The Sanborn Oasis

WOK for Advanced Players

Moderators: Duke, trewqh, korexus

BigJOzzy
Trooper
Trooper
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 7:00 am
Contact:

Post by BigJOzzy » Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:51 am

LOL......oh I am all ready to be surprised.
Mathematician is someone who knows that if three people walk into an empty room and five people walk out, then two more people need to walk in to the room to make it empty again.

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:21 pm

Is a turn 7 win too soon? :D

It's almost a shame that we went for a seventh city, otherwise we could have finished this on turn 5... :lol:


korexus.


Note, I'm not wanting to start up another huge arguement here. The cities were easy to take, for a multitude of reasons, some of which were 'good' strategy on our part, some of which were more luck based. I still think the VPs from this game are cheap. :P
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Dameon
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Valn Ohtar Chapterhouse

Post by Dameon » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:04 pm

The game isn't over yet, so I won't disclose what TK has said to me, but suffice it to say I wouldn't have changed a thing even seeing how this has turned out. I don't think the cities were too easy to take; I think players didn't defend them properly. I also think that the turn that two players get seven (or, interestingly enough, six) cities will (or could) be the same turn they get eight, so the "not enough cities" argument that was put forward is completely irrelevant. Hell, I bet the eventual victors could have all ten cities by turn 10 if they wanted.

You might be able to use this game to argue against the eight city rule in general, but you won't change my mind on it just based on one game. Maybe it didn't run like I thought it would, but that was all the players. With a different field and more competitors for the VPs I contend it would have run long. It's just as well it didn't at any rate, considering the numerous delay requests and my shortened timeframe. I'll learn from this X-Game as I have with all others, and when I run some more (my next ones being tentatively set for September) they will be better for it. You won't change my mind on the city rule though, Kor, as much as you'd like to.
"A Knight is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defends the helpless, his might upholds the weak, his word speaks only truth, his wrath outdoes the wicked."

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:48 am

My very first post (post #2 on this thread) was that 6 cities was too low espeacially with the no player without a city rule. That rule, along with the concentric home provinces, all homes being in a ring and a bit of luck with staring position and OOP has made this game rather easy, despite the added DEF. Basically, no matter how well you fort up your city, once you lose your outer plain your dead. As Donut demonstrated...

Having thought a fair amount about the various WoK V options in the run up to and during this game, I would like to make a suggestion to GMs.
Don't use a city win condition and the no player without a cuty rule in the same game unless you've really really thought it through.
If either one of those rules hadn't been in effect for this game, it would have been a lot harder. Hopefully the lesson is now learned...

korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Dameon
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Valn Ohtar Chapterhouse

Post by Dameon » Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:11 am

OK, I can agree with that. In retrospect, I wouldn't have used the no player without a city rule. Really though, the entire focus of the argument here was on the six city rule being too low. That's not the case; whether the rule is six, eight, or ten cities I see now that the no player without a city rule really shortens games. I don't think I'd ever used it before. If the arguments had been "don't use the no player without a city rule" instead of "don't use the city-victory rule" from players I KNOW that don't like the city victory rule in general, I might have been more willing to change the rules.
"A Knight is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defends the helpless, his might upholds the weak, his word speaks only truth, his wrath outdoes the wicked."

User avatar
Duke
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1699
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Sweden, Valn Ohtar

Post by Duke » Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:33 am

And if players like myself actually read the rules I would have defended my city with my good troops instead of leaving the idiots behind to watch the city while my real guys are romping the countryside. :cry:
First one here, last one to leave.

User avatar
Undertaker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Back Room (behind Sharky's place)
Contact:

Post by Undertaker » Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:13 pm

"The Excellence of Execution"
"That's a good question. Let me see...In my case, you know, I hate to advocate drugs or liquor, violence, insanity to anyone. But in my case it's worked." Hunter S. Thompson

Post Reply