Congratulations to our winner, Jason Pratt!
This was actually the first no-communication game I've played. It was a new experience for me to play a game without the political interaction with other players. It certainly changes the character of the game.
Our Warlords didn't seem to place particularly well in the finish list. How do our Warlord players feel about that--does this indicate a balance issue in the Warlord scoring table, or might you do better in the next game, with more experience in Warlord strategy? I wonder if the Warlord would do better in a full-communication game, where he could more easily enlist the help of allies in seeking targets.
David
morocco2y
Re: morocco2y
HI David
I was the one who tweaked this game. First let me comment that the high rankings of Emperor, Raider, Missionary and Collector shows me that my adjustments of their scorinng was spot on. In the original Starweb game the Raider, Missionary and Emperor were very rare winners (usually if their allies pushed them to the win).
As for the Warlord. Well, I liked that he could own robotic or converted worlds. This gives the Positronix and the Missionary a natural predator other than their own kind. But as opposed to the Raider who is also warlike but has the capture ability our poor Warlord has no special military skills. I think I would like to replay this game and boost the Warlord scoring ability. We have a few choices: 1)We could just boost the scoring as it exists. I was a very successful Warlord that crippled two players (no names) in 20 turns. Yet I only achieved a score approx 1/3 of the winning one. So we could boost the Target capture score of fleets from 20 to 50, target worlds from 100 to 250 and destroyed target ships from 5/ship to 10 or 15. 2) We could try is to let the Warlord score from worlds or fleets he gets of any source. I found that I could be firing on 2 players and could only score on one of them. 3)Lastly, we could give him points from another source. I don't believe we should have characters with the same scoring ability. So, I would propose a small change in the scoring that RSW might have to do some coding to change. The Raider gets points for the number of fleets they own (3/fleet) and they have fleet capture ability. Makes sense. But how about we let the Raider get points for the number of ships they own instead. Then as they capture ships their scoring increases. Let the Warrior score for the number of fleets they own. As they become warlike and capture more their score increases (don't suggest the warlord gets points for the number of ships cuzz without a capture ability their ships may decrease with battle and this may be a disinsentive to war).
In any case - look out for a new Warlord game in the latest offerings.
Elliot
I was the one who tweaked this game. First let me comment that the high rankings of Emperor, Raider, Missionary and Collector shows me that my adjustments of their scorinng was spot on. In the original Starweb game the Raider, Missionary and Emperor were very rare winners (usually if their allies pushed them to the win).
As for the Warlord. Well, I liked that he could own robotic or converted worlds. This gives the Positronix and the Missionary a natural predator other than their own kind. But as opposed to the Raider who is also warlike but has the capture ability our poor Warlord has no special military skills. I think I would like to replay this game and boost the Warlord scoring ability. We have a few choices: 1)We could just boost the scoring as it exists. I was a very successful Warlord that crippled two players (no names) in 20 turns. Yet I only achieved a score approx 1/3 of the winning one. So we could boost the Target capture score of fleets from 20 to 50, target worlds from 100 to 250 and destroyed target ships from 5/ship to 10 or 15. 2) We could try is to let the Warlord score from worlds or fleets he gets of any source. I found that I could be firing on 2 players and could only score on one of them. 3)Lastly, we could give him points from another source. I don't believe we should have characters with the same scoring ability. So, I would propose a small change in the scoring that RSW might have to do some coding to change. The Raider gets points for the number of fleets they own (3/fleet) and they have fleet capture ability. Makes sense. But how about we let the Raider get points for the number of ships they own instead. Then as they capture ships their scoring increases. Let the Warrior score for the number of fleets they own. As they become warlike and capture more their score increases (don't suggest the warlord gets points for the number of ships cuzz without a capture ability their ships may decrease with battle and this may be a disinsentive to war).
In any case - look out for a new Warlord game in the latest offerings.
Elliot
-
FishSpeaker
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:10 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA
- Contact:
Re: morocco2y
This was also the first no-communication game that I've played, and I have to admit I kind of like the lower commitment level. Communication takes so much time and iteration. I also don't think that political interaction is completely absent. It's just a little more crude.
Beyond the game parameters, I think a few things helped me win. First was a (non-communicative) partnership with Amin (the second place finisher). Very early on we exchanged gestures of goodwill, and by turn 10 I had given him almost all of my artifacts, and continued to give him artifacts as I acquired them throughout the game, while he gave me valuable worlds.
I also employed the "tit for tat" strategy (well known in game theory) with the rest of my neighbors, which allowed me to focus all of my energy on the one neighbor who attacked me (Siva), while the rest of my neighbors left me alone. I'd like to think that the strategy was mostly responsible for my success, but it's probably more likely that I was just lucky.
The high game end score also definitely helped. I would have certainly lost two turns earlier.
Beyond the game parameters, I think a few things helped me win. First was a (non-communicative) partnership with Amin (the second place finisher). Very early on we exchanged gestures of goodwill, and by turn 10 I had given him almost all of my artifacts, and continued to give him artifacts as I acquired them throughout the game, while he gave me valuable worlds.
I also employed the "tit for tat" strategy (well known in game theory) with the rest of my neighbors, which allowed me to focus all of my energy on the one neighbor who attacked me (Siva), while the rest of my neighbors left me alone. I'd like to think that the strategy was mostly responsible for my success, but it's probably more likely that I was just lucky.
The high game end score also definitely helped. I would have certainly lost two turns earlier.
-
FishSpeaker
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:10 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA
- Contact:
Re: morocco2y
Also, I noticed the new game (upscale9n). I would play, but I'm going to be out of the country and away from the internet for two weeks at the end of August, so that wouldn't be very responsible.