I am 100% with the sentiment of 'no resignation' but it is not always possible for a player to continue for 'real life' reasons in which case the best compromise is to offer a switch to AI or take over by a player not already in the game (or an ally in a game with fixed alliances). Of course if the position is completely hopeless it's best to just switch on AI for the remaining couple of turns!

I agree that balancing is not easy and also that it's not absolutely necessary. Think of the classic game of Diplomacy. Italy is widely regarded as the worst country to pick but it doesn't make the game broken. There is the advantage that you can place better players with the perceived weaker sides.

Talking of Diplomacy, would anyone fancy a PBEM game? We'd need 7. It's an experience not to be missed )

www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/483/diplomacy

One thing that Diplomacy teaches you (and to an even greater extent poker) is that you should never play predicatably forever. It is fine to be known as 'the defensive player' if sometimes you play aggressively because that catches people out and you can then be able to take advantage. For example, Lars, reading your posts would mean that in future games your neighbours will happily expand aggressively and not care about leaving garrisons behind. The knowledge you give them gives them a weapon to use against you!

Ian

Ian,

Obviously it would still be perfectly acceptable if 'real life issues' prevent you from continuing a game. In that situation I think attempts should be made to find a replacement player, and if not, then perhaps it would be an option for another team mate to take over.

True, true, one shouldn't play the same way every time. Still, it is often pretty clear if another player is expanding too aggressively, and playing defensively doesn't mean I won't act on perceived weaknesses in my opponents play. It can also be great fun to do something totally unexpected. Being known as a defensive player is a pretty good starting point, if you ask me.

People happily expanding and leaving their cities undefended sounds like more of a threat to them than to me

Lord Snow

... and regarding Diplomacy. I think I've got my strategic gaming needs covered with Warlords for the time being

Batz,

I'm not saying the Maggots are over powered. I merely said they are well suited to an early flying rush because they have a fair number of flying units in mercs/allies so you have a high chance to get them. I too discount the Dragon because if I got one I wouldn't waste it on a rush. But all the other flying units are meant to rush because that's all they are good for. Their value diminishes rapidly over time as the number of archery units increases and because none of those fliers contributes any of the 6 bonus or other stack skills (group lightning/acid/warding) that make them worth saving.

Production wise they seem like a typical side (I have not played them yet). One cheap 1 turn unit that forms the bulk of your armies (the +1 archery is nice, one expensive 1 turn unit you rarely buy (similar to Dark Archers/Elf Archers, Reavers etc), mediocre 2 turn units, some decent 3&4 turn units.

To me how good a side plays is determined by 4 things.

1) Value of the cheap 1 turn units because these are made in masses so any useful skill / terrain bonus here is important.
2) Value of the Merc 1/Ally 1 slot because these are what come from easy quests so any useful skill here is important.
3) Access to the 6 bonus's (from units or heroes)
4) Location on the map including corner spots, access to good sites, lots of ruins, do neutrals contain free production you can use etc.

The money issue is a factor for all sides. This is where easy quests + flights matters. You see, you can quite often get an endlessly repeatable easy quest of secret message/carry gift to a neutral city that can be completed once a turn hopefully for gold. Razed cities are neutrals too. So in the right map location with a razed/neutral city close by (even as close as 6-7 squares) on a road you can endlessly quest to it for gold. I've done this often on this map and raised hundreds / thousands of gold in a few turns. So that super city with the -3 production site makes a perfect easy quest from the city just below it on the road in the middle of the mountains. You can easily quest there once a turn for gold/mercs/allies and simply spent your level points on hero movement until your hero moves 40 a turn and does nothing but raise gold over and over again. Cheesy? Sure, but it's highly effective on a map like this with limited gold and a nice way to raise lots of armies quickly.

Lord Snow,

Players live and die with the events menu. It's important to review it to see what's happening/happened in the game. I wouldn't want to play without viewing it.

As far as resigning goes, if I want to resign again, I'll simply offer to let you or Peter play my turns out. Does that work?

KGB

P.S. Been forever since I played Diplomacy. As in 20+ years since I was in college and could easily gather the 5-7 players needed for a game. Like Lord Snow, I have other strategy games on the go (DLR, War4, Warbarons, Colossus/Titan). But at some point I might want to give the game another try simply for the Diplomatic aspect of it. Did you ever play a game called Machiavelli? It's almost identical to Diplomacy except it's set totally in Italy during Machiavelli's time. Your job is to unit the individual states into the country. Exact same game mechanisms as Diplomacy with extra additions of cities (an army can occupy a territory ala Diplomacy AND the city within that territory so there can be potentially 2 armies in a territory) / besieging those cities and assassination (you can assassinate another player which prevents him from doing orders for 2 turns until a new leader replaces the one you assassinated). Tons of fun.

KGB,

Yes, I think it would be a good solution if you (in a future game) were to hand over the game to a team mate rather than resigning. Of course our opponents would have to agree to that as well.

Thank you very much for giving me your password. I have looked at your turn, and I have to say that I am totally baffled at the placement of your troops.

I also think that your overall position is way too good to justify a resignation in a team game - particularly considering that your opponents did not know that your capital was undefended. As previously discussed, this is obviously a question of gaming philosopy, past experiences and temperament.

Would you be interested in a 1v1 game? Perhaps a mirror game with two games on the same map and with reversed starting positions. I don't think I stand much of a chance, but I find your playing style very interesting and I am eager to learn. You are probably too busy, but if so, then perhaps you could keep me in mind when you feel like a 1v1 game. If you are interested, I would like to have a common understanding that the game might be quite slow due to other obligations. I probably shouldn't be starting up any more games given that my wife is "scheduled" to give birth around May 23rd, but it is just too tempting!

It has been a long time since I had my last 1v1 game, and it would be great to get a chance to dust off my primary - and largely untested - army set and learn from one of the best players - if not THE best player.

Lord Snow

Ian,

Gold is supposed to be a problem in Myth. That's been a core value of the scenario since the first version. This makes more advanced troops rare and interesting when they actually come into play. Furthermore it forces the players to make choices. Buy production, buy heroes, buy items, build many cheap units or a few advanced, move out in great numbers or conduct more of a guerilla warfare. And ultimately it forces the player to raise funds via other means than conquest. War is supposed to be expensive, and I feel I have successfully achieved this with Myth. If gold is not a problem, why even have it as a parameter in the game?

My take on the resign rule is that if a player is clearly losing in FFA he should be allowed to resign but announce this formally and provide password rather than just resigning in-game. It should be up to the other players then to either set him to AI or find a replacement, or otherwise just let the resignation go through with all of his remaining cities razed as a result.

In a team game I think the player that's about to lose should discuss the matter with his team mates before doing anything drastic. If the majority agrees on resignation, then resignation it is. If the majority disagrees, then it should be up to the other players to find a replacement for the player that deems he stands no chance.

If a player does not have time to play, on the other hand, then it's that players responsibility to find a replacement, whether it's a team game or a FFA game.

Of course one could have a "no resign rule" for a game but everyone would have to agree on that prior to starting the game. Personally I tend to play until the end but I don't want to force that upon other players. Most players that are losing tend to take forever to make their turns. Better to get rid of them entirely than having everyone suffer from their super slow deaths.

A much better rule than "no resignation" would be to give each player a maximum number of days to make his turn and perhaps a few bonus days as well to use over time. If a player takes too long, then the others should have the right, by vote of majority, to kick that player out of the game and find a replacement, resign him or set to AI. The problem with Warlords is that games take too long - due to irresponsible players - not that they end too quickly.

Lord Snow,

Lord Snow wrote:


Which ones are confusing you?

Here is a synopsis of my turns:

1) Send Wolf/Hag/4 Barbarians (need the wolf for woods movement) toward the production -1 city. Hero + rest of armies completes a quest on the city south of my capitol getting Frost Giants as a reward. I lost all units but hero and wolf.
2) Fully expecting Bill to rush some units at me (which I was 100% right about) I send some toward him hoping to raze the city just above his homeland, ideally right after he takes it. I send the Wolf (needed for woods move) + Giants and newly made Barbarian. My other stack gets close to the production city. Hero moves back to capitol to get another quest and summon Ravens.
3) I get 3 Merc Giants in my capitol. My new quest is the city just above my capitol and I begin slogging the swamp. With the Mercs and Ravens I realize I can send newly made armies around the mountain range to the Elf Archer city. The idea being I'll have 2-3 men there ready including a siege unit when my hero flies in to take that city. I capture the Production -1 city losing 3 Barbarians. My armies continue south toward Bill looking for his armies. I see nothing and reach the city (neutral) at the end of my movement. I attack and lose some units. Since I can't raze after capture, I have to guess how close he might be to that city. Rather than risk losing the city I raze.
4) I continue through the swamp with my hero stack, flying to the ruin and search it while the Giants march on. In the south I move toward Bills cities killing a goblin. The armies that took the Production city have continued northward to link up with my hero and I find Ian suddenly in that city and I attack and capture it. Still summoning Ravens only now I am looking for Ians other flier.
5) I complete my quest, get some Giants and start a ruin quest. In the south I see I am not going to reach Bills cities without being in the open where I am a sitting duck so I decide to move NE toward the city with the 100 gold site. Either I capture that or raze the site. Armies are continuing up the left side of the mountain range toward the Elf city. Despite some Ravens plus my other stack moving south earlier I do not spot Bills armies.
6) I place some Ravens in the city Bill will raze and continue on my quest and send more Ravens toward Ian who took another city just above me. I want to see what units he has there in case it's his hero, I am still looking for his flier and I want to raze the +1 hits site and generally harass him. The Giants from my quest get split and are moving down toward my capitol and up toward Ian.

And that's it. Ian's early arrival in Farmers Hill spooked me because he got there far sooner than I expected (no idea the city had no defenders) and I was seriously worried about his other flier + the fact he took another nearby city. So most of my Ravens were focused his way plus I lost quite a few taking that city because they are useless in combat.

The position looks jumbled but that's only because you see the final end result.

Lord Snow wrote:


If I knew I wasn't losing my capitol I wouldn't resign obviously. The loss of the city + gold site isn't a big deal. But the capitol is because it's the only city that makes decent units and as we know, there is no gold to replace that loss.

Also if either you or Peter were in a position to help (gold, armies) it would be far different. But this early in the game you are too far away to render any assistance.

So with Ian right above me, my Capitol about to be razed, both Bill and Ian already with 2 heroes I felt resignation was the only realistic option.

Lord Snow wrote:


Sure. I'm away all weekend so the earliest we can start is next week.

Are you wanting to do a random map game with unlimited sets (Stormhiem/K4 Heroes)? No Teleport? Or are you looking for a game on Myth/Divine Right/Some other scenario.

You should understand that 1-1 games are vastly different than larger games. You literally devote 95% of your armies to offense/expansion because there is no enemy on the map in any direction for a long time.

KGB

KGB,

Sounds great! I'll send you my army set. And yes, I'd prefer a random map with K4SH (unlimited sets - assuming that it means that no units are banned) and no teleport.

Thank you for the synopsis of your turns - I appreciate it.

I am aware that, as you point out, any single turn will almost always look a bit jumbled when you don't know what came before it.

My primary confusion was related to all the Barbarians strung out behind the mountain range. When you say the Barbarians were supposed to join with the hero, then it makes more sense. You also explained the stack in the south which looked rather peculiar to me. It seems that it all pretty much comes down to a surprisingly aggressive playing style that I wouldn't expect to see in a team game such as this. Still, sounds like you had some bad luck in not spotting Bills armies

One last, and perhaps rather inane question. Is there a reason why your northern Ravens were grouped together in pairs rather than spread out?

Lord Snow

Lord Snow,

I realize from everyone else's perspective it seems like nothing has happened in the game by turn 6. But for me, I've razed a city in enemy territory (Bill), killed one of his scouts, captured a city from Ian and finally had one of my own cities and sites razed. Literally I've been at war since turn 3.

This isn't an atypical game experience. I've had plenty of similar games where someone is surrendering by turn 6-10 due to loss of primary hero or sacking of capitol + other cities. Other games you go to turn 15-20 and see/fight no one.

I had to send the Barbarians early because my only woods move unit (Wolves) takes 3 turns to build (I don't think it's a unit I even have in my capitol anyway) so it's going to take 4-5 turns for Barbarians to walk there. If you get a quest on that city you don't want to wait for them so I started them early.

The units in the south unfortunately missed Bills 2 units coming north. Had I seen them they would have been easily dispatched. Later my 2 Ravens missed them as well though they had limited range since they needed to return to the city each turn which didn't matter anyway.

There is no reason for the Ravens being grouped other than they come in pairs when summoned. I was splitting and rejoining them during my turn so they exposed more of the map. The reason for rejoining is if I ran into a lone enemy unit guarding a site I wanted an option to attack since they are 1/1's and super weak on their own.

KGB

P.S. Typically the only unit not used is the Cockatrice due to the movement bug it has that allows it to get perpetual movement.