5424 Men Of Steel

[Brekk]

OK I think its all good to pigpile on a player especially a LOUD overly aggressive RD about to win, and I love full diplomacy games 100% BUT but please read the game rules for this particular game

"Limited diplomacy game. Diplomacy is a forum only on late-season turns. I.E.. Late Summer, Late Winter, Late Spring, and Late Fall.
Trades allowed if posted on boards and negotiated during a diplomacy turn."

Posting location of town/villages coordinating attacks etc is not limited diplomacy, nor is coordinating attack plans. This is why full diplomacy is better then these things WOULD be OK to do.

[gkmetty]

RA - to all

I noticed a trend lately to blow up pop centers. Is this meant to help the conqueror? If a Kingdom has control of a region and you take away some pop centers from the region it only gives them tight control. If you can blow up a pop center it is likely you can take the same pop center. This would eventually wrestle control of the region away from the conqueror. This trend has only started recently and it has resulted in some very quick victories for the RD kingdom. Can someone please explain the misguided logic behind this new trend?

[Acererak]

OK I think its all good to pigpile on a player especially a LOUD overly aggressive RD about to win, and I love full diplomacy games 100% BUT but please read the game rules for this particular game

"Limited diplomacy game. Diplomacy is a forum only on late-season turns. I.E.. Late Summer, Late Winter, Late Spring, and Late Fall.
Trades allowed if posted on boards and negotiated during a diplomacy turn."

Posting location of town/villages coordinating attacks etc is not limited diplomacy,  nor is coordinating attack plans.  This is why full diplomacy is better then these things WOULD be OK to do.

The way I understand it is that the limited part is that you can only talk on late season turns. That is what makes it limited. 

If people were able to talk outside of the forum you share your turns you share everything. What does it matter? If you don't want your popcenter locations shared then don't play diplomacy. It's absurd to think that kingdoms trying to stop from being destroyed wouldn't coordinate what to attack. All of the bias against diplomacy came from some limited 3 on 1 gangups early in games that happened years ago. I don't think anyone has ever complained about trying to stop someone from winning, and there is no coordination going on anyway- I am the only one who has said it was his intention to attack.

[Brekk]

OK I think its all good to pigpile on a player especially a LOUD overly aggressive RD about to win, and I love full diplomacy games 100% BUT but please read the game rules for this particular game

"Limited diplomacy game. Diplomacy is a forum only on late-season turns. I.E.. Late Summer, Late Winter, Late Spring, and Late Fall.
Trades allowed if posted on boards and negotiated during a diplomacy turn."

Posting location of town/villages coordinating attacks etc is not limited diplomacy,  nor is coordinating attack plans.  This is why full diplomacy is better then these things WOULD be OK to do.

The way I understand it is that the limited part is that you can only talk on late season turns. That is what makes it limited. 

If people were able to talk outside of the forum you share your turns you share everything. What does it matter? If you don't want your popcenter locations shared then don't play diplomacy. It's absurd to think that kingdoms trying to stop from being destroyed wouldn't coordinate what to attack. All of the bias against diplomacy came from some limited 3 on 1 gangups early in games that happened years ago. I don't think anyone has ever complained about trying to stop someone from winning, and there is no coordination going on anyway- I am the only one who has said it was his intention to attack.

Hey trust me I'm good with that myself, if thats what this means going forward, just seems a significant departure from what limited diplomacy was meaning prior to this game

[Senior Tactician]

RA - to all

I noticed a trend lately to blow up pop centers.  Is this meant to help the conqueror?  If a Kingdom has control of a region and you take away some pop centers from the region it only gives them tight control.  If you can blow up a pop center it is likely you can take the same pop center.  This would eventually wrestle control of the region away from the conqueror.  This trend has only started recently and it has resulted in some very quick victories for the RD kingdom.  Can someone please explain the misguided logic behind this new trend?

Destroying PCs was the primary tactic I used in 5384.  I would visit a region many times, culling out the census to a few key PCs, then be able to come back later and flip the region very quickly.

Destroying villages, especially early in the game, can cripple the regions owner, ask Brekk how effective the GN was after I destroyed all his villages in that same game.

Sometimes, that's all you can do is destroy PCs, and its fun.  In a game I was not doing so well in, my plan to continue my enjoyment of the game was to retreat to a sanctuary and continue to influence the game by destroying PCs.  If you are in a sanctuary, you cannot capture PCs unless you want your capitol to move there.  Some people may drop the game at this point, but I think it adds much more to the flavor of the game if people stay in it and fight, regardless of the outcome they produce.

I think that players destroying PCs to help the person who basically drove them out of the game is probably an exception and not the rule.  But even if does happen, personally I am fine with this.  I'd much rather NOT have my villages destroyed as a dominant military kingdom going for the win.  When you destroy PCs, you may give tight control, but you also reduce the number of PCs needed to flip the region, making it that much LESS likely you are able to hold onto it.

My 2 copper

[Strylian]

OK I think its all good to pigpile on a player especially a LOUD overly aggressive RD about to win, and I love full diplomacy games 100% BUT but please read the game rules for this particular game

"Limited diplomacy game. Diplomacy is a forum only on late-season turns. I.E.. Late Summer, Late Winter, Late Spring, and Late Fall.
Trades allowed if posted on boards and negotiated during a diplomacy turn."

Posting location of town/villages coordinating attacks etc is not limited diplomacy,  nor is coordinating attack plans.  This is why full diplomacy is better then these things WOULD be OK to do.

I hate to state the obvious but we are in turn 13 Late Summer and we are on a diplomatic turn. Turn 14 hasn’t ran yet.

[Strylian]

RA - to all

I noticed a trend lately to blow up pop centers.  Is this meant to help the conqueror?  If a Kingdom has control of a region and you take away some pop centers from the region it only gives them tight control.  If you can blow up a pop center it is likely you can take the same pop center.  This would eventually wrestle control of the region away from the conqueror.  This trend has only started recently and it has resulted in some very quick victories for the RD kingdom.  Can someone please explain the misguided logic behind this new trend?

Destroying PCs was the primary tactic I used in 5384.  I would visit a region many times, culling out the census to a few key PCs, then be able to come back later and flip the region very quickly.

Destroying villages, especially early in the game, can cripple the regions owner, ask Brekk how effective the GN was after I destroyed all his villages in that same game.

Sometimes, that's all you can do is destroy PCs, and its fun.  In a game I was not doing so well in, my plan to continue my enjoyment of the game was to retreat to a sanctuary and continue to influence the game by destroying PCs.  If you are in a sanctuary, you cannot capture PCs unless you want your capitol to move there.  Some people may drop the game at this point, but I think it adds much more to the flavor of the game if people stay in it and fight, regardless of the outcome they produce.

I think that players destroying PCs to help the person who basically drove them out of the game is probably an exception and not the rule.  But even if does happen, personally I am fine with this.  I'd much rather NOT have my villages destroyed as a dominant military kingdom going for the win.  When you destroy PCs, you may give tight control, but you also reduce the number of PCs needed to flip the region, making it that much LESS likely you are able to hold onto it.

My 2 copper

You can also use the tactic to control your own regions easier. Allowing yourself to maintain control while only having to defend a couple more strategically located PCs.

[Senior Tactician]

Indeed, especially in regions with water PCs

[gkmetty]

Senior Tactician - thanks for the reply. That was my point, do people realize that by destroying villages/pop centers you are not hurting the military kingdoms, who already have 2 or 3 regions? You are just making it harder to take the region away from that kingdom. Additionally, taking the village for yourself serves the same purpose as destroying it, you keep the food from the military kingdom. You claim that helping the military kingdom does not bother you but it does bother many people. If we wanted to play in a team game we would have joined a team game.

[gkmetty]

RA - to all

I noticed a trend lately to blow up pop centers.  Is this meant to help the conqueror?  If a Kingdom has control of a region and you take away some pop centers from the region it only gives them tight control.  If you can blow up a pop center it is likely you can take the same pop center.  This would eventually wrestle control of the region away from the conqueror.  This trend has only started recently and it has resulted in some very quick victories for the RD kingdom.  Can someone please explain the misguided logic behind this new trend?

Destroying PCs was the primary tactic I used in 5384.  I would visit a region many times, culling out the census to a few key PCs, then be able to come back later and flip the region very quickly.

Destroying villages, especially early in the game, can cripple the regions owner, ask Brekk how effective the GN was after I destroyed all his villages in that same game.

Sometimes, that's all you can do is destroy PCs, and its fun.  In a game I was not doing so well in, my plan to continue my enjoyment of the game was to retreat to a sanctuary and continue to influence the game by destroying PCs.  If you are in a sanctuary, you cannot capture PCs unless you want your capitol to move there.  Some people may drop the game at this point, but I think it adds much more to the flavor of the game if people stay in it and fight, regardless of the outcome they produce.

I think that players destroying PCs to help the person who basically drove them out of the game is probably an exception and not the rule.  But even if does happen, personally I am fine with this.  I'd much rather NOT have my villages destroyed as a dominant military kingdom going for the win.  When you destroy PCs, you may give tight control, but you also reduce the number of PCs needed to flip the region, making it that much LESS likely you are able to hold onto it.

My 2 copper

You can also use the tactic to control your own regions easier. Allowing yourself to maintain control while only having to defend a couple more strategically located PCs.

I can understand that but that is not what I have witnessed.  The RD has won several games recently before turn 15 and this is what I have seen.  RD takes a second region, over the next several turns we receive messages that magic kingdoms have destroyed villages and RD now has tight control of that region.  Then RD takes 3rd region and again villages get destroyed and again RD gets tight control. Then RD wins.  Destroying pop centers in a region you dont control only gives the owner tight control and makes it harder to prevent the win.