The Worlds of Kaomaris

LOL......oh I am all ready to be surprised.

Is a turn 7 win too soon?

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"The Excellence of Execution"