BIGBLOO wrote:On the whole I enjoyed this.
Still not quite sure about Freestyle. If you get caught by a double dunt hit it can be a real b*tch, but I think that on the whole it is probably a better option than sequential - most definitely faster than waiting for ever for each turn to be taken.
I think some of the scoring needs to be reconsidered - because it was shown more times than you would think - the largest land owner was not necessarily the largest troop holder. So hoarding becomes the name of the game - yet the site is Conquer Club, not Stockpiling Club. It doesn't seem right NOT to be rewarded for conquest.
I also think the scoring allocations for battle sites, territories etc could be re-considered.
I would play this again without doubt because my negatives are genuinely minimal, and were far outweighed by an extremely enjoyable and fast paced competition.
That said - if the scoring system held as now I would most certainly opt for a Neutral country to start from rather than one of the two "sides". The scoring potential (win or lose) seems to be somewhat better than as an "also ran" to a "team" victor
Thanks for the feedback. I'm also conflicted about Freestyle. I think it might get tedious to wait for so many players, especially with 8 player games. Also fog of war. At first I regretted it because I couldn't see what was going on. Then I thought maybe it was better because you couldn't just sit back confident in your troop count; but then again, seeing the troop count might be less secure after all because you would be more of a target.
I will definitely revise the scoring; I want to make more incentive to hold your own region & some kind of benefit for holding others (connected empire bonus was too small and probably should have applied to everyone). I was aware that the scoring would encourage less conflict; I was actually hoping to limit it somewhat to allow players to stay in the game & collect some points even if they didn't win. My idea was that this would help keep the Napoleonic era feel of vassal states (ie. not total domination in war). I actually thought players would play more strategically & go after the battle sites & naval battles more, try to hold their region & help their faction; but I guess fog of war & the fact that you aren't credited with battle sites if you win hampered this purpose. I think it would be more strategic if these were fixed.
I thought that the neutrals would have a disadvantage without allies, but the battle site benefit was probably overkill, especially when everyone else had less motive to go for them. Making the battle/naval sites more balanced I think will change this a lot; I don't know if it will be too much. Ultimately it's not going to be equal all around, and that's part of the appeal for me. It's not equal, but different players may have different advantages, so choosing your player is important as well as strategy, which might change depending on who you choose. I think the immunity games helped balance any major inequalities, but I think next time it would be better if the final game had more players, then the scoring would be relevant to more than just the one player who's destroying everyone else in points.
Any ideas on how to best balance the 3 factions?