Winter Campaign Planning

[Sil Odan]

I agree with Matt; the whole idea is to keep things simple to avoid long, drawn-out and confusing scenarios. I'll support the idea of rolling to see who goes first in a 3 man game with the 3rd person playing the winner.

To avoid a situation where there may be more than two people attacking a territory, should we instill some kind of limit? Let's say four people are attacking one terrirtory; we can have them all roll. The two winners continue with their action and determine who goes first, the losers retract their choice and make a different move. I'm thinking of this from the angle that if four people are attacking the same territory, (potentially) that's a lot of games for the defender to go through in one round if we are doing it one attacker at a time. I dont' really see this happening very often if it all, but I thought it might be good to cover this...just in case.

[Servo]

I agree with Matt that Tom is scaring me with complexity. And big giant blocks of text.

We can avoid 3-way battles very easily: the 2 Attackers have to fight a standard, random game against each other first, then the winner attacks the Defender in a campaign-based game.

Does that sound good?

[Mephiston]

I think that the 3rd person playing the winner of the first battle makes more sense. Say, I want to invade a land but shortly before I launch my forces I see that someone else has gotten there first. I sit back wait for the smoke to clear since my well thought out plan is obviously useless now. Tim, your scenario makes it sound like there is some glove slapping occurring. I plan to invade but I hear that you are too. I send a delegate to your camp and slap him with my glove demanding satisfaction. We agree upon a time and place to fight (no clear attacker or defender) then the loser calmly agrees to allow the winner the right to invade.

[Sil Odan]

I thought it sounded more like "who can kick who in the balls first" rather then glove slapping, but to each his own.

I do agree with Matt again, however. For example, if I decide I want to attack Aaron to get his territory, but instead I have to play a random, non-campaign based game against Eric and I lose, I wouldn't feel I got my fair shot against Aaron. It's almost like punishing someone just because they happened to pick the same territory as another challenger. And I know, I know...the response to that is I would have had my opportunity when I played against Eric. But regardless of who wins, that would be an additional game we had to play that has no other outcome than to deny one of us our turn at acquiring a territory without the chance to actually do it. One of us would be getting the shaft. And despite his awesome theme song, I'm sure none of us wants that. He's one mean mother...

Ok, I'll shut my mouth.

[Servo]

"Glove slap"? It is just a way to see who gets to fight first.

How is making the 2 Attackers play a battle before the invasion any different than randomly choosing who-fights-whom OR randomly choosing which Attacker fights first then letting the other Attacker try. In all 3 scenarios, multiple games are fought and only the last one counts.

What if the Defender wins the 1st battle? Then he has to fight again, right? So, now the Defender has to fight 2 battles over the same territory in 1 turn for NO GAIN. If we make the Attackers fight each other 1st, at least they are fighting for something.

[Servo]

Or, when we gather to declare challenges, instead of declaring blindly we can take turns, and only 1 invasion can happen on each territory in 1 phase.

That would eliminate the issue, at least. Although not as fun as blind challenges.

[Sil Odan]

Sept 28, 2011 12:45:04 GMT -5 Servo said:

How is making the 2 Attackers play a battle before the invasion any different than randomly choosing who-fights-whom OR randomly choosing which Attacker fights first then letting the other Attacker try. In all 3 scenarios, multiple games are fought and only the last one counts.

Using Aaron and Eric as the example again, if both Eric and I declare an attack on Aaron and we must fight each other first before one of us can attempt to gain a new territory, that means one of us would have to win two games to claim a new territory that round (while everyone else only has to win one); the other player who lost has a turn stripped from then that round since they weren't actually fighting for a territory, they were just fighting for the opportunity to be able to fight for a territory.

As for the defender, let them keep their strategic advantages when fighting multiple attackers (except for when outnumbered by a singular opponent). Yes, they may have to go through two battles to keep their territory, but with the strategic advantages on their side, this shouldn't be unfair. If the first attacker were to win, he then becomes the defender and receives all the strategic advantages when playing against the second.

I think this allows everyone the same chance to advance and still keep things even.

[Mephiston]

Hear, hear!

[Mephiston]

Ok, while stilling agreeing with myself and Ellis, what about this as an amendment. If you lose the Initiative role and are not to be the first attacker you can withdrawal your declaration and attack somewhere else or choose to wait and fight the winner.

[Servo]

All 3 scenarios we have described result in a player possibly having to win 2 games in 1 turn to take (or keep) the territory, so that is not a fair argument to say 1 person may not get the opportunity to play for the territory. No matter how we play a 2-game scenario to take a territory, someone is out for the deciding 2nd game.

How does keeping strategic advantages balance being attacked twice in the same turn? That does not seem "fair" at all, as they would get the same advantages if attacked only once.

If we assume a 50/50 chance of winning any game, the Defender being attacked twice now has only a 25% chance of keeping his territory, whereas the player attacking 2nd has a 50% chance. Why would we not give the Defender the advantage in this scenario?

We are making it very hard for a Defender to hold a territory, as you may have to fight for it multiple times in the same turn and get no benefit even if you win all the games. I think it is hard enough to be a Defender in these scenarios without asking people to do it multiple times a turn, especially when playing for no benefit as the Defender.

Also, I don't think we have said each player only gets to attack once a turn, have we? Empires would expand too slow, or not at all.

[Mephiston]

It's not likely to be a 50/50 chance. If the attacker only has one tile then the defender can rig the board to make it extremely difficult to win. If Chadwick were playing I could put down a few towers on my side and load up with plasma cannons and make him cross a huge open field or funnel into alleys to get objectives. If the attacker has many surrounding territories then the reverse possible. You are playing the board so you are only going to attack territories where you can steal advantages unless you have no choice. Playing a game ahead of time removes the map from consideration. That's what I love about this campaign idea. The battle is never 50/50. You decide your odds based on the map.

[Servo]

I REALLY did not mean to get into a discussion on odds.

My point was you have a chance of winning or losing any 1 game (I hope), and that chance is on average halved if you have to win 2 games.

The advantage will go to the person who has to only play once. Who should get that advantage: the Defender or the person who rolled to attack 2nd?

[Sil Odan]

Sept 28, 2011 15:19:02 GMT -5 Servo said:

The advantage will go to the person who has to only play once. Who should get that advantage: the Defender or the person who rolled to attack 2nd?

I'd say the person who rolled to attack 2nd. The defender will already get the strategic advantage, so the setup will be in his favor. It's a game of conquest, after all; my territory will come under attack multiple times. My job is to defend it as best I can against all odds.

[Mephiston]

Again, the advantage only goes to the defender if the attacker does not have a lot of tiles surrounding the territory. Let's say Ellis has no territories surrounding Eric and I have 4. If Ellis goes first then Eric gets all of the advantages. Whoever wins will have to face me. I still have 4 territories so the advantage goes to me. Now lets reverse it. I go first against Eric so I have all of the advantages. Let's say I win. Now Ellis goes against me (remember he didn't have any extra tiles on the territory) so I again get the advantage. It's basically just playing two rounds in stead of one. I don't see the problem.

[Servo]

Matt - Just saw Reply #23 above (must have gone through at same time I was typing my response). That would be OK, if you reversed it. 2nd Attacker will only have to play 1 game, so why would he choose to concede? 1st Attacker should get the chance to concede.

The advantages which are integral to game play (from the surrounding tiles) will be in effect whether you are attacked by 1, 2, or 10 Attackers. They are not something which need to be countered if you are attacked by multiple players in the same turn. The "advantage" I spoke of above is the advantage of only having to fight once in a turn over the same territory. You are speaking of 1 Attacker getting that advantage over the other Attacker and the Defender; I say that advantage goes to the Defender over both Attackers.

The play you are talking about in the last post is obvious, because that is how the game works. Except we are basically allowing 2 turns to take place in 1 actual turn. I really don't like that idea.

If we cannot get past this, we should probably make it so 1 territory can only be attacked once in a turn or go back to 3-way (even army) battles.