Post originally by Numskull at 2004-02-13 16:26:43
Converted from Phorums BB System

(Not all of your points are addressed here. If I don't comment on something you wrote, you can assume I either agree with you or am neutral on the matter.)

>>Its absolutely fairly minimal. Gather All helps EVERYONE. Its only significantly better if you have a significant production advantage.<<

I would call it a necessary evil. And, since you're the first one to collect when you play the card, it doesn't help everyone all that much if the bank's reserves are low. Sure, you may have some spoilage, but you're reducing everyone else's income.

>>Yes, fairly minimal. Because you're failing to account for the weighted average effect of how likely you are to draw that Build 3 card when you need it.<<

It's not a matter of "needing" the card; it's being able to use it. If you draw it when you're low on resources, just save it for next turn and don't bother taking the permanent one.

>>I don?t see how you can disagree with this when later on you admitted that as an advanced player you stick to drawing primarily from the basic deck.<<

Only for the early stages of the game. I save those random cards with higher numbers on them for later, when I've actually got enough resources/tiles/units/whatever to get my money's (or, rather, my card's) worth. Of course I don't know what I'm going to get when I draw, but it's quite likely that I'll at least get something I can use, even if it's not exactly what I would have liked.

>>The trade off is 1 wasted Action Trading vs. A LOT of wasted Actions trying to get yourself into a position where you don?t need to trade.<<

And if you do find yourself in a position where you don't need to trade, how exactly was that "lot" of actions "wasted"? When you take a new production tile or build a house, it's there for good, unless an opponent destroys it (which, in the case of the house, is highly unlikely). Trading, on the other hand, is a one-time deal.

>>How hard is going to be to beat up his army of 2. Especially if the player across from me already beat up his army of two, vultured 5 cubes leaving me to attack for free and swipe another 5.<<

Not hard at all, but rather than chalking this up to the game's failure to reduce or nullify the temptation to beat up the loser, I would point the finger at the "army-less" player who, apparently, is too stupid to know when to retreat and when to recruit with the resources he has left. (When you know or even suspect that you have aggressive neighbors, your first action should be to hire a couple of mortal-eating Myth units to make them think twice about invading right off the bat.)

>>Stealing 5 resource cubes that I don?t produce easily, that I don?t have to waste a trade action to get, and which there may currently be none in the bank but I can obtain them from this other player, while simultaneously picking up the ?most recent battle? victory points, and setting an opponent back at the same time?is HUGE. No, the game is layered enough that no single strategy by itself will ?win you the game??but this is a very effective one.<<

I'm not disagreeing with that statement in and of itself, but there seems to be a notion that doing this incessantly is both an irresistable temptation and a major flaw in the game. "Irresistable temptation" depends on the player; if he's a sadist, he'll do it. If he actually wants to WIN the game, he'll either focus his energies more constructively (three of the four victory conditions are based on creation rather than destruction) or go after the guy who has the best chance of winning (assuming, of course, that it isn't himself). As for "major flaw"...well, this is just my experience, but I rarely see more than two VPs on the Won the Last Battle card, and if you do this every turn, then chances are you're only going to get one VP at a time for doing it. I'm aware that one VP can certainly mean the difference between winning and losing, but it usually doesn't. Most Buildings, Largest Army, and (sometimes) The Wonder, along with the VPs you can trade for with a Great Temple, are usually where it's at. Of course, you can accomplish all of this with the resources you keep snatching in battle, but it seems unlikely to me that the "punching bag" player is even going to have five cubes for you or his other neighbor to steal every round; as soon as he gets them, he's going to spend them on buildings or (more likely) units with which to defend (and maybe even to steal back his stuff). If all else fails, you can simply establish house rules to prevent these frustrations; make the spoils of war three cubes instead of five, or let the loser decide which cubes the attacker gets, or forbid players from attacking the same part of a neighbor's board twice in a row. Nothing wrong with variants as long as they're there for a good reason and everyone agrees to them.

>>This is nonsense. You should feel silly for even saying it. The other 2 players are going to do all of that simply because 1 spend 1 Action attacking a weak player.<<

No. They're going to do all of that simply because you...this is the key word in capital letters here, so pay attention...REPEATEDLY spend one action (per round) attacking a weak player. Recovering from ONE lost battle is not that difficult.

>>I can see that you?re a fan of the game, but at least try to keep your objections to my criticisms reasonable.<<

I have done more than "try."

>> Riiiight?in every game theres the possibility of the best player getting screwed because some other player couldn?t be relied on to play intelligently and due to his stupidity cost the best player the game. Sooooo?.lets go write a rule that actually makes this undesireable situation even MORE common, and yet which doesn?t actually have any real purpose to it?

This makes sense to you why?<<

YOUR statement is the one that makes no sense, here. From what part of my comments do you get this tripe about a stupid player costing the "best" (I assume you mean "leading" though they're not the same thing) player the game? My whole point is that the "best" player is going to win by a landslide if stupid players keep kicking the guy in last place while he's down for little reason other than to KEEP him down.

>>Ummm, unless I?m really misremembering the rule, you only get an extra cube IF the tile the villager is on is one of the ones that are producing. If the Gather is for something different, no bonus?and you can be certain that experienced opponents when choosing what to produce will be taking your current villager allocation into account. Only if YOU play the gather card can you be certain the villager will produce for you.<<

You also get to move the villager to another tile. That's a fact you don't seem to be taking into consideration. And, if your opponent needs a certain resource badly enough, they'll gather from it, even if it means you get a freebie. Last but not least, let's not forget the Gather All cards, which (again, in MY experience, though perhaps not yours) people rarely hesitate to play.

>>So it winds up being something less than 1 cube every time a Gather is played.

Further that is NOT an extra resource cube at all. It only starts being an extra cube after you?ve made up for the cost of building the house. So the first Gather card played only breaks you even (or is the cost of the house 2 cubes?meaning its 2 Gathers to break even, I forget now).<<

Houses cost wood and food. Villagers can be placed on tiles that produce gold or favor. If you're short on one of those two resources, the "making up the cost" part of the whole deal suddenly doesn't seem so bad.

>>Plus, as you who were railing about the importance of not wasting actions will certainly appreciate, building a house takes an action.<<

It's highly unlikely that anyone will build a house and nothing else as their action, unless there's nothing else they can do that's useful. Houses usually show up when somebody plays a card that lets them build multiple buildings but can't afford to have them all be the nicer, more expensive ones.

>>Dude?if this sounds like a good strategy to you?I hope you still feel that way should we ever play, because it?s a complete waste.<<

Sorry compadre, but I make it a point to not play with people who are going to bitch about what works and what doesn't for three hours. You understand, right?

>>For a single attack action I can steal more production than your villagers will net you for several turns AND harm an opponent at the same time AND have a chance to score battle victory points.<<

If I have a whole bunch of villagers, it won't take long to recoup my five cube loss. And, if I'm in a position where I can afford to build multiple houses instead of concentrating on more pressing matters, then losing five cubes probably isn't going to hurt me that much anyway.

>>Thanks for your thoughts. I find them to be pretty much?wrong, but I do appreciate the discussion.<<

The feeling is mutual. Hopefully I don't come across as too abrasive. I just get very tired of seeing people endlessly derail this game (or any game I like, for that matter) because of things that are debatable (like villagers being worthless), easily remedied (like the five cube payoff), or just plain silly (like that "best player" stuff...seriously, what were you smoking?).