5759 Championship Thread

[Pine Needle]

Yes, they absolutely stomped the Elf and me. Ancient intervention is extremely powerful. The AN early grab of Stormgate and stormgate guard made his groups tough. I liked building the pop of stormgate early- much more effective than raising it late after the city is recruited down. I'll have to remember both tactics.

I made a big mistake building up my hidden capital instead of a sea town. The latter could have been defended, but the former stayed hidden not at all against those two jokers.

Nice job.

[Glowamane1]

Yes, they absolutely stomped the Elf and me. Ancient intervention is extremely powerful. The AN early grab of Stormgate and stormgate guard made his groups tough. I liked building the pop of stormgate early- much more effective than raising it late after the city is recruited down. I'll have to remember both tactics.

I made a big mistake building up my hidden capital instead of a sea town. The latter could have been defended, but the former stayed hidden not at all against those two jokers.

Nice job.

Was a close run thing early in the game. The difference was being able to take your capital which had great production, if that had been in the sea could have been very different.

The ancient ones are very powerful when they can recruit stormgate guards, their death immunity and ancient intervention means they can have one big group that can stomp all other groups one at a time.

I ended up with over 50 elite units and only 10 pop centres which shows the amount of fighting my armies did, which was fun and a nice change of spending most of the game building with just a bit of fighting at the end.

[Brekk]

Did the game end? I'm excited to hear more discussion!

This is my opinion, which has changed slightly from my original post. I feel Alamaze is a war game and should be played as such, with backstabbing, alliances, etc. To me, the issue arises when collusion happens behind the scenes, and it doesn't appear that this happened.

I will be clearer on the rules going forward, but I also want opinions on them, not just a ruling from me. It seems the alliance was not hidden, and others could have done the same, so I accept my responsibility in that. In fact, I'm happy to start another game if people are upset, with the same rewards, etc.

[VballMichael]

Did the game end? I'm excited to hear more discussion!

This is my opinion, which has changed slightly from my original post. I feel Alamaze is a war game and should be played as such, with backstabbing, alliances, etc. To me, the issue arises when collusion happens behind the scenes, and it doesn't appear that this happened.

I will be clearer on the rules going forward, but I also want opinions on them, not just a ruling from me. It seems the alliance was not hidden, and others could have done the same, so I accept my responsibility in that. In fact, I'm happy to start another game if people are upset, with the same rewards, etc.

Yeah, Rick always felt that this was a war game with alliances and backstabbing, etc.... The only challenge is when people form an actual game-long alliance right at the beginning, with the intention of working together as a team the whole game and just start taking out other players one at a time. It does not really matter if they are public about it or ally in secret because the effect is the same. This then requires others to form teams. If the first team has two on their team, maybe we put together a team of three, then four, and so on. Neither right nor wrong, but if we have actual game-long teams, I guess I would prefer those players start as a team in a team game. Of course, temporary alliances cause their own issues as you know (how long is ok, 3 turns on and 3 turns off was always a silly limit because they are still a team, or is it ok if just trading partners for the whole game). Even our illustrious publicist weighed in and assured us this issue is not unique to Alamaze.

So, I guess full diplomacy should have all of this, and people just need to know what is expected. And then team games are full teams with no teaming up by teams. Other than that, games would be limited up front in the set-up. Just my two cents.

I was not in this game, so no axes to grind, not upset, just trying to help get to a good place.
Lol just looked at page one and I was in this game but dropped so long ago I did not remember it. Checked it out and looks I just got beat by the damned Druid.

[Brekk]

Thanks for the feedback Vball, its appreciated.

[Glowamane1]

Did the game end? I'm excited to hear more discussion!

This is my opinion, which has changed slightly from my original post. I feel Alamaze is a war game and should be played as such, with backstabbing, alliances, etc. To me, the issue arises when collusion happens behind the scenes, and it doesn't appear that this happened.

I will be clearer on the rules going forward, but I also want opinions on them, not just a ruling from me. It seems the alliance was not hidden, and others could have done the same, so I accept my responsibility in that. In fact, I'm happy to start another game if people are upset, with the same rewards, etc.

It is good to have a range of games, i found it interesting to play in a full communication game as it was much more aggressive. I think all the players in this game were in a war by turn 20. In a no or limited diplomacy game the best way to win is to build up and avoid conflict until turn 30 and then just stomp people with your high level mages and large armies, as if you are winning early you will just be jumped on by all the other players.

[Strongwill]

Did the game end? I'm excited to hear more discussion!

This is my opinion, which has changed slightly from my original post. I feel Alamaze is a war game and should be played as such, with backstabbing, alliances, etc. To me, the issue arises when collusion happens behind the scenes, and it doesn't appear that this happened.

I will be clearer on the rules going forward, but I also want opinions on them, not just a ruling from me. It seems the alliance was not hidden, and others could have done the same, so I accept my responsibility in that. In fact, I'm happy to start another game if people are upset, with the same rewards, etc.

It is good to have a range of games, i found it interesting to play in a full communication game as it was much more aggressive. I think all the players in this game were in a war by turn 20. In a no or limited diplomacy game the best way to win is to build up and avoid conflict until turn 30 and then just stomp people with your high level mages and large armies, as if you are winning early you will just be jumped on by all the other players.

You know, it used to work out better. Those military kingdoms smoked the wizard kingdoms pretty early to avoid that late game slaughter fest. lol now the take each other out, not sure why?

[davekuyk]

It is good to have a range of games, i found it interesting to play in a full communication game as it was much more aggressive. I think all the players in this game were in a war by turn 20. In a no or limited diplomacy game the best way to win is to build up and avoid conflict until turn 30 and then just stomp people with your high level mages and large armies, as if you are winning early you will just be jumped on by all the other players.

I agree avoiding conflict is often the best way to win and I feel this is presently a flaw in the game's design. As I said in another lengthy post, it is perhaps too effective to build production yourself, rather than take it from someone. The game also heavily, and overwhelmingly, rewards raising wizards, which is a passive, non-interactive action. Diplomacy encourages interaction, which is a good thing.