GUINNEA_PIGS_2.
>
>
> -Bungy (looking forward to the reality sheep show)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Thistle" <mmackubin@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nH0We.69198$p_1.39873@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> I have noticed a continuing theme in games lately:
>>
>> The more experienced players attack the nearby fodder
>> Their country gets big from fodder or weak players
>> Once big, the time to manage becomes great
>>
>> Result:
>> The stronger players rarely attack one another
>> and we have what is usually a boring end game.
>>
>> Idea:
>> Would a Deity run a game with pre selected allies
>> or
>> have 2 'captain' countries choose their allies from the list of
>> registrants.
>> (like the old sandlot days where 2 leaders would choose sides)
>>
>> This way we have enemies decied from the start and wars can begin from
>> the
>> start.
>>
>> I know Jeff Cotter tried this once in a StarWars game but the number of
>> countries playing was only
>> six and one dropped out. This scenario would require at least 10
>> countries.
>>
>> Thistle
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Thistle I completely agree with you. The current game dynamic creates
exactly the scenario you describe. In EuroEmpires IV the top players
have gotten big from lawnmowing the fodder and the two top-rated
players have declared victory because too much time is required to
manage their huge countries.

I proposed a different solution in a previous post ('Idea for a new
game option - HAP_POP'). Large countries should be penalised using
existing options like TECH_POP but a new option should be introduced
that means happiness becomes increasingly expensive (refer to my
previous post for the details). I'm sure there are other ways big
countries can be penalised.

The end result I have in mind is that more limited wars will be fought
and will conclude with treaties that leave the losing nation mostly
intact but either forced to ally or pay tribute to the victor. Due to
the penalties that accrue with size it should be beneficial for the
victor to allow the loser to continue administering their country. This
should also prevent the power chart leaders from becoming so big that
country management becomes too time consuming.

I do like your idea of pre-defined alliances. After all the deity is
the boss so if a country breaks the rules they should be penalised or
if that doesn't work designate their sectors as sea or give them to
another player in the same alliance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Hey, great answers. But more questions arose.

Identities would have to be thru a deity who could validate their authenticity.
We've had times where old-scholl players left, and another newbie came along and
happened to pick the same name.

The voting phase would be tricky. Like:
Day 0: cutoff for registration, countries registering are to say if they want to
be considered captain or not in sign up form, Deity will post all captain
country nominations and send out voting forms.
Day 2: votes are in, captains are named, captains choose their teams. Somehow?
ping/pong match with the deity?
Day 3: game opens with teams set.

Somewhere the deity would have to say placement is either random, or all teams
are alligned/positioned somehow.



How would we handle liberated territory?


Would it be unreasonable to ask that all players that play pass a basic skillz
test? such as a TZx diploma (or equivalent via reputation)?

We'd need to make it known upfront that a dedicated set of players is requested
here.


Bungy (changing to www.stado.org as new homepage)






"Thistle" <mmackubin@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:LJ3We.76715$xl6.39999@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> To resolve the first issue: everyone would have to identify themselves, so a
> Captain
> could then consider the player personality/cooperation and past hard
> feelings.
>
> The second problem can not always be fixed, which is why I required at least
> 10 countries. 5 vs 4 for a week is manageable but 3 vs 2 is not. Besides the
> same thing
> happens in all games. Players drop out for various reasons and the lucky guy
> next door
> gets an easy kill.
>
> Thistle
>
> "Bungholio" <empire_bungholioNOSAPM@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:6H2We.3599$YI6.1973@trnddc05...
> > Great idea, I've had that one too.
> > Lots of complications.
> >
> > Take an example of the PZ series of games for the cast of players.
> >
> > Ok, we got a list of countries. But not everyone uses their usual name.
> > How do we vote on the captains?
> >
> > One idea I bounced off of Ski was that myself and Ski are then the deity
> > captains, as we know the identities of the players, and then can pick our
> > teams.
> > But what if someone gets on the same team as someone they totally despise?
> > what
> > happens when someone goes on vacation / loses connection for a week due to
> > hurrican Thistle, etc.
> >
> > We'd need an option in the server for 'DEITY_HARD_CODED_RELATIONS" to
> > prevent
> > players from giving all their sectors to allies, or from allies attacking
> > each
> > other. But then that affects UW farms. I'd guess with SLOW_WAR enabled,
> > the
> > teams pre-declared AT_WAR, and a deity paying attention to allies
> > declaring war
> > on each other then correcting it, it might work.
> >
> >
> > It would take some practice runs to get it right. Not sure how everyone
> > feels
> > about being GUINNEA_PIGS_2.
> >
> >
> > -Bungy (looking forward to the reality sheep show)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Thistle" <mmackubin@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:nH0We.69198$p_1.39873@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> I have noticed a continuing theme in games lately:
> >>
> >> The more experienced players attack the nearby fodder
> >> Their country gets big from fodder or weak players
> >> Once big, the time to manage becomes great
> >>
> >> Result:
> >> The stronger players rarely attack one another
> >> and we have what is usually a boring end game.
> >>
> >> Idea:
> >> Would a Deity run a game with pre selected allies
> >> or
> >> have 2 'captain' countries choose their allies from the list of
> >> registrants.
> >> (like the old sandlot days where 2 leaders would choose sides)
> >>
> >> This way we have enemies decied from the start and wars can begin from
> >> the
> >> start.
> >>
> >> I know Jeff Cotter tried this once in a StarWars game but the number of
> >> countries playing was only
> >> six and one dropped out. This scenario would require at least 10
> >> countries.
> >>
> >> Thistle
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

> We'd need an option in the server for 'DEITY_HARD_CODED_RELATIONS" to prevent
> players from giving all their sectors to allies, or from allies attacking each
> other. But then that affects UW farms. I'd guess with SLOW_WAR enabled, the
> teams pre-declared AT_WAR, and a deity paying attention to allies declaring war
> on each other then correcting it, it might work.
>
>
Doug,

I have been working on a training version of the server.
One of the features is that declare command is a deity-only command.

Based on the current schedule I expect to submit it to wolfpack for
inclusion in 4.2.23 release. If there is interest, I can submit for
inclusion in 4.2.22.

Ron K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I would have thought that somebody like yourself would have a fair idea
of who is a good player, who is a middling player, and who is a
relative newbie, so that the deity could divide up the players into
fair teams. And I guess we can always ask people to rate themselves if
necessary. As a last resort, the Empire Rankings can be used.

Another possibility is that a game can be run where we pair all the
relative newbies with an experienced player as co-rulers, so that there
will be no fodder. This would prevent lawnmowing, and furthermore,
allows the newbies to learn from the experienced players. Another
benefit of this is that it prevents a couple of good players co-ruling
and being online most of the time, an almost unbeatable combination.

Might lead to a few problems if the co-rulers disagree with each other,
but if you can't work with a coruler, then it is unlikely that you will
be great in the diplomatic aspects of the game!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Gary Bone wrote:
> Thistle I completely agree with you. The current game dynamic creates
> exactly the scenario you describe. In EuroEmpires IV the top players
> have gotten big from lawnmowing the fodder and the two top-rated
> players have declared victory because too much time is required to
> manage their huge countries.
>

That is not the case at all. Actually, the update pattern was recently
changed from 47 hours to 71 hours. There is plenty of time to manage
these countries. I submit to you that the game has run out of targets.

Well, one (target) volunteered, but then there will soon be no more
targets again.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

What about having neighboring countries relation status be determined
each update with some probability resulting in either a + or - 1 added
to the relationship. The series could be on a scale from -5 to 5. A
negative represents poor relations, -3 is war, and -5 freezes the
series number whereby the country is at war with the opposing country
for the remainder of the game.

Countries are not allowed to upgrade relations only downgrade if they
choose. The number of enemy sectors taken/held could then be part of
the winner equation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Thistle" <mmackubin@cfl.rr.com> writes:

> I have noticed a continuing theme in games lately:
>
> The more experienced players attack the nearby fodder
> Their country gets big from fodder or weak players
> Once big, the time to manage becomes great
>
> Result:
> The stronger players rarely attack one another
> and we have what is usually a boring end game.

There have been exceptions, but I can't deny that what you describe is
common.

> Idea:
> Would a Deity run a game with pre selected allies
> or
> have 2 'captain' countries choose their allies from the list of
> registrants.
> (like the old sandlot days where 2 leaders would choose sides)
>
> This way we have enemies decied from the start and wars can begin from the
> start.
>
> I know Jeff Cotter tried this once in a StarWars game but the number of
> countries playing was only
> six and one dropped out. This scenario would require at least 10 countries.

Eight countries, one got disconnected and dropped out.

There was also Pat's Twisted Mind 2K4, which put veteran/fodder pairs
together with a strong incentive to cooperate. That seemed to have
worked well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Bungholio" <empire_bungholioNOSAPM@verizon.net> writes:

> Great idea, I've had that one too.
> Lots of complications.
>
> Take an example of the PZ series of games for the cast of players.
>
> Ok, we got a list of countries. But not everyone uses their usual name.
> How do we vote on the captains?
>
> One idea I bounced off of Ski was that myself and Ski are then the deity
> captains, as we know the identities of the players, and then can pick our teams.
> But what if someone gets on the same team as someone they totally despise? what
> happens when someone goes on vacation / loses connection for a week due to
> hurrican Thistle, etc.

As long as players know what they sign up for...

Two teams is an unstable configuration. Even random events beyond
anybody's control can easily give one side an advantage sufficient to
gain supremacy. I figure such random fluctuations are less relevant
in bellum omnium contra omnes. Perhaps three teams would work better.
Or worse, who knows.

> We'd need an option in the server for 'DEITY_HARD_CODED_RELATIONS" to prevent
> players from giving all their sectors to allies, or from allies attacking each
> other. But then that affects UW farms. I'd guess with SLOW_WAR enabled, the
> teams pre-declared AT_WAR, and a deity paying attention to allies declaring war
> on each other then correcting it, it might work.

For TM 2K4, Pat disabled the declare command, and that caused grief
when the server downgraded relations of allies.

> It would take some practice runs to get it right. Not sure how everyone feels
> about being GUINNEA_PIGS_2.
>
>
> -Bungy (looking forward to the reality sheep show)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87ek7qnwoe.fsf@pond.sub.org...
> "Thistle" <mmackubin@cfl.rr.com> writes:
>
>> Result:
>> The stronger players rarely attack one another
>> and we have what is usually a boring end game.
>
> There have been exceptions, but I can't deny that what you describe is
> common.
>

That is because most of the "strong players" now actively participating
are abject cowards. Everyone can see who has seized an advantage quite
early in any game; a blind butcher with palsy can count on one hand the
number of "name" players who will actually fight when faced with the
possibility of being zero'ed out. The fact that some countries figure out
an optimum strategy for early expansion is not something that should
be penalized, because _nothing_ you do will change the fact that most
"competent" players are afraid to fight against a someone who is in a
stronger
position. No matter how you change the rules, they will find a reason
to drop down on their knees and beg for survival.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Well you're entitled to your opinion but with respect I disagree. This
is a game not a networking event. Everybody assumed a European country
name so should have been playing anonymously so friendships and prior
shared history should not have entered into the equation. The fact is
there was a lot of scope for more game play but this was brought to an
end because people refused to play the game. What's wrong with fighting
someone you have been allied with all game? Isn't the object of the
game to win. There should be no hard feelings. I think people are
taking things way too seriously. We're here to have fun right?

Apologies for the rant but I've just come back from a long liquid lunch
and need to get this off my chest.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I accept your points. I guess I'm expecting an empire game to be more
real-world, where, as Kissinger said, 'Nations don't have friends, they
have interests'. As the community is so small and the same players keep
bumping into each other every game I can see why the concept of honour
becomes important. I still think it would be refreshing to have the
occasional no-holds-barred game where players play anonymously and can
assume a role for that specific game where they are free to act without
fear of any consequences the next time they play.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Hey Geoff, I really appreciate your taking the time to reply in detail.
Shame Italy got bogged down in the south, had he got stuck into you
guys the game might have ended differently.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Gary Bone" <garycbone@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126877254.076652.320940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well you're entitled to your opinion but with respect I disagree. This
> is a game not a networking event. Everybody assumed a European country
> name so should have been playing anonymously so friendships and prior
> shared history should not have entered into the equation. The fact is
> there was a lot of scope for more game play but this was brought to an
> end because people refused to play the game. What's wrong with fighting
> someone you have been allied with all game? Isn't the object of the
> game to win. There should be no hard feelings. I think people are
> taking things way too seriously. We're here to have fun right?
>
> Apologies for the rant but I've just come back from a long liquid lunch
> and need to get this off my chest.
>

The problem I see with your position is that you do
not understand the nature of alliances. Long-term
alliances require trust at the outset. There is far too
much risk to become allied with an unknown or
distrusted country. Then, once you have been fighting
side-by-side and sharing each other's resources,
the allied members have too much intelligence on
their allies and the individual alliance members are
not positioned to defend against their allies.

There is too much accusation against the "good ole
boy" network always allying and never fighting.
Many times experienced players will fight in one game
and ally in the next. It comes down to position,
opportunity and lots of diplomacy. If you feel that
you continuously get excluded from the developing
alliances, I suggest you work on the following aspects
of your gameplay that all other Empire players will
be watching:
1. Diplomacy - neighbors what to have some type
of relationship to build basis for trust
2. Run a strong economy - if you are wasting your
own resources, a neighbor will decide to run them
for you - you must get technology running smoothly
at the first available time to be credible (you do not
need to be tech leader to win however)
3. If you are attacked, fight back - I have seen
(and experienced multiple times) alliances form
between an attacker and a defender once they
both decided the other was a neighbor more valuable
alive than dead - even if you are ground to dust,
you must fight back because your performance
will be remembered when you are identified in the
next game
4. Diplomacy (I cannot say it enough) - I perceive
that many of the countries that whine about these
issues are the same players that fail repeatedly
to build relationships with neighbors - you can even
build relationships with players while fighting them
(I chat with players I am fighting all the time.)

Most Empire players are honorable. The time invested
in any game is immense. Do not expect the experienced
players to risk that investment without caution. Build
a persona (or several), fight honorably and run your
country well and you will be part of successful alliances.
If you whine too much, experienced players will use
you for target practice. This game has many faults -
do not expect to change the nature of gameplay to
fix the issues discussed above.

Tom
(Ski)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Hmmmm... seems Italy got bogged down with a ... fodder opponent... how
ironic..


"Gary Bone" <garycbone@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126885638.348005.234680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hey Geoff, I really appreciate your taking the time to reply in detail.
> Shame Italy got bogged down in the south, had he got stuck into you
> guys the game might have ended differently.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

>>
>> Most Empire players are honorable. The time invested
>
>
> This is a problem. We need more backstabbers. We should expand beyond
> our
> traditional fields (science and engineering types), and get more
> business-school players. Let them form their new old-boy networks, and
> have
> more solo wins.
>
>
> -harmless

Sounds like an exciting game. Maybe we need a game without NA agreements as
the
answer. Either ally with me or risk a war. Of course this reqires players to
be honorable
in playing the rule.

My original post essentially left out diplomacy by choosing sides
beforehand.

Thistle

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:34:07 +0000, Drake Diedrich wrote:
>> Most Empire players are honorable. The time invested
>
>
> This is a problem. We need more backstabbers. We should expand beyond our
> traditional fields (science and engineering types), and get more
> business-school players. Let them form their new old-boy networks, and have
> more solo wins.

I totally agree with this. Lately, I've been playing alot less empire and
more Diplomacy and other board games, online and off. I've also been
thinking about empire as it relates to playing board games.

In Empire, if I stab you, that's it. Enemies forever! If I take some of
your sectors, that's it. "I will wipe you off the map!"

In few other fun games is it like this. Think back to all of those Risk
games we played as kids. I take over half the map. You take it back.

Do any of you play Diplomacy? You have to adjust relationships constantly!

I wish empire had more of that. We should all be playing solo-ruled
countries. There should be more give-and-take. It's a very cold and
static game now.

Yes, running a 500 sector country is not doable as a solo ruler. That
should be fixed. No food is big. Replacing scads of production sectors
with plains and sea helps. Would have been cool if EE9's plains sectors
were not ownable. Or, perhaps were ownable, but had fixed civs and didn't
revolt.

Making the update is still critical. How can that be fixed?

I think the ideal empire game would see little in the way of automated
defenses. Territories swap sides constantly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

>In Empire, if I stab you, that's it. Enemies forever!

Some players, my self included, take backstabbing very seriously. We
can't stop other players from backstabbing, but we can certainly make
it long-term costly if they choose to adopt it as their playing style.
My theory is, make the costs of of backstabbing Plundaria so high, that
many longterm players will choose other means of achieving their goals.
Of course they could hide under one-time country names, but that does
nothing towards establishing a "name brand" country that is recognized
and remembered.

>If I take some of your sectors, that's it. "I will wipe you off the map!"

Well I've found this is not the case in my experience. I've seen minor
sector takes go largely unpunished in many games. It depends on the
timing and relative value of the sectors in question. Mostly I think
players who are looking for a target are the ones who react the
strongest to the least little infraction. After all, it is a war game.
I've declared war on someone just because they starved their civs or
made too many annoying announcements. Doesn't take much to provoke an
empire player when they have got no current target and are ready to
attack one.


Plundaria
An equal opprotunity aggressor since 1992
Coming to a beachhead near you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

> Yep. Here is the standard script below. Doing this will put you in the
> top half of the pack, and make you potential ally material.
>
> a) *FEED YOUR PEOPLE*. Every update. (exceptions if you're Evil_Empire or
> reducing captured populations).
> b) Keep no more than max_civs in every sector, maximizing pop growth. Put
> in extra food to be sure to get growth (not just verifying that there's
> no starvation with starv *).
> c) Build iron on the first update.
> d) Build lcm, hcm, and a harbor on the second update.
> e) Build ship(s), edu, oil and dust on the third update. Build enough edu
> to make tech the following update. Cost is proportional to population,
> so build all the edu you can the first couple updates.
> f) Build tech on the fourth update, and every update thereafter. Try not to
> build it in bursts - a steady maintainable rate is more efficient. Using
> all your available resources on tech is a dangerous strategy. Once your
> treasury bottoms out (from building tech), you should generally spend the
> new surpluses on expansion, not increased tech production.
> g) Try to bring productive sectors straight to 100% efficiency in one update
> (harbors excluded). Extract all dust in one update (ie. 600 work in a 0%
> sector usually takes 768 civs and a couple of uws to extract all dust.
> Trading uw's for civs is possible if you've been careful with your
> mobility, and gives you better tax revenues).
> h) All excess work should be spent extracting dust and making bars. Use
> dist direct to the bank(s) to move the dust (it's heavy).
>
> Practice getting this script down in the blitzes, particularly the one-hour
> with-food blitz (Zebra?)


The above is a good menu plan, but it is lacking the
required recipies for each course. I have found in my
Training Zoo 1 game, that players aren't seeing *how*
to make that happen. Conservation of mobility, using
0,0 and 2,0 for production and distibution, and focussing
on keeping it simple the first update are not obvious
to the new players.

IE: getting from step c) to d) is not obvious, for how to
get the iron and civs to the new J and K sectors. Use of
distribution and utilization of the mobility in 0,0 and
2,0 is key on the first update.

With my intense Training Zoo 1 session, I think some
are getting it and seeing how to make it happen. I've
put a lot of time into the TZ1 game, and I hope the
students there are learning and can provide feedback
from how well the course material was received.

The bottom line that should be learned from all of this,
is if you do not make tech on the 4th update (in a
standard game setup), then you will already be
pegged as an easy target. It is obvious on the
power chart that you are unable to manage your
resources effectively. The data in the power chart
indicates quite a lot. Learn how to read the power
chart for who is doing what, you should be archiving
snapshots every update of the power and report *.
If you can show that you can manage your resources
effectively, then other experienced players will respect
that.

-Bungy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Plundaria wrote:
> Now, personally, I wouldn't call harmless, Syria in EE9, a fodder.
> Ankara, was no fodder either. No slight intended to our other victims,
> these are just the ones relevant to the topic at hand.
>
> Now I'm not saying that other players haven't chosen the lawnmower
> playbook for their empire strategy. But in the case of EE9, you need
> to get your facts straight. Such statements are not helping yourself or
> the empire community.
>

As ruler of Ankara, I appreciate the props. As discussed at length in
my rantings of a newbie here, I am torn on this discussion. I am glad
that I am not considered fodder, but a newbie I will admit to.

I have a few problems with the way games are played (and I am sure they
have all been mentioned here at some point).

1) The over emphasis of "making it" to the end game. Players seem to
too easily fall under the umbrella of a stonger nation. In both games
I have played there was a chance/time for several smaller nations to
unite against a stonger foe, and in neither did they. In EE9, after I
was slapped aside by Austria it seemed the rest of the region was happy
to roll over and let Austria continue unabated. I for one would rather
stand up and fight and risk losing it all then become a kept country
just to make it to the end game. Why is this?? Do people hold too much
over from game to game?? Time commitments?? What is the reason, I dont
know, but folks this is a war game, stand up and fight.

2) The hording of inside knowledge. Maybe hording is the wrong term,
but in both games I made errors that can only be attributed to lack of
knowledge and inexperience. It seems most players are willing to help
to a point, but not to give up some of their "secrets". Its not that I
want tactics etc, but things like spy before taking a sector so you can
tell how much Che is generated, what are the stregths and weaknesses of
certain ships, how to effectively hunt subs, etc. Yes the info pages
are nice but I have had talks with experienced players who dont know
answers to what I would consider basic stuff.

3) The total unwillingness of anyone to flip sides, or turn on a
player. Why do Empire players need the memories of Elephants? I think
what allows stronger players to lawnmower is the ability to fight only
one or two fronts because NA's with others are never broken. If
stonger players had to worry about all fronts and spread themself a
little thinner it might be different. Play each game and then let it
go. I understand if every game the same people backstab then okay its
a pattern, but if once in a while I take a cheap shot at your unexposed
flank, dont hold it against me forever, its a game. And I bet next
game you might leave a few resources on that front too. More units =
more $$ = Harder to lawnmower.

As always the only way to make this game better is to have bantering
like this.

Also major props to Bungy for running an awsome TZ1. Now can we get a
once a month Blitz going??

Carl - A Big Fish in a Small Pond

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I did play in EE9 (Tunisia) and after reading your response perhaps I
didn't pay much attention to your battle with Ankara. Thanks for
providing me with the facts.

I don't however see how expressing an opinion and starting a debate is
unhelpful to the empire community (or myself for that matter). I'd say
it's quite the opposite. A lively (and civil) debate can only be
beneficial.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

}I don't however see how expressing an opinion and starting a debate is
}unhelpful to the empire community (or myself for that matter). I'd say
}it's quite the opposite. A lively (and civil) debate can only be
}beneficial.

You take a mild roasting well.

I find up holding the myth that all strong empire players only attack
fodder then end the game once the fodder is gone very damaging. If I
was an outsider looking at playing empire and I read such things, I
would probably not play. Just my opinion, but it is how I see it. I do
not want new players to be put off by that misrepresentation.

Lively civil debate is always welcomed.

-Plundaria
1/4 of Austria
1/3 Rohan (LOTR II)
1/4 Nifleim
1/4 Enron
108% annoying.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

}As a newbie myself, the only problem I have is the multi-ruler thing.
I
}understand that there is no way to stop it, but every game I have ever
}played, I was dealt the crippling blow when I was not on, ie 3am on a
work
}night... never ceases, every time. It's a little frustrating to
someone
}like me who use to play empire during the Escher days, and now is
trying to
}get back into it again...
}
}Again, nothing we can do about it, but there is a definate advantage
to
}nations that are logged on around the clock.

Interesting, Escher was one of the more dominate coruled countries of
that period. Stomped me more than once. Of course about everyone has at
one time or another, it was a big part of my learning the game.
Probably had a bit to do with my diplomatic style as well...

3am attacks are a fact of life in empire. It doesn't matter if you are
single or co-ruled,
someone will map your activity patterns in empire and try to exploit
it. I think winace even has a button you can click to do the mapping
for you. I don't do windows, so I can not personally confirm that.
Now there are several contermeasures, one of my favorites is simply
picking a time period when you are usually on and making sure you NEVER
do anything that generates news during that time period. Setup your
distribution, move commodities, redesignate sectors, etc. but leave the
war-toys alone!
Keeping potential enemies on the defensive and never letting go of the
initiative are also good counter measures. It is best never to let the
war start with someone invading your territory, meet them on the high
seas, or even better, invade them first! Their are other ways to
counter I'm sure, clever folks may even suggest them here, I have
just offered a couple of mine.

Plundaria
Posting way too much lately....