View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Spotcard
Joined: 19 May 06 Posts: 6
Location: California
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: A Third Year for Wallenstein? |
|
|
Does anyone else think Wallenstein might benefit from adding a third year, or possibly even a fourth? I like the turn mechanism, but there isn't much opportunity for long term planning, because, well, there is no long term. With territories, and armies so scattered at the beginning, it takes a turn or two to concentrate your forces for a profitable attack, and the last year is a mad scramble for victory points. This doesn't leave much time for attacks for positional benefit, and with only two years, it is hard make taking over a good gold or grain producing territory show a profit. One downside is that there might be some saturation of building sites, but I don't know that that is a bad thing. In the face-to-face game, a third year would make the game last longer than most people would like to play, but online, with the game taking a few minutes per day, I would like a longer game. Any comments? If there is enough interest, perhaps the game programmers could allow a game creator to choose the length of the game during setup. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Bad Lex
Joined: 16 Oct 05 Posts: 114
Location: Epsom, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: Game Variants |
|
|
You need to make this a votable question.
For my 2d worth, The game has been balanced for 2 years very carefully. Wallenstein isn't Risk, its not about territory domination, its about weighing up land grabs and defence with building development over 6 movement turns. Increase the turns and building soon drops off in importance as money is needed to prop up defences for the long haul.
There has been some concern over people dropping out of games leaving them abandoned. If games increased in length, some players are inevitably going to be out of the running after the normal two years with only a couple of territories left as the super powers start to slug it out. It is certain that player interest will wane and the chance of drop out and game suspension will increase.
For these reasons I vote no to increased turns. _________________ It's not the winning, it's utter annihilation of your opponant that matters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Spotcard
Joined: 19 May 06 Posts: 6
Location: California
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
A poll is a good idea, I'll try to set one up. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bkruppa
Joined: 08 Nov 05 Posts: 241
Location: Fremont, Ca, USA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe the historical basis of this game would predispose it to be confined to a two year period also. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Bad Lex
Joined: 16 Oct 05 Posts: 114
Location: Epsom, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bkruppa wrote: | I believe the historical basis of this game would predispose it to be confined to a two year period also. |
And there was me thinking it was based on the '30 years war' !! _________________ It's not the winning, it's utter annihilation of your opponant that matters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|