Titan - Tactics
Andrew Hardin
defeats at the hand of better players than I, I am stuck pondering a
number of things about the game that players better than I could
probably answer. I also happen to be acquiring something of a small
addiction to the game, which is really bad.
#1. How fast do you usually try to engage the opponent's Titan stack?
I have tended to see a lot of buildup then attack games, since all the
players take time to develop stacks, but from what I have read on this
group, immediate attacks on the Titan are not uncommon.
#2. How does one go about recruiting in the inner circle? Are Unicorns
a useful recruiting path?
I have yet to see a Colossus recruited, though I was an even roll away
from recruiting one last game. I have also found Hill and Woods
recruiting a bit tricky.
#3. Splitting the gargoyles?
I tend to split the gargoyles on the opening setup, while the other
players that consistently have beaten me tend to keep them with the
Titan, working towards the Serpents and Behemoths. Which of the 3
starting creatures should be split, or do people split all 3?
#4: The outer ring?
The outer ring has been a place of death for stack stuck on them.
Despite the advantages of building up stacks of Rangers and Gorgons,
how often does one risk the outer ring?
#5: Splitting Ranger/Gorgon stacks?
When these stacks are at 7 units, does anybody split them, or do they
go off and kill something.
#6: Defensive Terrain
What terrain is the best to defend on? The worst?
#7: Masterboard Locations
What are the best locations to recruit on the Masterboard? I have
found some spots where one can get a new recruit on any of 4 rolls,
but normally only 2.
#8: Splitting
What are the best type of splits to make (what kind of creatures go in
each stack?). What are the worst? What creatures make splitting more
difficult? What creatures make splitting easier.
#9: Fleeing
What is the upper limit on stack strength for fleeing that you
normally see? Would you flee with 3 Cyclops, 2 Behemoth against a
stack that is much better and you can't expect to beat?
#10: Attacking
Should you only attack if you will win or weaken an opponents Titan
stack? Is it worth it to attack a stack of 2 Dragons, 2 Minotaurs if
you have a good chance of derailing Colossus recruiting?
If anybody wants to spill any of their secrets, I would deeply
appreciate it. I wouldn't even mind playing PBEM and letting you
defeat me soundly and dance over my grave.
- Drew
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Chris Camfield
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:58:24 GMT,
and...@removethistoreply.dc-systems.com (Andrew Hardin) wrote:
>Having learned this game about 3 weeks ago, and having faced murderous
>defeats at the hand of better players than I, I am stuck pondering a
>number of things about the game that players better than I could
>probably answer. I also happen to be acquiring something of a small
>addiction to the game, which is really bad.
>
>#1. How fast do you usually try to engage the opponent's Titan stack?
>
>I have tended to see a lot of buildup then attack games, since all the
>players take time to develop stacks, but from what I have read on this
>group, immediate attacks on the Titan are not uncommon.
Well... it depends. First you have to know or guess which stack has
the Titan in it. If I had a good chance of beating the enemy's Titan
stack, I might go for it, but I wouldn't start moving a stack halfway
across the map ignoring recruits for it.
>#2. How does one go about recruiting in the inner circle?
I'm probably better off leaving this to someone else. I usually end
up with Hydras and maybe Serpents, which are easier to get. Stacks
focussed on the inner circle which *don't* pick up some Ranger guards
tend to get squashed flat.
> Are Unicorns
>a useful recruiting path?
Not particularly useful. They're good guards for your minotaurs or
warbears but that's about it.
>I have yet to see a Colossus recruited, though I was an even roll away
>from recruiting one last game. I have also found Hill and Woods
>recruiting a bit tricky.
That's fair. There are fewer hills and woods than most everything
except the innermost circle...
>
>#3. Splitting the gargoyles?
>
>I tend to split the gargoyles on the opening setup, while the other
>players that consistently have beaten me tend to keep them with the
>Titan, working towards the Serpents and Behemoths. Which of the 3
>starting creatures should be split, or do people split all 3?
Never, ever, ever split all three.
>#4: The outer ring?
>
>The outer ring has been a place of death for stack stuck on them.
>Despite the advantages of building up stacks of Rangers and Gorgons,
>how often does one risk the outer ring?
The outer ring can be quite safe if you can set up the "freight train"
of a lot of stacks moving along it, provided you have some big stacks
for the front or back.
It's a great advantage in Titan play if you "control" an area of the
board, rather than having your stacks split up all over the place.
>
>#5: Splitting Ranger/Gorgon stacks?
>
>When these stacks are at 7 units, does anybody split them, or do they
>go off and kill something.
Kill kill kill! If it loses a couple of units, you'll be able to
build it back up pretty quickly. The main purpose of ranger/gorgon
stacks should be acquiring points (to make your Titan stronger and
edge towards Titan teleport) and to stomp on your enemy's chances.
>#6: Defensive Terrain
>
>What terrain is the best to defend on? The worst?
Best? I don't know if I know the exact one, but if you have natives,
Swamp is great. Jungle and Mountain are nasty too.
>#7: Masterboard Locations
>
>What are the best locations to recruit on the Masterboard? I have
>found some spots where one can get a new recruit on any of 4 rolls,
>but normally only 2.
Well that depends a great deal on what you have. It's generally a
good idea for a stack to be beside a tower, or next to a circle edge
on the middle track that will let it circle. Particularly if it will
let you circle and recruit a second Wyvern, then Hydras :-) ...
Generally speaking you're going to have best results if a stack can
pick between several different movement paths.
>#8: Splitting
>
>What are the best type of splits to make (what kind of creatures go in
>each stack?). What are the worst? What creatures make splitting more
>difficult? What creatures make splitting easier.
It's generally best to split off your 2 weakest creatures - the
philosophy here being to keep your big stack as strong as possible.
Split 4-3 and both stacks will be weak for quite a while.
>#9: Fleeing
>
>What is the upper limit on stack strength for fleeing that you
>normally see? Would you flee with 3 Cyclops, 2 Behemoth against a
>stack that is much better and you can't expect to beat?
If it's *much* better... probably, yes. Try to imagine what units
you'll be able to kill, what unit the attacker can recruit when he
wins, how close he is to Titan teleport...
>#10: Attacking
>
>Should you only attack if you will win or weaken an opponents Titan
>stack? Is it worth it to attack a stack of 2 Dragons, 2 Minotaurs if
>you have a good chance of derailing Colossus recruiting?
Well, if you have a *good* chance, maybe... But it depends on if
that means you kill the stack, or just maul it. If you left a Dragon
alive then you would not have killed your opponent's chances of
winning, just set it back by another visit to the inner circle.
Chris
David Finberg
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Andrew Hardin wrote:
> Having learned this game about 3 weeks ago, and having faced murderous
> defeats at the hand of better players than I, I am stuck pondering a
> number of things about the game that players better than I could
> probably answer. I also happen to be acquiring something of a small
> addiction to the game, which is really bad.
>
> #1. How fast do you usually try to engage the opponent's Titan stack?
>
As soon as I know I can defeat it with acceptable losses. In general, that
means turns 1-4 are out since
a) It might be the angel
b) Unless there is wildly favorable terrain you will lose a lot
Unless of course it is a 2 player game. Having said that, with a 2 warlock
advantage I don't forsee large losses, so a quick pounding might be in
order on an unusual turn 3.
> #2. How does one go about recruiting in the inner circle? Are Unicorns
> a useful recruiting path?
>
Unicorns are great if you rolls lots of 3's. If you don't, it isn't
that quick to get lots of them, so stopping there and splitting out the
minotaurs isn't very interesting unless you have something big in the
jungle line and a bad split.
> #3. Splitting the gargoyles?
Always. The lone centaur/ogre outside the gargoyle stack is completely
wasted otherwise. And there is lots of brush, and attacking into brush
without any brush creatures is often very difficult. Never split all 3
pairs.
> #4: The outer ring?
>
> The outer ring has been a place of death for stack stuck on them.
> Despite the advantages of building up stacks of Rangers and Gorgons,
> how often does one risk the outer ring?
If you recruit there, go there. Don't make that final move that traps you,
and there are fewer problems. Having two recruit paths helps too, since
you have better moves. You are always 50/50 to get a way off the outer
ring if there are no other stacks in the way.
> #5: Splitting Ranger/Gorgon stacks?
>
> When these stacks are at 7 units, does anybody split them, or do they
> go off and kill something.
Read David desJardins' excellent strategy guide at
http://www.uwm.edu/~bruno/titan/strat.html
> #6: Defensive Terrain
>
> What terrain is the best to defend on? The worst?
It depends mainly on whether you are native and he isn't (or vice
versa). The Tower is normally pretty bad for evenly matched stacks to
attack into, but fliers and rangestrikers can make most terrains
acceptable.
> #8: Splitting
>
> What are the best type of splits to make (what kind of creatures go in
> each stack?). What are the worst? What creatures make splitting more
> difficult? What creatures make splitting easier.
See the answer to #5
>
> #9: Fleeing
>
> What is the upper limit on stack strength for fleeing that you
> normally see? Would you flee with 3 Cyclops, 2 Behemoth against a
> stack that is much better and you can't expect to beat?
No limit. Yes. At DonCon this year my opponent fled with (roughly) 5
hydras and 2 wvyerns. It wasn't unreasonable. 4 hydras and 2 wyverns would
have been an automatic flee. I can't remember, but I think ttn10 ser*4
beh*2 against hyd*5 wyv*2 in the brush (I teleported, so a pretty good
direction). I had an angel, and there was another battle first, I was at
482 and the first battle was ang gor gor gor vs tro tro (or something
equivalent). He was close to colossi in his titan stack, and ...
> #10: Attacking
>
> Should you only attack if you will win or weaken an opponents Titan
> stack? Is it worth it to attack a stack of 2 Dragons, 2 Minotaurs if
> you have a good chance of derailing Colossus recruiting?
Possibly. It depends on your odds of tracking down and killing his titan
before his colossi rips yours apart. Obviously though, this move is much
more attractive if he is at 0 points than 399/499.
-- Dave
Eric Gorr
> #1. How fast do you usually try to engage the opponent's Titan stack?
As soon as I know I can kill it.
> #2. How does one go about recruiting in the inner circle? Are Unicorns
> a useful recruiting path?
Often, in games, you don't see much Colossus recruitment...and then
sometimes you do. It just depends on how the game goes.
Yes, Unicorns are very useful, but I would not go out of my way to get
them.
> #3. Splitting the gargoyles?
Splitting the gargoyles is far more standard then keeping them together.
In general, the brush stuff is easy to get while the other stuff is a
bit harder...you want to maximize your chances of getting to Rangers and
Colussus first.
Only split all three in a two player game, if even then...I have seen it
work, but not very often. The reason is that you generally want your
stacks to have a goal in mind of what they are building towards.
Splitting all three items tends to make this harder.
> #4: The outer ring?
Sometimes you cannot avoid it. But, your brush stacks shouldn't mind
being there...everyone else wants to stay to the middle/inner ring.
> #5: Splitting Ranger/Gorgon stacks?
If they are at 7, don't split them. The whole point of getting 7 of them
in a single stack is to go around killing things.
> #6: Defensive Terrain
>
> What terrain is the best to defend on?
Whatever your creatures are native to, in general.
But, in General, the tower is the best.
Swamp & Woods aren't bad either.
The Jungle is really nice for the brush stacks.
> The worst?
Whatever your creatures are not native to.
But, in general, the Plains
> #7: Masterboard Locations
This just depends on what you have in your stack.
But, in general, the best spots are next to or in a tower.
> #8: Splitting
In general, make 5-2 splits ... only do 4-3 splits when you are feeling
greedy or your stack is in a safe place (doesn't happen very
often...except in 2 and 3 player games).
In general, the 2 pieces you split off should be those that have already
done there work...ie...if your ogres have gotten a troll, split them
off.
> #9: Fleeing
> #10: Attacking
I will generally always flee if I cannot win. Points are very worth a
lot in Titan. The primary exception would be if I could probably kill
something important...like the second minataur, etc.. Sometimes hurting
the opponents recruitment path can be worthwhile...this same advice
works for attacking.
You don't want to be giving your opponent free points and you need to
make sure that giving them points is worthwhile. It mainly just takes
experience.
== Eric Gorr ====== ICQ:9293199 ====== http://www.teleport.com/~ericg ==
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like violence, are the last resort of the incompetent... ===
Andrew Hardin
Camfield) wrote:
[snip]
>>#3. Splitting the gargoyles?
>>
>>I tend to split the gargoyles on the opening setup, while the other
>>players that consistently have beaten me tend to keep them with the
>>Titan, working towards the Serpents and Behemoths. Which of the 3
>>starting creatures should be split, or do people split all 3?
>
>Never, ever, ever split all three.
I am curious the reasoning behind not splitting all 3. Is the concern
the fact that the stack is weak for a few turns? It has the advantage
of being able to recruit quickly, but the recruits will be quite weak
to begin with. I assume this is a tradeoff. I personally tend to split
the gargoyles, and leave the centaurs and ogres together, but I don't
claim to be a very good player.
[snip]
>It's a great advantage in Titan play if you "control" an area of the
>board, rather than having your stacks split up all over the place.
Is this control an intentional decision, or just something that
happens. That is, do you tend to avoid recruiting spaces that place
your stacks too far apart, or do you take more chances?
[snip]
>>#5: Splitting Ranger/Gorgon stacks?
>>
>>When these stacks are at 7 units, does anybody split them, or do they
>>go off and kill something.
>
>Kill kill kill! If it loses a couple of units, you'll be able to
>build it back up pretty quickly. The main purpose of ranger/gorgon
>stacks should be acquiring points (to make your Titan stronger and
>edge towards Titan teleport) and to stomp on your enemy's chances.
On this, at what point do you aim a stack towards the enemy? Does it
have to reach 7, or do you start moving with 6 and hope you get a roll
to recruit another?
[snip]
>>#8: Splitting
>>
>>What are the best type of splits to make (what kind of creatures go in
>>each stack?). What are the worst? What creatures make splitting more
>>difficult? What creatures make splitting easier.
>
>It's generally best to split off your 2 weakest creatures - the
>philosophy here being to keep your big stack as strong as possible.
>Split 4-3 and both stacks will be weak for quite a while.
I tend to limit my 4-3 splits to times when the stacks have a high
probability of safety, and even then I have found them to be a bit
weak for awhile. Are there any common situation when you split off
something besides your weakest creatures?
Andrew Hardin
<dfin...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Andrew Hardin wrote:
>
>> Having learned this game about 3 weeks ago, and having faced murderous
>> defeats at the hand of better players than I, I am stuck pondering a
>> number of things about the game that players better than I could
>> probably answer. I also happen to be acquiring something of a small
>> addiction to the game, which is really bad.
>>
>> #1. How fast do you usually try to engage the opponent's Titan stack?
>>
>
>As soon as I know I can defeat it with acceptable losses. In general, that
>means turns 1-4 are out since
> a) It might be the angel
> b) Unless there is wildly favorable terrain you will lose a lot
>
>Unless of course it is a 2 player game. Having said that, with a 2 warlock
>advantage I don't forsee large losses, so a quick pounding might be in
>order on an unusual turn 3.
I have seen a strategy mentioned of recruiting a third tower creature
on a 6, in hopes of getting a warbear/minotaur on a 4 or a 6? Is the
warlock a much better path?
>> #2. How does one go about recruiting in the inner circle? Are Unicorns
>> a useful recruiting path?
>>
>
>Unicorns are great if you rolls lots of 3's. If you don't, it isn't
>that quick to get lots of them, so stopping there and splitting out the
>minotaurs isn't very interesting unless you have something big in the
>jungle line and a bad split.
>
>> #3. Splitting the gargoyles?
>
>Always. The lone centaur/ogre outside the gargoyle stack is completely
>wasted otherwise. And there is lots of brush, and attacking into brush
>without any brush creatures is often very difficult. Never split all 3
>pairs.
>
>
>> #4: The outer ring?
>>
>> The outer ring has been a place of death for stack stuck on them.
>> Despite the advantages of building up stacks of Rangers and Gorgons,
>> how often does one risk the outer ring?
>
>If you recruit there, go there. Don't make that final move that traps you,
>and there are fewer problems. Having two recruit paths helps too, since
>you have better moves. You are always 50/50 to get a way off the outer
>ring if there are no other stacks in the way.
How do prevent guys in the outer ring from getting trapped? I am
thinking I don't move enough, when I am sitting with a stack that can
recruit on one of 2 rolls in the outer ring. Sometimes, a 5 stack will
sit waiting for a long time for a recruit, and will eventually get
nailed by a 7 stack (this almost always happens when the opponent
rolls a 6, since I usually move if it gets too much closer).
>
>> #5: Splitting Ranger/Gorgon stacks?
>>
>> When these stacks are at 7 units, does anybody split them, or do they
>> go off and kill something.
>
>Read David desJardins' excellent strategy guide at
>http://www.uwm.edu/~bruno/titan/strat.html
I have, and it has been helpful. My problem with this game is not the
general ideas as much as the specific tactics. I have found places
where a Hydra can be recruited on any of 3 rolls, for example. One of
the requires the outer ring, however. In that situation, should I wait
for the other 2 rolls, or take the chance to get the immediate Hydra?
>No limit. Yes. At DonCon this year my opponent fled with (roughly) 5
>hydras and 2 wvyerns. It wasn't unreasonable. 4 hydras and 2 wyverns would
>have been an automatic flee. I can't remember, but I think ttn10 ser*4
>beh*2 against hyd*5 wyv*2 in the brush (I teleported, so a pretty good
>direction). I had an angel, and there was another battle first, I was at
>482 and the first battle was ang gor gor gor vs tro tro (or something
>equivalent). He was close to colossi in his titan stack, and ...
This is something I have noticed discussed often. I would have a hard
time fleeing with such forces, but I can understand. When does a
person fight an unwinnable fight? One time, I fought an opponent who
was about 20% better than I, and wiped out all the Minotaurs and
Dragons from the stack, but gave him considerable points. At the time,
I thought this was a good trade, but from what people seem to be
telling me, the points are actually more valuable.
David Finberg
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:40:09 -0400, David Finberg
> <dfin...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> I have seen a strategy mentioned of recruiting a third tower creature
> on a 6, in hopes of getting a warbear/minotaur on a 4 or a 6? Is the
> warlock a much better path?
Do you also move to the left side of a tower on turn 1 and take the
centaur/ogre? You also have 2 shots. Centaurs and Ogres suck, the object
is to ditch them from your titan stack, not have more.
Warlocks are tremendously powerful, and the stronger your stacks are, the
easier it is to recruit, since other players clear out. Or don't, and you
kill them. This strategy seems somewhat insane, since you are revealing
your titan for no tangible benefit early. With 2 6's I would much rather
have two warlocks. So you are really hoping to roll a 4 the next turn. I
would still rather have warlock and troll/lion next to a tower.
> How do prevent guys in the outer ring from getting trapped? I am
> thinking I don't move enough, when I am sitting with a stack that can
> recruit on one of 2 rolls in the outer ring. Sometimes, a 5 stack will
> sit waiting for a long time for a recruit, and will eventually get
> nailed by a 7 stack (this almost always happens when the opponent
> rolls a 6, since I usually move if it gets too much closer).
The best solution is to have multiple recruiting trees in a stack, so you
recruit on 4 or more numbers, not two. Still, there will come a time when
you really want the good creature (a behemoth maybe) over more dross.
Being 6 will help, you are less vulnerable then.
You may need to start moving earlier, especially if you don't recruit on
many numbers. No recruit is better than dead.
> I have, and it has been helpful. My problem with this game is not the
> general ideas as much as the specific tactics. I have found places
> where a Hydra can be recruited on any of 3 rolls, for example. One of
> the requires the outer ring, however. In that situation, should I wait
> for the other 2 rolls, or take the chance to get the immediate Hydra?
Take the hydra. There really shouldn't be that much that you don't want to attack
when you have a hydra. And even on the outer rim there are plenty of
places to get a second one. With hydras it is important to get them (and
multiply) quickly, since they are much weaker than serpents or collosi in
neutral terrain.
> This is something I have noticed discussed often. I would have a hard
> time fleeing with such forces, but I can understand. When does a
> person fight an unwinnable fight? One time, I fought an opponent who
> was about 20% better than I, and wiped out all the Minotaurs and
> Dragons from the stack, but gave him considerable points. At the time,
> I thought this was a good trade, but from what people seem to be
> telling me, the points are actually more valuable.
Fleeing is tough to figure out. The problem isn't the 100 points you give
away, the problem is when that 100 points allows him to get to 400 (500),
and mop up with Titan Teleportation. This is often devasting to newer
players since the board is littered with trashy cen cen cen lio lio ran
ran stacks ripe for teleporting onto. 50 points for every 6 you roll is
big.
-- Dave
David desJardins
> I am curious the reasoning behind not splitting all 3. Is the concern
> the fact that the stack is weak for a few turns?
A pair of ogres simply dominates an ogre and a centaur. If you start
with [Lord Gar Ogr Cen], you might recruit your way up to [Lord Gar Gar
Ogr Ogr Cen Cen]. You then have to split off the centaurs or the ogres,
so they didn't give you any benefit. You would clearly be better off
starting with [Lord Gar Ogr Ogr] and recruiting up to say [Lord Cyc Gar
Gar Tro Ogr Ogr]; once you have a troll, you can split off the ogres
with no significant loss.
> Is this control an intentional decision, or just something that
> happens. That is, do you tend to avoid recruiting spaces that place
> your stacks too far apart, or do you take more chances?
I think all strong players consider this to some extent. The weight
that they put on it early in the game varies a lot. Later in the game,
it tends to naturally happen that your legions come together: you have
more freedom of movement when you are near to your other legions, so
random fluctuations bring them together more often than move them apart.
Based on the recent questions, I added a few more thoughts to my titan
strategy guide at
http://www.desjardins.org/david/titan.txt
David desJardins
Andrew Hardin
>strategy guide at
>
>http://www.desjardins.org/david/titan.txt
>
> David desJardins
I appreciate it. I am trying to overcome the newbie stage as quickly
as possible, simply because I enjoy this game so much and it gets
tiring losing (I can destroy a beginner, but not much else). We shall
put these ideas into action and see what they bring.
Andrew Hardin
<dfin...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Andrew Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:40:09 -0400, David Finberg
>> <dfin...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> I have seen a strategy mentioned of recruiting a third tower creature
>> on a 6, in hopes of getting a warbear/minotaur on a 4 or a 6? Is the
>> warlock a much better path?
>
>Do you also move to the left side of a tower on turn 1 and take the
>centaur/ogre? You also have 2 shots. Centaurs and Ogres suck, the object
>is to ditch them from your titan stack, not have more.
The answer to #1 is no :). It was something I saw somewhere, have
never done but have had considered. I found it intriguing, in that it
is different from the way I have been playing. I am such a novice
though that I am willing to open my mind to new ideas.
>> How do prevent guys in the outer ring from getting trapped? I am
>> thinking I don't move enough, when I am sitting with a stack that can
>> recruit on one of 2 rolls in the outer ring. Sometimes, a 5 stack will
>> sit waiting for a long time for a recruit, and will eventually get
>> nailed by a 7 stack (this almost always happens when the opponent
>> rolls a 6, since I usually move if it gets too much closer).
>
>The best solution is to have multiple recruiting trees in a stack, so you
>recruit on 4 or more numbers, not two. Still, there will come a time when
>you really want the good creature (a behemoth maybe) over more dross.
>Being 6 will help, you are less vulnerable then.
>You may need to start moving earlier, especially if you don't recruit on
>many numbers. No recruit is better than dead.
You raise an interesting point. In terms of multiple recruiting paths,
how do you usually attempt to achieve this, what kind of stacks?
dbac...@ionet.net
and...@removethistoreply.dc-systems.com (Andrew Hardin) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:21:43 -0400, David Finberg
> <dfin...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> The answer to #1 is no :). It was something I saw somewhere, have
> never done but have had considered. I found it intriguing, in that it
> is different from the way I have been playing. I am such a novice
> though that I am willing to open my mind to new ideas.
Oddly, the strategy is my common approach. It has as one drawback
in the time it takes to get your gargoyles off and multiplying
is typically enough for other players to be a rung ahead in
recruitment.
Donald
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David desJardins
> Oddly, the strategy is my common approach. It has as one drawback
> in the time it takes to get your gargoyles off and multiplying
> is typically enough for other players to be a rung ahead in
> recruitment.
Two drawbacks: when you fill up your titan stack with ogres, often you
die before you can replace them with something useful.
David desJardins
Andrew Hardin
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
I would consider that a rather large drawback. I have not played with
more than 3 people yet, and our group wouldn't be considered the most
aggressive players in the world, particularly compared to what I see
from discussions and tournament reports.
dbac...@ionet.net
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> "Donald" <dbac...@ionet.net> writes:
> > Oddly, the strategy is my common approach. It has as one drawback
> > in the time it takes to get your gargoyles off and multiplying
> > is typically enough for other players to be a rung ahead in
> > recruitment.
>
> Two drawbacks: when you fill up your titan stack with ogres, often you
> die before you can replace them with something useful.
>
I wouldn't qualify a third ogre to be "fill[ing] up".
dbac...@ionet.net
and...@removethistoreply.dc-systems.com (Andrew Hardin) wrote:
> On 27 Oct 1999 13:46:41 -0700, David desJardins
>
> >"Donald" <dbac...@ionet.net> writes:
> >> Oddly, the strategy is my common approach. It has as one drawback
> >> in the time it takes to get your gargoyles off and multiplying
> >> is typically enough for other players to be a rung ahead in
> >> recruitment.
> >
> >Two drawbacks: when you fill up your titan stack with ogres, often
you
> >die before you can replace them with something useful.
> >
>
> I would consider that a rather large drawback. I have not played with
> more than 3 people yet, and our group wouldn't be considered the most
> aggressive players in the world, particularly compared to what I see
> from discussions and tournament reports.
>
If natural movement took you to a place to recruit a third ogre
would you choose not to take it?
Or did I miss something?
Eric Gorr
I will usually wait until I get the Troll before my ogr start appearing
in three's. Of course, if I land on the hills and have no choice but to
get the third one, I won't pass it up.
The same applies to the cen/wbe path.
<dbac...@ionet.net> wrote:
> If natural movement took you to a place to recruit a third ogre
> would you choose not to take it?
>
> Or did I miss something?
>
>
> Donald
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
== Eric Gorr =========================================== ICQ:9293199 ===
David desJardins
> I wouldn't qualify a third ogre to be "fill[ing] up".
Taking a third ogre often puts you two steps behind in the process of
replacing tower creatures with stronger fighters.
For example, you succeed in getting your minotaur, and then you land in
the brush and get a gargoyle. Now you have [Ttn Min Ogr Ogr Ogr Gar
Gar]. Now you split off two tower creatures, and land in the brush once
and the marsh once; you have either [Ttn Min Ogr Ogr Cyc Gar Gar] or
[Ttn Min Tro Ogr Ogr Gar Gar]. (You might also do worse in recruiting
during the period when you have ogres and not trolls, because you can't
recruit in the swamp. But let's assume optimistically that you stay
even with the player with trolls.)
Meanwhile, the player who took the troll got another troll with the 5
that gave you a minotaur, and then another gargoyle, giving [Ttn Tro Tro
Ogr Ogr Gar Gar]. Then he splits off two ogres, and lands in the brush
once and the marsh once, giving [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar Gar].
That's a very significant difference in combat strength. After another
split, the first legion might be [Ttn Min Tro Ogr Ogr Cyc Cyc] and the
second might be [Ttn Ran Ran Ran Tro Tro Cyc] (rangers breed quickly
because the legion with the ranger can recruit in both plains and
marsh), which is an even bigger difference. The latter legion will
demolish the former if it were to get to attack it.
And that's all in the case where you get your minotaur. Half the time
you end up with [Ttn Tro Ogr Ogr Ogr Gar Gar] instead, and you have to
split off two ogres. Now you have nothing to show for your efforts
except an ogre instead of a troll. You are one step farther from
replacing your tower creatures, one step farther from rangers, and one
step farther from warbears.
There's no question that the third tower creature can work. But it
requires luck.
David desJardins
Don Woods
> How do prevent guys in the outer ring from getting trapped? I am
> thinking I don't move enough, when I am sitting with a stack that can
> recruit on one of 2 rolls in the outer ring. Sometimes, a 5 stack will
> sit waiting for a long time for a recruit, and will eventually get
> nailed by a 7 stack (this almost always happens when the opponent
> rolls a 6, since I usually move if it gets too much closer).
Yes, you're not moving enough. A common newbie mistake is to sit
still unless you can get a recruit on the turn you move. You have
to recognise that sometimes it's worth moving without recruiting.
There are many reasons why, but the biggest is that you can often
give yourself a better chance of recruiting the NEXT turn.
In the outer ring, you always have 3 rolls that leave you with a
choice of movement directions the next turn. If you have 2 rolls
that recruit now, suppose one of them "looks in" and one doesn't.
That means there are really at least four rolls on which you
should probably move: 1 that recruits and looks in, 1 that recruits
and is still stuck in the outer ring, and 2 that don't recruit but
give you more choices next time. It can also happen that moving,
even to another place that's stuck in the outer ring, can increase
your chances of a future recruit.
For example, suppose you have a brush/jungle stack in J104. It
recruits on a 2 or 5. On a 1 it can move to M103 and then recruit
on three rolls (1,2,4). On a 3 it moves to P101 and recruits on
three rolls (2,4,6), plus has a chance to waddle into a tower on
a 1, which might get you a Guardian but is probably a good place
to be even if you can't recruit anything good. On a 6 from J104,
you probably want to move to M140, which gives you 3 chances to
recruit next turn plus 2 chances to look in without recruiting.
-- Don.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-- Don Woods (d...@navilinks.com) NaviLinks provides real-time linking.
-- http://www.navilinks.com/~don I provide personal opinions.
--
dbac...@ionet.net
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> "Donald" <dbac...@ionet.net> writes:
> > I wouldn't qualify a third ogre to be "fill[ing] up".
>
> Taking a third ogre often puts you two steps behind in the process of
> replacing tower creatures with stronger fighters.
>
[Much analysis snipped]
You stand to be at a disadvantage for a time. I believe I noted that
to be the case.
Also, I can't see going from the Hills to the Brush over going to
the next Hill (on a 6 I believe--working from memory) if the choice
presents for the second Minotaur. That leaves you one recruit from
a Dragon, though it will require a trip through the outer ring.
Of course, you should take the Gargoyle (on a 1 I believe) if
that happens first because it gives you another chance at the
Hill you left on a 5, with a 4 placing you at the entry to
the inner circle, where half the rolls result in a 2nd Minotaur.
Is [Ttn Min Ogr Ogr Ogr Gar Gar] weaker than [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar
Gar]? Yes. Does it make a difference if you are not subjected to
attack? No.
>
> There's no question that the third tower creature can work. But it
> requires luck.
Getting anything in the game requires luck. Where we have control is
in deciding to obey the dictates of board position as opposed to
blindly following a strategy.
Bruno Wolff III
>
> Also, I can't see going from the Hills to the Brush over going to
> the next Hill (on a 6 I believe--working from memory) if the choice
> presents for the second Minotaur. That leaves you one recruit from
> a Dragon, though it will require a trip through the outer ring.
(Hills to hills is 5 away.)
Assuming you are at a hills next to a swamp and not one next to a marsh
(which would not allow a direct move to another hills), a 5 gives you
a choice of going to hills or swamp. Moving to a down hills will in a
significant number of cases be a risky move.
> Is [Ttn Min Ogr Ogr Ogr Gar Gar] weaker than [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar
> Gar]? Yes. Does it make a difference if you are not subjected to
> attack? No.
Yes, because you will reduce the safe options of the stack. The stronger
stack will be in a better position to threaten other stacks and to be
able to safely move to more locations.
dbac...@ionet.net
br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu wrote:
> From article <7vcahh$pae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, by dbac...@ionet.net:
> >
> > Also, I can't see going from the Hills to the Brush over going to
> > the next Hill (on a 6 I believe--working from memory) if the choice
> > presents for the second Minotaur. That leaves you one recruit from
> > a Dragon, though it will require a trip through the outer ring.
>
> (Hills to hills is 5 away.)
Yeah. . .was counting the hex started in. Oops.
>
> Assuming you are at a hills next to a swamp and not one next to a
marsh
> (which would not allow a direct move to another hills), a 5 gives you
> a choice of going to hills or swamp. Moving to a down hills will in a
> significant number of cases be a risky move.
I consider it to be a weaker move than moving one down to the Brush
because it forces you onto the outer track where generally the stack
has little it will be able to recruit.
>
> > Is [Ttn Min Ogr Ogr Ogr Gar Gar] weaker than [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc
Gar
> > Gar]? Yes. Does it make a difference if you are not subjected to
> > attack? No.
>
> Yes, because you will reduce the safe options of the stack. The
stronger
> stack will be in a better position to threaten other stacks and to be
> able to safely move to more locations.
That is being argumentative for the sake of it. ". . .if you are
not subjected to attack. . ." being the presumption in what I wrote,
". . .be[ing] able to safely move. . .], which you wrote, is covered.
And where, precisely, is the [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar Gar] stack
heading in terms of recruitment?
Mike Schneider .
> From article <7vcahh$pae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, by dbac...@ionet.net:
> > Is [Ttn Min Ogr Ogr Ogr Gar Gar] weaker than [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar
> > Gar]? Yes. Does it make a difference if you are not subjected to
> > attack? No.
>
> Yes, because you will reduce the safe options of the stack. The stronger
> stack will be in a better position to threaten other stacks and to be
> able to safely move to more locations.
A Dragon is ages away for the Min stack, and even Unicorns would, at
best, come several turns after the opponant stack is stuffed with Rangers
and Gorgons and on the hunt for weak meat. A Titan stack with fliers vs a
Titan stack without fliers will almost always win, points being equal (let
alone with the fliers being stronger and range-strikers, as they would be
in this match-up).
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
http://www.monumental.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_la.html
Mike Schneider .
My unshakable endorsement of unfettered Liberty for everyone should not be construed as championship of the "common man", whom I account an inveterate imbecile and fanatical proponent of palpably stupid fantasies such as religion and government. Instead I would see cream rise to its full potential and watch cretins plunge into poverty so abject they cannot afford to mate; and only Liberty offers the prospect of each individual to a deserving fate. And so, the least would die by twos and threes per tick instead of safety-netting for generations at the expense of their extorted betters until being slaughtered wholesale by the millions in their own state-instigated wars and famines (whereupon they leech upon, even in death, mournings reserved for the legions of innocents caught in the holocausts).
Humanity evolves one way or the other and there's no escaping it. So long as fools out-breed geniuses, they must expire in greater numbers for species intelligence to maintain the mean, let alone advance.
andre...@my-deja.com
dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> And where, precisely, is the [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar Gar] stack
> heading in terms of recruitment?
>
It's heading towards 2 more Rangers and killing the stack that skipped
over rangers on its way to get a Warbear or Minotaur with 3 tower
creatures.
dbac...@ionet.net
w...@yaknow.com (Mike Schneider .) wrote:
> In article <7vccfd$f7e$1...@uwm.edu>, br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu wrote:
>
> > From article <7vcahh$pae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, by dbac...@ionet.net:
Gar
> > > Gar]? Yes. Does it make a difference if you are not subjected to
> > > attack? No.
> >
> > Yes, because you will reduce the safe options of the stack. The
stronger
> > stack will be in a better position to threaten other stacks and to
be
> > able to safely move to more locations.
>
> A Dragon is ages away for the Min stack, and even Unicorns would,
at
> best, come several turns after the opponant stack is stuffed with
Rangers
> and Gorgons and on the hunt for weak meat. A Titan stack with fliers
vs a
> Titan stack without fliers will almost always win, points being equal
(let
> alone with the fliers being stronger and range-strikers, as they
would be
> in this match-up).
>
Ages away? 2 recruitments away doesn't strike me as ages away.
Admittedly you have to manuever around, and I expect the Ranger
stack to grow a bit faster. Still, I have had games where my first
Dragon came into play before the first Behemoth.
I realize we are speaking of generalities here, but flying, for
all its benefits can be offset by terrain. If your flyer has to
land at the bottom of a dune, slope, wall, or for that matter
can't even enter the hex because of not being native, "always wins"
is in question. That said, give me fliers any day over equal pieces
without any abilities.
Moreover, I find the assumption that "being on the hunt" and "being
engaged in combat" are synonymous to be a stretch--at least until
Titan Teleport comes into play.
Donald
Bruno Wolff III
> Gar
>> > Gar]? Yes. Does it make a difference if you are not subjected to
>> > attack? No.
>>
>> Yes, because you will reduce the safe options of the stack. The
> stronger
>> stack will be in a better position to threaten other stacks and to be
>> able to safely move to more locations.
>
> not subjected to attack. . ." being the presumption in what I wrote,
> ". . .be[ing] able to safely move. . .], which you wrote, is covered.
To keep from being attacked you need to make moves to make that happen.
Those moves may be different for the two stacks. So in general the stronger
stack will recruit better.
>
> And where, precisely, is the [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar Gar] stack
> heading in terms of recruitment?
Perhaps something like Ttn Ang Ang Ran Ran Gor Gor.
dbac...@ionet.net
andre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7vcioq$vv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
>
> > heading in terms of recruitment?
> >
>
> over rangers on its way to get a Warbear or Minotaur with 3 tower
> creatures.
>
Who'd have ever guessed the purpose of every newsgroup would degenerate
over time to nothing but attempts to get in the witty comment?
Hint: A lot can happen in the time it takes the one stack to
recruit its extra Rangers then manuever around the board to
hunt the unidentified stack gathering Minotaurs.
dbac...@ionet.net
br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu wrote:
> >> > Is [Ttn Min Ogr Ogr Ogr Gar Gar] weaker than [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc
> > Gar
> >> > Gar]? Yes. Does it make a difference if you are not subjected to
> >> > attack? No.
> >>
> >> Yes, because you will reduce the safe options of the stack. The
> > stronger
> >> stack will be in a better position to threaten other stacks and to
be
> >> able to safely move to more locations.
> >
> > That is being argumentative for the sake of it. ". . .if you are
> > not subjected to attack. . ." being the presumption in what I wrote,
> > ". . .be[ing] able to safely move. . .], which you wrote, is
covered.
>
> To keep from being attacked you need to make moves to make that
happen.
> Those moves may be different for the two stacks. So in general the
stronger
> stack will recruit better.
If the end of the recruitment for the one stack is a Titan and
six Rangers, then as handy as that is, I'll take the one that is
working towards Titan and Collosi anyday.
Yes, I know you have to live long enough for the end result to
happen, but the presumptions that (1) the filling of the first
stack will take orders of magnitude less time than it does for
the second to acquire some worthwhile creatures and (2) that
having reached its ultimate development it will then be able
to willy-nilly engage any stack on the board at will, I find
dubious.
>
> >
> > And where, precisely, is the [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar Gar] stack
> > heading in terms of recruitment?
>
> Perhaps something like Ttn Ang Ang Ran Ran Gor Gor.
Ang-Ang implies at least a battle with the stack, and at least a gain
of 100 points. Gor-Gor implies acquisition of a second Cyclops and
then two further recruitments. Is there any reason you are assuming
the other stack is just sitting back and sipping margaritas?
Bruno Wolff III
>
> Hint: A lot can happen in the time it takes the one stack to
> recruit its extra Rangers then manuever around the board to
> hunt the unidentified stack gathering Minotaurs.
Yes, someone else may get to kill them first.
It is nice to get some minotaurs so that if the opportunity arises you can
get dragons, but you don't want to significantly hurt your stack's
recruiting to get there.
I will sometimes get a third ogre or centaur on the first turn on a 1.
This can make a 3 a better roll on turn 2 in some towers and there is a 1/36
chance of getting two guardians in a position where you can cause great
unpleasantness for another player.
David desJardins
> Is [Ttn Min Ogr Ogr Ogr Gar Gar] weaker than [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar
> Gar]? Yes. Does it make a difference if you are not subjected to
> attack? No.
That's not right: it can make a difference either if I am subject to a
possible attack, or if I have the opportunity to make a possible attack.
Those two possibilities are about equally relevant. The difference in
strength is only immaterial if there's no chance of the legion being
involved in a battle, and in my experience that very rarely is the case.
In my experience, in a game with good players, neither of these legions
is likely to be involved in a battle at this point in the game. That's
because no player will voluntarily leave a legion where another player
can and will attack it. But strength still makes a big difference,
because it entirely dictates movement and splitting options. The
stronger legion may be able to split, while the weaker legion can't take
that risk. Or the stronger legion will have a clear path for recruiting
(because an enemy legion isn't willing to sit in front of it) while the
weaker legion is blocked.
On a less crowded board (for example, in a two-player game) safety may
be sometimes be less important, depending on position. But the legion
that eliminates its tower creatures more quickly can more quickly split
off legions with good recruiting potential, which is another important
advantage.
I don't expect anyone reading this to be able to tell just from my
analysis and from Donald's analysis who is right. My analysis is
superficially plausible, and Donald's is also superficially plausible.
It could be the case that recruiting extra tower creatures would work
well. It's only with considerable experience that one finds that that's
not generally the case.
My opinions about the game are offered for the benefit of whomever wants
to take them. If some people don't want to take my advice, that's fine
too.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> And where, precisely, is the [Ttn Ran Tro Tro Cyc Gar Gar] stack
> heading in terms of recruitment?
Really, it might go just about anywhere. It might get warbears, it
might get wyverns, it might get behemoths. All of these things happen
pretty often. It might also win the game with rangers and/or gorgons.
That also happens pretty often.
Once the legion has gotten rid of all of its tower creatures, going into
the center for warbears is much more practical. This sequence (trolls,
rangers, then warbears), when it happens to come off (i.e., when an easy
shot at the inner ring comes along) tends to work better than the
alternate path toward colossi (extra ogre, minotaur, then try to get rid
of the tower creatures). The main reason it works better is because
it's more flexible: the third ogre is only useful if everything goes
well, and only on one particular path, while recruiting toward rangers
is always useful, and the legion, like the one above, then has many
options (and generates stronger split-offs).
David desJardins
andre...@my-deja.com
dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> In article <7vclfk$22a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> andre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <7vcioq$vv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> >
> > > heading in terms of recruitment?
> > >
> >
skipped
> > over rangers on its way to get a Warbear or Minotaur with 3 tower
> > creatures.
> >
>
> Who'd have ever guessed the purpose of every newsgroup would
degenerate
> over time to nothing but attempts to get in the witty comment?
>
> recruit its extra Rangers then manuever around the board to
> hunt the unidentified stack gathering Minotaurs.
>
Hint: some of the things that can happen are much more likely to occur
than others.
Look, you get a third Ogre on turn 1. I get a troll. Right now, off
the bat, the Swamp is a great place for me to recruit-- it gets me my
second troll. The swamp, for you, gets you zip-- nothing, nada, not
even a first level creature.
But that's not the real killer-- that actually might be worth putting
up with, if it was the end of the unpleasantness. Here's the real
problem:
After I get my second troll, I now need only land in the marsh-- tied
with the plains for the second most common type of terrain on the
board, if you'll count squares-- in order to get a Ranger.
And once I get a ranger, they multiply *fast*. Now, I get a ranger
every time I land in the Marsh OR in the Plains. I've made 2 of the 3
most common spots on the board-- including 2 of every 3 spots next to
towers (great locations) and EVERY spot next to the upper circle-- a
desirable recruiting location.
Meanwhile, someone who has gotten a minotaur on the auto-down to the
outer circle is not recruiting in swamps (at least, not right away);
and isn't recruiting in the plains, either (again, at least not for AT
LEAST 2 turns longer than me-- and being on the outer circle, it could
be a LOT longer than that).
And what does that person have to show for their "shortcut"? A
minotaur-- which is an inferior piece to a ranger, anyway, except in
the unlikely event that it lives long enough to become a Dragon.
Tripling up the first level creatures works better and better the less
aggressive your playing group is. In tournament quality mulitplayer
Titan play, the vast majority of the games are won with Rangers,
Gorgons, and Angels. In tournament quality mulitplayer Titan play, a
Colossus is probably recruited in fewer than 1 out of every 10 games--
poor odds to be betting a strategy on.
Now, I will offer a caveat to all of the above: all bets are off if
you're talking a 2 or 3 player game, where strategies may well differ
from 4 - 6 player games. But in 4 -6 player games, by turn 3 or turn
4, someone is going to have an angel stack or a titan stack in your
vacinity; and if you're sitting there with a minotaur and 3 ogres, and
they've got a ranger and are getting another ranger 1/2 of the time,
your options are very, very limited.
Jeff Boyd
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
>
> I don't expect anyone reading this to be able to tell just from my
> analysis and from Donald's analysis who is right. My analysis is
> superficially plausible, and Donald's is also superficially plausible.
> It could be the case that recruiting extra tower creatures would work
> well. It's only with considerable experience that one finds that
that's
> not generally the case.
>
More specifically, experience against players who will punish you for
deliberately stunting your Titan stack :).
As David and others have written, the risk of carrying 3Cen/3Ogr is high
in both 2-player and multi-player. If you're currently
Tt6+Tro+Ogr+Ogr+Ogr+Gar waiting for a Hills roll (what else would you do
after willingly taking the 3rd Ogr?), even a lowly Cyc+Cyc+Gar+Gar can
maim you beyond recovery. So you have to run away or sit in bog ... you
won't be safe in green, because I can think of nothing better for my
Brush scat to do than suicide on your Titan stack early in the game.
I generally avoid taking the 3rd base creature, unless I've had an
atrocious start and someone's hot on my heels. Otherwise, it'll be in a
vacant area where I can immediately split 4-3 to dump the trash early
(ie. I've already got the Tro/Lio). My personal rule: don't take a
Wbe/Min until you've already got a Ranger or will get one soon (and that
means I have to get my first Wbe/Min in the inner ring).
Jeff
David J. Grabiner
> I will sometimes get a third ogre or centaur on the first turn on a 1.
> This can make a 3 a better roll on turn 2 in some towers and there is a 1/36
> chance of getting two guardians in a position where you can cause great
> unpleasantness for another player.
You can only get one guardian, since you can't move both stacks into the
same tower.
And this move is worthwhile only if it is your angel stack. The titan
stack doesn't gain an advantage by being able to recruit a guardian,
since it can get a warlock if it rolls another 1 anyway.
(I do sometimes do this in a 2-player game, in which the stack is likely
to spend a long time before it gets into battle.)
--
David Grabiner, grab...@wcnet.org (note new Email)
http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine (note spelling)
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Torus Coffee and Donuts, Klein Glassworks, Projective Airlines, erc.
dbac...@ionet.net
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
>
> I don't expect anyone reading this to be able to tell just from my
> analysis and from Donald's analysis who is right. My analysis is
> superficially plausible, and Donald's is also superficially plausible.
> It could be the case that recruiting extra tower creatures would work
> well. It's only with considerable experience that one finds that
that's
> not generally the case.
I think I have already agreed that the other split is superior.
The question to my mind is why you and others persist in pursuing
the matter as if I were claiming equivalence or near equivalence
when I have quite clearly written that the option of the 3rd
tower creature has its risks. From what has been written here
you'd expect that following that option would be about as
reasonable as splitting all your stacks down to 2 creatures
at every opportunity to do so, and indeed it has been said
that taking the 3rd tower creature can "never" work. Experience
tells me that simply isn't so.
>
> My opinions about the game are offered for the benefit of whomever
wants
> to take them. If some people don't want to take my advice, that's
fine
> too.
>
I would not have thought that anyone here is pushing a view that they
didn't think would be helpful. Nor would I have thought that anyone
here would be horribly anguished in that others make the decision
to act according or against what has been suggested.
Donald
dbac...@ionet.net
Jeff Boyd <sjb...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> More specifically, experience against players who will punish you for
> deliberately stunting your Titan stack :).
>
> As David and others have written, the risk of carrying 3Cen/3Ogr is
high
> in both 2-player and multi-player. If you're currently
> Tt6+Tro+Ogr+Ogr+Ogr+Gar waiting for a Hills roll (what else would you
do
If you have taken Tro before taking your 3rd Ogr, then you are
seriously working towards Min and the rest, but rather being
scatter-brained in what you are pursuing. If that initial
roll from the tower doesn't get you the third tower creature
then you shouldn't pursue the option.
A dice roll of 1 put you in lands where any of your creatures
can recruit. Taking the downward path out of the tower puts
you one roll away from an inward Woods/Hills. Thus, in 2 rolls
you could be at Minotaur/War Bear. That same 2 rolls could
also have you with 2 Lions or 2 Trolls.
Is it easier to get to the 2 Lions/Trolls than the Minotaur/Warber?
Yes--Pla, Des, Mtn/Mar, Swa, Tun all allow for recruitment along the
respective path, whereas the only way to get to Min/War via 3rd
tower creature is to take a trip to Hills/Woods. At a casual glance
I see 8 ways to achieve Lio-Lio addition from the odd hundred
towers and 9 ways to achieve Lio-Lio from the even hundred towers
in 2 rolls--clearly superior to the ways in which you can get to
Min/War, which I enumerate at 4 or 3 depending on tower.
In a game you don't have free run of the board (unless you've
won), so how far away your creatures scatter themselves is of
some import. Going on pure feeling, the Lio-Lio path still
comes out on top, but some of its paths are highly unlikely
to ever be pursued in real play--Tow 200, Pla 15, Des 21 takes
the stack nearly across the board. Factoring in distance from
the home tower puts the Lio-Lio/Tro-Tro path at an average
distance of 65/9 or 44/8 and the Min/War path at a distance of
5 or 11/3.
Are you better off not taking the 3rd tower creature? Yes.
Is taking the 3rd creature risky? Yes.
Warren J. Dew
How do prevent guys in the outer ring from getting trapped? I am
thinking I don't move enough, when I am sitting with a stack that can
recruit on one of 2 rolls in the outer ring. Sometimes, a 5 stack will
sit waiting for a long time for a recruit, and will eventually get
nailed by a 7 stack (this almost always happens when the opponent
rolls a 6, since I usually move if it gets too much closer).
Look ahead more than one turn. Consider moving the stack to a location that
has three recruiting possibilities instead of just two, before any opponent
gets close. Then your chances of getting stuck for more than a couple of turns
without recruiting goes down drastically.
I have, and it has been helpful. My problem with this game is not the
general ideas as much as the specific tactics. I have found places
where a Hydra can be recruited on any of 3 rolls, for example. One of
the requires the outer ring, however. In that situation, should I wait
for the other 2 rolls, or take the chance to get the immediate Hydra?
Again, look ahead more than one turn. Will your new hydra get stomped before
it can get out of the tropics? Or are all of your opponents 'way on the other
side of the board, so you'll have time to breed more hydrae?
This is something I have noticed discussed often. I would have a hard
time fleeing with such forces, but I can understand. When does a
person fight an unwinnable fight? One time, I fought an opponent who
was about 20% better than I, and wiped out all the Minotaurs and
Dragons from the stack, but gave him considerable points. At the time,
I thought this was a good trade, but from what people seem to be
telling me, the points are actually more valuable.
Actually, they are more likely telling you that this is unlikely to happen.
Your fight is likely a win if it cut off his colossus recruitment strategy - if
it was his strongest stack and the dragons were the strongest creatures in the
stack, for example.
On the other hand, if you were just culling the wimpy dragons from his colossus
and archangel stack, it might have been better to flee.
Thanks for giving all us Titan aficionados a chance to talk about our favorite
board game.
Warren Dew
David desJardins
> I think I have already agreed that the other split is superior.
What you actually wrote: "[T]he strategy is my common approach." If you
think that taking a troll is superior, why wouldn't you do that instead?
> The question to my mind is why you and others persist in pursuing
> the matter as if I were claiming equivalence or near equivalence
If you aren't claiming it's as good, or at least nearly as good, then
why would you usually choose to do it anyway?
> when I have quite clearly written that the option of the 3rd
> tower creature has its risks.
What you actually wrote: "It has as one drawback in the time it takes to
get your gargoyles off and multiplying is typically enough for other
players to be a rung ahead in recruitment." This seems a gross
understatement of the "risks". That's why I (and probably others) feel
that your posting mischaracterized the relative merit of the choices.
> indeed it has been said that taking the 3rd tower creature can "never"
> work.
I'd like to see the source for that quote. It seems to me that you just
made it up. Of course it can work, and no reasonable person would ever
say otherwise. I've seen it work many times. I specifically said that
it takes a lot of experience to learn that it doesn't work often enough.
David desJardins
Mike Schneider .
> If the end of the recruitment for the one stack is a Titan and
> six Rangers, then as handy as that is, I'll take the one that is
> working towards Titan and Collosi anyday.
A Titan+6Ran stack will evolve into Titan+5Ang+Arch, as Rangers falling
in battle are replaced by recruited Angels after victories.
....at which point you're talking 40 or so dice of skill-4.
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
My unshakable endorsement of unfettered Liberty for everyone should not be construed as championship of the "common man", whom I account an inveterate imbecile and fanatical proponent of palpably stupid fantasies such as religion and government. Instead I would see cream rise to its full potential and watch cretins plunge into poverty so abject they cannot afford to mate; and only Liberty offers the prospect of each individual to a deserving fate. And so, the least would die by twos and threes per tick instead of safety-netting for generations at the expense of their extorted betters until being slaughtered wholesale by the millions in their own state-instigated wars and famines (whereupon they leech, even in death, mournings reserved for the legions of innocents caught in the holocausts).
dbac...@ionet.net
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> "Donald" <dbac...@ionet.net> writes:
> > I think I have already agreed that the other split is superior.
>
> What you actually wrote: "[T]he strategy is my common approach." If
you
> think that taking a troll is superior, why wouldn't you do that
instead?
>
I really dislike when someone tells me what I wrote with an eye
towards telling me what was meant. I am clearly in the superior
position to know the meaning I wished to convey.
What I wrote was:
Oddly, the strategy is my common approach. It has as one drawback in
the time it takes to get your gargoyles off and multiplying
is typically enough for other players to be a rung ahead in
recruitment.
Your above quote leaves off a word at the beginning. A suspicious
person would think that was done for purposes of twisting what
was actually written to deny my later statement--"I think I have
already agreed that the other split is superior."--as being
offered truthfully.
In fact, complete consideration of what I actually wrote should
include, "It has as one drawback. . .", which to most people who
are proficient with English would indicate the possibility of
other flaws which aren't to be delved into. Further, it continues
with, ". . .in the the time it takes to get your gargoyles off and
multiplying is typically enough for other players to be a rung ahead
in recruitment."
> > The question to my mind is why you and others persist in pursuing
> > the matter as if I were claiming equivalence or near equivalence
>
> If you aren't claiming it's as good, or at least nearly as good, then
> why would you usually choose to do it anyway?
I like the challenge. And when it pays off, it typically pays well.
Which course is wiser when advising a highschool sports star, telling
him to focus on his education or telling him to shoot for professional
status? Overwhelming opinion, which I agree with, is to focus on
education. That doesn't mean that going the other route can not
and will not work out. In that it is a game I'm playing, as opposed
to my life riding on the line, I'm more willing to explore the riskier
option.
>
> > when I have quite clearly written that the option of the 3rd
> > tower creature has its risks.
>
> What you actually wrote: "It has as one drawback in the time it takes
to
> get your gargoyles off and multiplying is typically enough for other
> players to be a rung ahead in recruitment." This seems a gross
> understatement of the "risks". That's why I (and probably others)
feel
> that your posting mischaracterized the relative merit of the choices.
>
Frankly, I thought writing that you would be a rung behind in
recruitment to be sufficient to underscore your relative position.
As to why you made your responses, you are best to say what
motivated you. Others likely didn't look back to my post, but
rather took their cue as to what had been said from latter
posts.
> > indeed it has been said that taking the 3rd tower creature
can "never"
> > work.
>
> I'd like to see the source for that quote. It seems to me that you
just
> made it up. Of course it can work, and no reasonable person would
ever
> say otherwise. I've seen it work many times. I specifically said
that
> it takes a lot of experience to learn that it doesn't work often
enough.
>
I'll respond to this in reverse.
(1) You have generally mentioned that it -=can=- happen to work.
If I've said otherwise, and I don't recall doing so, then I was
in error.
(2) "never" was a reference to Mike Schnieder's comments, and was
not attributed as a quote as it was not a quote. However, it did
sum up his estimation. Seeing as you have trouble with this, I
carefully underscored "can" (a quote of myself) above with "-=" and
"=-" instead.
Andrew Hardin
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>"Donald" <dbac...@ionet.net> writes:
>> I think I have already agreed that the other split is superior.
>
>What you actually wrote: "[T]he strategy is my common approach." If you
>think that taking a troll is superior, why wouldn't you do that instead?
>
>> The question to my mind is why you and others persist in pursuing
>> the matter as if I were claiming equivalence or near equivalence
>
>If you aren't claiming it's as good, or at least nearly as good, then
>why would you usually choose to do it anyway?
>
>> when I have quite clearly written that the option of the 3rd
>> tower creature has its risks.
>
>What you actually wrote: "It has as one drawback in the time it takes to
>get your gargoyles off and multiplying is typically enough for other
>players to be a rung ahead in recruitment." This seems a gross
>understatement of the "risks". That's why I (and probably others) feel
>that your posting mischaracterized the relative merit of the choices.
>
>> indeed it has been said that taking the 3rd tower creature can "never"
>> work.
>
>I'd like to see the source for that quote. It seems to me that you just
>made it up. Of course it can work, and no reasonable person would ever
>say otherwise. I've seen it work many times. I specifically said that
>it takes a lot of experience to learn that it doesn't work often enough.
>
> David desJardins
You say something fairly close in your tactics page. You don't use the
word never, you just strongly recommend it, while stating you can find
only a very rare exception or two. After much thought on the subject,
and listening to both arguments, I admit to strongly siding with the
stay away from 3 Ogres or 3 Centaurs in your starting stack strategy.
The Woods/Hills strategy is just too hard to pull off, and Minotaurs
are inferior to Rangers and much weaker at building better stacks.
Interestingly, I would probably enjoy playing tournament Titan, but
less so than others, because part of the fun of the game to me is to
see what you can recruit. Admittedly, the more I think about this, the
less fond I am of it.
I played the game again yesterday, and made an attempt to keep the
ideas discussed in mind. It helped considerably with Titan recruiting
(previously a bit of a weak point at times), though I admit that since
I really do prefer to play the game to 'see what you can recruit',
going for Hydras or Colossi was a bit tempting.
- Drew
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
David desJardins
>>> indeed it has been said that taking the 3rd tower creature can "never"
>>> work.
>
> use the word never, you just strongly recommend it, while stating you
> can find only a very rare exception or two.
I write that you should almost never take a 3rd tower creature
(especially a third ogre) in your starting legion, if you have a choice.
That's not the same as saying it will never work.
An analogy: Suppose you go to a casino which has two bets you can make.
Both bets pay even money; in one case you have a 52% chance of winning
and in the other case you have a 48% chance of winning. Then you should
never make the second bet, even though it will often work. I think
taking the third ogre is like the negative-odds bet: it's not a good
choice, even though it can often work.
I didn't realize that Mike Schneider was the one arguing that the third
tower creature never works. I can understand why Donald would disagree
with him. I wouldn't listen to what Mike Schneider says about Titan.
> I played the game again yesterday, and made an attempt to keep the
> ideas discussed in mind. It helped considerably with Titan recruiting
> (previously a bit of a weak point at times), though I admit that since
> I really do prefer to play the game to 'see what you can recruit',
> going for Hydras or Colossi was a bit tempting.
Like most games, Titan tries to satisfy a variety of tastes. But if the
joy of the game is just in seeing what you can recruit, I would think it
would be possible to design a new game that would be more appealing---it
could have the creature variety, attractive art, interesting game
concepts of Titan, but without so much downtime, the memory element, and
similar aspects that are mostly needed to make Titan work as a
competitive game.
David desJardins
Mike.Schneidér .
<da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
snip
> I didn't realize that Mike Schneider was the one arguing that the third
> tower creature never works. I can understand why Donald would disagree
> with him. I wouldn't listen to what Mike Schneider says about Titan.
Why don't you check out the thread before leaping to assumptions and
making an ass of yourself? I haven't made any such argument. DejaNews: me
+ Titan (subject) + "never" + rec.games.board = no matches within last
year:
Within that list, you'll notice that what "Mike Schneider says about
Titan" a year ago on this particular issue is exactly what you've been
saying the last few days, and as far as what I've said in the last few
days, you haven't had any objection, so cool your jets, willya?
Anyway, about third tower creatures: The only usual reason to take one,
IMO, is if after mulliganing an initial rotten die roll, you roll sucky
again (like a 2), and feel safer taking a creature to keep the count up
rather than sitting and waiting for a better roll (which might not
happen). You should then still go for the Rangers (or Gorgans) as quickly
as you can.
Some people I know like to split in such a way that if a 1 is rolled
first turn, they can exit left, take a third tower creature, and have a
100% chance of recruiting next turn (as opposed to a 5/6th chance if they
take a Lio/Tro) with 1/3rd being Min/War and 1/6th being Guardian. IMO,
they're a little better off splitting to recruit Lio/Tro on a move of 1 to
south of the Tower, with a 4/6th chance of a 2nd Lio/Tro and 1/6th chance
of a Gargoyle; downside is no recruit on a 3.
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
. . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
_____ o | Ready to play 18XX Rails & other |
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
[________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +----------------------------------+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1st Minn. Wargamers: 7pm Fri, "The Source": NW corner Snelling & Larpentuer
Nick Anner
against archangels and big titans... Being violent is much more
important than long term recruitment policy...
Nick anner
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> From article <7vcr99$6kf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, by dbac...@ionet.net:
> >
> > Hint: A lot can happen in the time it takes the one stack to
> > recruit its extra Rangers then manuever around the board to
> > hunt the unidentified stack gathering Minotaurs.
>
> Yes, someone else may get to kill them first.
>
> It is nice to get some minotaurs so that if the opportunity arises you can
> get dragons, but you don't want to significantly hurt your stack's
> recruiting to get there.
>
Bruno Wolff III
>> This can make a 3 a better roll on turn 2 in some towers and there is a 1/36
>> chance of getting two guardians in a position where you can cause great
>> unpleasantness for another player.
>
> same tower.
You misunderstood what I was saying. I was talking about getting two guardians
in the Angel stack on a 1, 1, 6 sequence.
Bruno Wolff III
>
> I like the challenge. And when it pays off, it typically pays well.
> Which course is wiser when advising a highschool sports star, telling
> him to focus on his education or telling him to shoot for professional
> status? Overwhelming opinion, which I agree with, is to focus on
> education. That doesn't mean that going the other route can not
> and will not work out. In that it is a game I'm playing, as opposed
> to my life riding on the line, I'm more willing to explore the riskier
> option.
That depends on the situation. If someone has an offer for a pro contract
they should take it. Of course the NCAA will say that the person should
stay in school so that they can continue to play for them for peanuts
while risking a career ending injury, but most people should be able to
see that taking the big money now and finishing school later makes a lot
more sense.
dbac...@ionet.net
*Grin* Yeah, but having a professional contract before you in this
situation equates to having two Dra in your stack and being
one move beneath Mountains. Way back in highschool with your tower
creatures, the path of 3 tower creatures is riskier. :P
Alan Kwan
wrote:
> A Titan+6Ran stack will evolve into Titan+5Ang+Arch, as Rangers falling
>in battle are replaced by recruited Angels after victories.
Just a silly note - why has everyone decided to drop the "official"
terminology, such as "legions", "mustering" creatures, and "acquiring"
angels? ^_^
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / ta...@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
Dimension S editor: http://209.213.100.47/
dbac...@ionet.net
>
> > If the end of the recruitment for the one stack is a Titan and
> > six Rangers, then as handy as that is, I'll take the one that is
> > working towards Titan and Collosi anyday.
>
falling
> in battle are replaced by recruited Angels after victories.
>
>
Shouldn't that be 50 dice of skill 4?
Compares poorly to 71 dice of skill 4, but YMMV.
Mike.Schneidér .
> In article <who-301099...@ppp-66-41.dialup.winternet.com>,
> w...@yaknow.com (Mike Schneider .) wrote:
> > In article <7vcrr6$73b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> >
> > > If the end of the recruitment for the one stack is a Titan and
> > > six Rangers, then as handy as that is, I'll take the one that is
> > > working towards Titan and Collosi anyday.
> >
> > A Titan+6Ran stack will evolve into Titan+5Ang+Arch, as Rangers
> falling in battle are replaced by recruited Angels after victories.
> >
> > ....at which point you're talking 40 or so dice of skill-4.
>
> Shouldn't that be 50 dice of skill 4?
Yup.
> Compares poorly to 71 dice of skill 4, but YMMV.
> Donald
It's a lot easier and faster to get a Titan legion full of Angels than
it is a Titan legion full of Collosi, because at some point the
Collosi-trending legion will have at least two wussbears, who would be
eaten alive in combat. And Angels, by virtue of the fact that they can
fly, are a deadly menace to any other defending Titan stack after losses
begin to mount and the Titan can no longer surround himself with a wall of
meat, whereas a "Jungle Bunny" Titan defending in Brush has at least fair
odds against attacking Collosi.
In the "SuperTitan" expansion (which offers many new creatures), the
authors recommend that Warbears be 7-3 and that Minotaurs be 5*4, a tweak
that I think makes a lot of sense for regular Titan. Otherwise, the boring
Ranger/Gorgan "rush" is just too powerful a strategy, and it intrudes into
some of the fun of recruiting larger monsters via 3rd Tower Creature
starts (as another player lamented).
In article <381f37c7...@news.netvigator.com>,
ta...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> Just a silly note - why has everyone decided to drop the "official"
> terminology, such as "legions", "mustering" creatures, and "acquiring"
> angels? ^_^
Why does slang evolve? The world may never know....
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
. . . . o o o o o +---------------------------------------+
_____ o | I play 18XX Rails, Settlers of Catan, |
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | and other board games F2F at the drop |
[________]_|__|________)< | of a hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +---------------------------------------+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1st Minn. Wargamers: 7pm Fri, "The Source": NW corner Snelling & Larpentuer
FAILURE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST: http://www.swlink.com/~hoboh/
dbac...@ionet.net
w...@yaknow.com (Mike.Schneidér .) wrote:
> In article <7vnk8v$i00$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
>
> > Compares poorly to 71 dice of skill 4, but YMMV.
> > Donald
>
> It's a lot easier and faster to get a Titan legion full of Angels
than
> it is a Titan legion full of Collosi, because at some point the
> Collosi-trending legion will have at least two wussbears, who would be
> eaten alive in combat. And Angels, by virtue of the fact that they can
> fly, are a deadly menace to any other defending Titan stack after
losses
> begin to mount and the Titan can no longer surround himself with a
wall of
> meat, whereas a "Jungle Bunny" Titan defending in Brush has at least
fair
> odds against attacking Collosi.
>
Gotta disagree, having done the Titan + 6xCollosi thing before.
Once you get that first one, they just sorta keep coming.
I had all my Collosi before I got an Archangel. Flying is, of
course, a useful ability, but once you're engaged, you're
engaged and it doesn't mean a lot.
> In the "SuperTitan" expansion (which offers many new creatures),
the
> authors recommend that Warbears be 7-3 and that Minotaurs be 5*4, a
tweak
> that I think makes a lot of sense for regular Titan. Otherwise, the
boring
> Ranger/Gorgan "rush" is just too powerful a strategy, and it intrudes
into
> some of the fun of recruiting larger monsters via 3rd Tower Creature
> starts (as another player lamented).
As much as I like playing Minotaurs and Warbears, I hesitate at
the thought of increasing their value this way. A Minotaur is
one step up from a tower creature and compares favorably to
a Lion, Troll, or Cyclops, and so to for the War Bear. At
7-3 and 5-4 you're looking at Hydra and Griffon level creatures.
Mike.Schneidér .
> In article <who-031199...@ppp-66-130.dialup.winternet.com>,
> w...@yaknow.com (Mike.Schneidér .) wrote:
> > In article <7vnk8v$i00$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> >
> > > Compares poorly to 71 dice of skill 4, but YMMV.
> > > Donald
> >
> > It's a lot easier and faster to get a Titan legion full of Angels
> than
> > it is a Titan legion full of Collosi, because at some point the
> > Collosi-trending legion will have at least two wussbears, who would be
> > eaten alive in combat. And Angels, by virtue of the fact that they can
> > fly, are a deadly menace to any other defending Titan stack after
> losses
> > begin to mount and the Titan can no longer surround himself with a
> wall of
> > meat, whereas a "Jungle Bunny" Titan defending in Brush has at least
> fair
> > odds against attacking Collosi.
> >
>
> Gotta disagree, having done the Titan + 6xCollosi thing before.
> Once you get that first one, they just sorta keep coming.
Well yeah, but that's a big "if" there.
The miracle is that you got your first one. As David and others have
remarked, getting to a Colossus is a very rare achievement, and requires
having, for an extended period of time, a Titan legion which is marketedly
weaker than marauding "killstacks" and vulnerable suicide bait (with a
2Cyc/2Gar "suicide" being offered as a good way to rip the guts out of an
opponant trying to develop an inner-ring Titan stack).
I have seldom seen Colossi, ever; but Titan+3Ang+3Ran is *very* common.
> I had all my Collosi before I got an Archangel. Flying is, of
> course, a useful ability, but once you're engaged, you're
> engaged and it doesn't mean a lot.
>
> > In the "SuperTitan" expansion (which offers many new creatures),
> the
> > authors recommend that Warbears be 7-3 and that Minotaurs be 5*4, a
> tweak
> > that I think makes a lot of sense for regular Titan. Otherwise, the
> boring
> > Ranger/Gorgan "rush" is just too powerful a strategy, and it intrudes
> into
> > some of the fun of recruiting larger monsters via 3rd Tower Creature
> > starts (as another player lamented).
>
>
> As much as I like playing Minotaurs and Warbears, I hesitate at
> the thought of increasing their value this way. A Minotaur is
> one step up from a tower creature and compares favorably to
> a Lion, Troll, or Cyclops, and so to for the War Bear.
The problem with Minotaurs and Warbears is that they are sooo hard to
recruit that you wouldn't dream of committing them to battle if you had a
choice. *That* makes them weak, and it makes them TARGETS. Lions? Nobody
gives a shit if they lose two Lions or two Trolls, because they breed like
flies. But it seems like ages to replace just *one* Warbear or Minotaur.
Ideally, a "garbage" Ranger shouldn't have a 50% chance of being able to
take out one of these "tough track" creatures.
And the 3-1 "easy" path in Woods/Hills puts the recruiting legion at a
serious disadvantage versus attacking stacks, so there is additional
incentive to avoid Minotaurs and Warbears as-is.
Lastly, any creature with only 4 dice is just too damn easy to kill.
You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen *Ogres* kill Minotaurs.
> At 7-3 and 5-4 you're looking at Hydra and Griffon level creatures.
(I presume you meant Wyvern.) Griffons and Wyverns have the added
ability of flight (making them Titan-killers), and their swamp and desert
terrains are much better for them defensively than Hills/Woods are for
Warbears and Minotaurs.
A Minotaur should be stronger than a Ranger, and a Warbear should be
stronger than a Gorgon.
dbac...@ionet.net
Odd, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 Angels with a Titan stack
before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
Heck, I've seen a stack of Unicorns take on a stack of Hydra in the
Swamp with only one loss (I was playing the Hydras), and a doormat
(err, Guardian) eat a Cyclops in one blow. I admit that you don't
want to commit they top of any recruitment line to battle until
you have reached the end of the line. So Minotaurs and Warbears are
less committed than Rangers and Gorgons.
> > At 7-3 and 5-4 you're looking at Hydra and Griffon level creatures.
>
> (I presume you meant Wyvern.) Griffons and Wyverns have the added
> ability of flight (making them Titan-killers), and their swamp and
desert
> terrains are much better for them defensively than Hills/Woods are for
> Warbears and Minotaurs.
Yeah, I did mean Wyverns. Woods is relatively meaningless in terms
of native defense, though Slope (Hills/Mountains) doesn't strike me
as being any worse than Dune, and Drift is positively evil on
non-natives--so much so that you might as well consider Tundra to
be Woods.
>
> A Minotaur should be stronger than a Ranger, and a Warbear should
be
> stronger than a Gorgon.
>
Certainly it would change the flavor of the game a bit. I may have
to try a game or two that way to see how much.
David desJardins
> Odd, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 Angels with a Titan stack
> before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
This doesn't surprise me at all. But its significance is what it says
about your style of play (and your lack of good opponents).
David desJardins
David desJardins
>> This doesn't surprise me at all. But its significance is what it says
>> about your style of play (and your lack of good opponents).
>
That is even less surprising.
David desJardins
andre...@my-deja.com
dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> Odd, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 Angels with a Titan stack
> before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
Donald,
No one is trying to beat you up here. But this is getting pretty
frustrating. We all seem to be saying the same thing to you over and
over and over again, in slightly different ways, and you keep ignoring
it.
We all understand that when you play Titan with your friends,
recruiting works. We all understand that when you play Titan with your
friends, it's not that unusual for people to get Dragons and Giants and
Colossi. In short, none of us are suprised that you consider a Titan +
3 Angels + 3 Rangers to be an unusual stack.
None of us are confused about that point.
What we are all trying to say to you-- and in the "we" category, you
can count David and Bruno, who have both won the Titan National
Tournament (multiple times between them)-- is that the way that you and
your friends play Titan is NOT the only way to play Titan; and that, in
fact, people who play Titan the way you and your friends do lose on a
consistent basis when they play against tournament quality opposition.
We're not saying this because we're mean, or because we're looking for
a flame war, or because we're arrogant; we say this because we've seen
it proven to be true over and over and over again, over a time span of
around a decade.
People who think that Titan is about recruiting CONSISTENTLY lose to
people that understand that Titan is really about having the last Titan
left alive. People who get fascinated with getting the biggest
creature that they can, or who start the game thinking that they're
going to recruit a stack of Colossi, consistently, repeatedly lose to
people who just want to get as many rangers and gorgons as they can, as
fast as they can, so that they can kill other players and gain points.
You are not the first person to post to this newsgroup whose playing
group enjoys recruiting who therefore thinks that the strategies that
he has developed for succeeding in that isolated, cloistered, atypical
environment are somehow good strategies out in the wider world. We're
tying to tell you that this isn't the case.
Come to the Titan National Tournament, or to Avaloncon, and play in
some games.
Or, try the experiment yourself. The next half dozen times you play,
completely disregard any thoughts of trying for Colossi. Every turn,
make every decision based on the following thought: "How can I get
this stack built up enough so that it can go kill something? How can I
get this stack into a position for it to kill something?" If this
means turning down the chance to go to Tundra to get a Warbear, to
instead go to the Marsh and get a Ranger-- do it without hesitancy. If
this means attacking someone 6 on 6, where you know you'll lose your
only Minotaur in the battle, but you're sure you'll win with at least 1
ranger left-- do it without blinking. If this means teleporting with a
lord out of the tower into a position where you're in the midst of
someone else's stacks, rather than teleporting to the upper circle for
a recruit-- laugh as you slap the stack down.
What you'll find is that you'll win just about every game, until your
playing group catches on that the game isn't really about recruiting
big stuff, after all; it's really about collecting points.
dbac...@ionet.net
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> "Donald" <dbac...@ionet.net> writes:
> > Odd, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 Angels with a Titan
stack
> > before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
>
> about your style of play (and your lack of good opponents).
>
I'm sure they'd disagree about their quality of play.
Donald
dbac...@ionet.net
andre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7vq2d0$9s3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
>
stack
> > before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
>
>
> No one is trying to beat you up here. But this is getting pretty
> frustrating. We all seem to be saying the same thing to you over and
> over and over again, in slightly different ways, and you keep ignoring
> it.
I'm relating my experience as recalled from a few years play as
a student in college and subsequently. I will not make the claim
that those I played against in the MIT gaming society were the
best or smartest tacticians in the world, or even remotely
close. I don't suppose they were particularly bad either.
Moreover, I am not ignoring what has been said. I am reporting
experience. If you don't like it, then let me humbly suggest
you don't read it.
In truth, most times I've seen a Titan stack with more than one
Angel, it was on its way out of the game. Calling the Angel was
done largely because the stack ran into something more powerful
than it could otherwise handle or as a way of shoring up the
stack against percieved (often correctly) sequences of attacks
likely to come down upon the Titan stack. I've seen such stacks
gather Angels, grab points to take it 2-300 point beyond my
score, and even unto Titan teleport, but almost always it was
a case of losing more in the long run than was gained.
>
> We all understand that when you play Titan with your friends,
> recruiting works. We all understand that when you play Titan with
your
> friends, it's not that unusual for people to get Dragons and Giants
and
> Colossi. In short, none of us are suprised that you consider a Titan
+
> 3 Angels + 3 Rangers to be an unusual stack.
>
> None of us are confused about that point.
I think you understand less than you claim. It is not the case
that 6 of us sit down to play and 4 of us are recruiting Dragons
and Colossi. I work at it, intentionally. Sometimes someone else
will go try to go that route. Most people who sit and play end
up with stacks of Gorgons with their strength in the Brush/Jungle
line.
>
> What we are all trying to say to you-- and in the "we" category, you
> can count David and Bruno, who have both won the Titan National
> Tournament (multiple times between them)-- is that the way that you
and
> your friends play Titan is NOT the only way to play Titan; and that,
in
> fact, people who play Titan the way you and your friends do lose on a
> consistent basis when they play against tournament quality opposition.
>
If anything, the statement is that the way that David and Bruno
play Titan is the -=ONLY=- sane way to play it--it being the
most effective and most likely way to produce a win. Until I decide
to cart my butt to Maryland in the middle of summer, I've been
accepting that this style of play dominates. I admit I'm not
completely convinced that it is more due to actually inherent
effectiveness than the style being effective so long as a
certain number of players tend to follow it. However, I've
yet to voice that suggestion, and in truth don't have a lot
of ways to test the proposition.
> We're not saying this because we're mean, or because we're looking for
> a flame war, or because we're arrogant; we say this because we've seen
> it proven to be true over and over and over again, over a time span of
> around a decade.
You might want to reconsider the arrogance point--if you are being
arrogant, you'd say the same thing you'd be saying if you weren't.
In any event, I know from experience with people whose intelligence
and ability to analyze game position weren't substandard, that when
one person played overly aggressively with 3 others who weren't,
that overly aggressive person typically lost. Say what you will
about tourney level play, this is my undeniable experience, and
nothing you can say will make me say that I did not experience
this. It may well be that if 3 people are going to play aggressively
that playing a more conservative strategy doesn't work. Certainly
I've noticed this to be the case in Risk--if everyone is a
continent builder, then it pays to build a continent, and if
nobody is a continent builder, it is foolish to attempt such.
>
> People who think that Titan is about recruiting CONSISTENTLY lose to
> people that understand that Titan is really about having the last
Titan
> left alive. People who get fascinated with getting the biggest
> creature that they can, or who start the game thinking that they're
> going to recruit a stack of Colossi, consistently, repeatedly lose to
> people who just want to get as many rangers and gorgons as they can,
as
> fast as they can, so that they can kill other players and gain points.
>
I think I have managed sufficient understanding to realize that
the point of the game is to have the last Titan standing, thank you.
I've seen people lose the game because they have risked their Titan
in an unnecessary fashion to attempt to prevent the loss of another
creature--a serious lack of focus.
> You are not the first person to post to this newsgroup whose playing
> group enjoys recruiting who therefore thinks that the strategies that
> he has developed for succeeding in that isolated, cloistered, atypical
> environment are somehow good strategies out in the wider world. We're
> tying to tell you that this isn't the case.
You were saying something earlier about arrogance?
Moreover, I never told anyone, "Do as I play to win". I reported
a preference in play style, and in this very thread stated that
for all its difficulties, I liked the challenge of following the
less followed course. The very serious problem here is that you
(and others) seem to think that my saying I like to follow the
course is a denial of what you are saying, or you can't stand
that someone might do something differently.
>
> Come to the Titan National Tournament, or to Avaloncon, and play in
> some games.
Perhaps next summer. I'm floating at use or lose leave now. As I
have lose plans for a trip to Alaska and GenCon next year, I'll have
to see how my leave and money are doing at that point.
>
> Or, try the experiment yourself. The next half dozen times you play,
> completely disregard any thoughts of trying for Colossi. Every turn,
> make every decision based on the following thought: "How can I get
> this stack built up enough so that it can go kill something? How can
I
> get this stack into a position for it to kill something?" If this
> means turning down the chance to go to Tundra to get a Warbear, to
> instead go to the Marsh and get a Ranger-- do it without hesitancy.
You assume that I have not done such in the past.
If
> this means attacking someone 6 on 6, where you know you'll lose your
> only Minotaur in the battle, but you're sure you'll win with at least
1
> ranger left-- do it without blinking. If this means teleporting with
a
> lord out of the tower into a position where you're in the midst of
> someone else's stacks, rather than teleporting to the upper circle for
> a recruit-- laugh as you slap the stack down.
>
> What you'll find is that you'll win just about every game, until your
> playing group catches on that the game isn't really about recruiting
> big stuff, after all; it's really about collecting points.
See above.
Mike.Schneidér .
> > I have seldom seen Colossi, ever; but Titan+3Ang+3Ran is *very*
> common.
>
> Odd, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 Angels with a Titan stack
> before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
Well, if you attack with your Titan and bring over an Angel, then pass
a 100-pt boundary, you've got two right there. Very common. If it's early
in the game and Angels are considerably more powerful than the average
creature, you now have a tremendous incentive to attack and attack and
attack. If your die rolls are high and your enemies in non-brush,
non-desert areas, you can earn points pretty fast, since a typical 6-stack
will be worth a hundred points.
At some point, you debate whether you want to "step down" from your
remaining Rangers to Trolls or Lions in an attempt to get advanced
recruiting going. Often, it's just not worth it. Better to round-out with
more Angels and then hole-up if your enemies survive to a late game.
Basically, you're just waiting for a 6; whereupon you attack opponant
Titan legions.
snip
> > (I presume you meant Wyvern.) Griffons and Wyverns have the added
> > ability of flight (making them Titan-killers), and swamp and desert
> > terrains are much better for them defensively than Hills/Woods are for
> > Warbears and Minotaurs.
>
> Yeah, I did mean Wyverns. Woods is relatively meaningless in terms
> of native defense, though Slope (Hills/Mountains) doesn't strike me
> as being any worse than Dune,
The problem with most of the terrains is that there aren't enough
spaces on the Battlelands. Which is why the Alternate Battlelands
(published in an issue of The General) are so interesting.
snip
> > A Minotaur should be stronger than a Ranger, and a Warbear should
> be stronger than a Gorgon.
>
> Certainly it would change the flavor of the game a bit. I may have
> to try a game or two that way to see how much.
I'm just of the opinion that hard-to-recruit creatures should be
tougher. Otherwise, the game is a bit "broken" in terms of strategy -- as
if one were playing Axis & Allies without any tweaks: Obviously the Allies
kick ass. In normal Titan, Rangers and Gorgans kick ass, and the players
who recruit the most usually do best.
Let me know how your games turns out.
Mike.Schneidér .
> In article <7vqnbk$q3k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> andre...@my-deja.com wrote:
[...]
> I think you understand less than you claim. It is not the case
> that 6 of us sit down to play and 4 of us are recruiting Dragons
> and Colossi. I work at it, intentionally. Sometimes someone else
> will go try to go that route. Most people who sit and play end
> up with stacks of Gorgons with their strength in the Brush/Jungle
> line.
And with them they should attack-attack-attack-attack!
Gorgons and Rangers are low-rent, expendable mercenaries. Born & bred
to be slaughtered in battle. There is utterly no reason to build up a
legion of them one creature more than necessary, if movement *that* turn
could otherwise land you on an enemy whom you think you could beat.
The best place to leave a legion of Gorgons, of course, is a
Tower-right Brush space. It will bottle up enemy inner-ring stacks while
in the Warbear or Minotaur stage. They can't roll 1s and 2s *every*
turn....
dbac...@ionet.net
w...@yaknow.com (Mike.Schneidér .) wrote:
> In article <7vr901$5q2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
>
>
> > I think you understand less than you claim. It is not the case
> > that 6 of us sit down to play and 4 of us are recruiting Dragons
> > and Colossi. I work at it, intentionally. Sometimes someone else
> > will go try to go that route. Most people who sit and play end
> > up with stacks of Gorgons with their strength in the Brush/Jungle
> > line.
>
They do. What is the point of developing a stack of end line
creatures and having it sit around? The stack can grow no
more powerful, so you might as well use it.
>
> Gorgons and Rangers are low-rent, expendable mercenaries. Born &
bred
> to be slaughtered in battle. There is utterly no reason to build up a
> legion of them one creature more than necessary, if movement *that*
turn
> could otherwise land you on an enemy whom you think you could beat.
This is not news.
>
> The best place to leave a legion of Gorgons, of course, is a
> Tower-right Brush space. It will bottle up enemy inner-ring stacks
while
> in the Warbear or Minotaur stage. They can't roll 1s and 2s *every*
> turn....
If they have Warbears or Minotaurs they can go to the inner circle
to recruit. Of course on a 5 or 6 you sweep around through the
tower to the land above, and you have access to half the lands
they might escape to through the arch in that land above.
dbac...@ionet.net
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> "Donald" <dbac...@ionet.net> writes:
> >> This doesn't surprise me at all. But its significance is what it
says
> >> about your style of play (and your lack of good opponents).
> >
> > I'm sure they'd disagree about their quality of play.
>
>
Though possibly more surprising than your reply.
Bruno Wolff III
>
> What we are all trying to say to you-- and in the "we" category, you
> can count David and Bruno, who have both won the Titan National
> Tournament (multiple times between them)-- is that the way that you and
I haven't ever been to TNT. I would like to go, but making a second road
trip (in addition to Avaloncon/WBC) is difficult for me. At Avaloncon,
I have once won the two player tournament, and that year I had a fair amount
of good luck and a key mistake by my opponent in one game I was losing badly.
My best finish in the multiplayer event was third, when Bill Scott was
running the event with a somewhat different format.
Aaron D. Fuegi
: >
: > No one is trying to beat you up here. But this is getting pretty
: > frustrating. We all seem to be saying the same thing to you over and
: > over and over again, in slightly different ways, and you keep ignoring
: > it.
: I'm relating my experience as recalled from a few years play as
: a student in college and subsequently. I will not make the claim
: that those I played against in the MIT gaming society were the
: best or smartest tacticians in the world, or even remotely
: close. I don't suppose they were particularly bad either.
: Moreover, I am not ignoring what has been said. I am reporting
: experience. If you don't like it, then let me humbly suggest
: you don't read it.
At least currently, the MIT SGS is actually probably one of the best
groups around for Titan and several of us now do regularly go to the major
Titan conventions and have done very well (including a bunch of wins in both
multi and two player play). However, you obviously played before my time and I
don't know if the club was as strong then or the style was the same as it is
now.
I basically agree with David and Andrew although there is some
overstating of things being done I would say. Good players of course always
try to recruit well (not necessarily Col but at least try for Col or Ser or
Hyd) and in most games at least one stack gets to Ser or Hyd - Col is much
rarer and probably does occur in only 1 game in 10, despite the fact that
usually at least one person is going for it - it just takes too long and too
many lucky rolls and is too easy to defend and/or block since there is only one
place to get them - inner ring.
However, if one player gets Titan Teleport, that player certainly most
often wins the game.
: If anything, the statement is that the way that David and Bruno
: play Titan is the -=ONLY=- sane way to play it--it being the
: most effective and most likely way to produce a win. Until I decide
: to cart my butt to Maryland in the middle of summer, I've been
: accepting that this style of play dominates. I admit I'm not
: completely convinced that it is more due to actually inherent
: effectiveness than the style being effective so long as a
: certain number of players tend to follow it. However, I've
: yet to voice that suggestion, and in truth don't have a lot
: of ways to test the proposition.
If you're still in the Boston area, come by SGS some Friday evening
at 7PM as we play Titan almost every week and the style of play is very much
like the tournament style of play for the most part which is why our players
do so well when they go to the cons.
: In any event, I know from experience with people whose intelligence
: and ability to analyze game position weren't substandard, that when
: one person played overly aggressively with 3 others who weren't,
: that overly aggressive person typically lost. Say what you will
Clearly, if someone is "overly" aggressive, they will likely lose -
this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, very aggressive but sensible play
in all my experiences leads to a greater chance to win. This style is actually
Particularly effective in a game where other players are not playing
aggressively as they won't expect it and won't be used to countering it. It
does NOT help the aggressive player if the other players are also aggressive.
: about tourney level play, this is my undeniable experience, and
: nothing you can say will make me say that I did not experience
: this. It may well be that if 3 people are going to play aggressively
: that playing a more conservative strategy doesn't work. Certainly
: I've noticed this to be the case in Risk--if everyone is a
: continent builder, then it pays to build a continent, and if
: nobody is a continent builder, it is foolish to attempt such.
This is true in Risk but Titan isn't Risk!! Titan is a very unusual
game because it Rewards combats assuming they are smartly chosen. You can (and
often do) actually gain strength from fighting which can never happen in Risk
(or at least can only happen when you totally eliminate a player) - you at best
gain territory which is much more ephemeral.
: I think I have managed sufficient understanding to realize that
: the point of the game is to have the last Titan standing, thank you.
: I've seen people lose the game because they have risked their Titan
: in an unnecessary fashion to attempt to prevent the loss of another
: creature--a serious lack of focus.
Well, this depends. If you would otherwise lose a creature that you
felt you must have to have a chance in the game, it is often well worth risking
(note, I of course do not mean suiciding - I mean taking a considered gamble)
your Titan - ok, he may die and you are out of the game fast but if the other
creature dies, you will just die a slow death. This issue of course takes a
lot of thought and consideration and is entirely dependent on the particular
circumstances of the battle and the game.
: Moreover, I never told anyone, "Do as I play to win". I reported
: a preference in play style, and in this very thread stated that
: for all its difficulties, I liked the challenge of following the
: less followed course. The very serious problem here is that you
: (and others) seem to think that my saying I like to follow the
: course is a denial of what you are saying, or you can't stand
: that someone might do something differently.
This is fine of course and people should play as they wish. Others
are just stating that they feel (and you even seem to partly realize) that
this course gives you a lower chance of winning the game than a strategy of
more aggressive play.
: Donald
Aaron
aar...@bu.edu
http://scv.bu.edu/~aarondf/ (the Last Homely House)
Bruno Wolff III
>
> I'm relating my experience as recalled from a few years play as
> a student in college and subsequently. I will not make the claim
> that those I played against in the MIT gaming society were the
> best or smartest tacticians in the world, or even remotely
> close. I don't suppose they were particularly bad either.
The MIT SGS group has had several very good players come to Avaloncon/WBC.
Dan Finberg, Jung Yueh and Aaron Fuegi are all very good players. I think
some others of their group are also good Titan players, but elected to
play in other events at Avaloncon/WBC.
> In any event, I know from experience with people whose intelligence
> and ability to analyze game position weren't substandard, that when
> one person played overly aggressively with 3 others who weren't,
> that overly aggressive person typically lost. Say what you will
> about tourney level play, this is my undeniable experience, and
> nothing you can say will make me say that I did not experience
> this. It may well be that if 3 people are going to play aggressively
> that playing a more conservative strategy doesn't work. Certainly
> I've noticed this to be the case in Risk--if everyone is a
> continent builder, then it pays to build a continent, and if
> nobody is a continent builder, it is foolish to attempt such.
I do agree that being aggressive when most players are passive has its
drawbacks. This is especially true if the players are making deals to
unentangle themselves to promote recruiting. The aggressive player will
not benefit from this. It would be important to maintain some possibilty
of getting the best stuff and selecting carefully what stacks you spend
resources chasing down.
I also definitely agree with your statement about risk.
> Perhaps next summer. I'm floating at use or lose leave now. As I
> have lose plans for a trip to Alaska and GenCon next year, I'll have
> to see how my leave and money are doing at that point.
I live in Milwaukee and maybe I can try to set something up if you go to
Gencon. I am not as sharp as Titan as I once was, and even at my best,
I was a notch below the best players to come to Avaloncon/WBC. It would be
a good excuse to try to get some of the people I used to play games with
a lot over for a cookout.
Charles Krueger
> andre...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <7vq2d0$9s3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
>>
>> > Odd, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 Angels with a Titan
>stack
>> > before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
>>
>> Donald,
>>
>> No one is trying to beat you up here. But this is getting pretty
>> frustrating. We all seem to be saying the same thing to you over and
>> over and over again, in slightly different ways, and you keep ignoring
>> it.
>
>I'm relating my experience as recalled from a few years play as
>a student in college and subsequently. I will not make the claim
>that those I played against in the MIT gaming society were the
>best or smartest tacticians in the world, or even remotely
>close. I don't suppose they were particularly bad either.
Well, I don't personally recall seeing you at the club and I've been
an officer for the past 4 years. Maybe you were there before then. I can
at least vouch for the present quality of play at MIT as evidenced by
having 3 out of 4 of the finalists at a recent Avaloncon tournament (2
or 3 years ago). No, I wasn't one of them.
From my experience at the MIT-SGS, you expect a high level of aggression.
But it can get interesting since people are quite good at avoiding the
wandering kill-stacks. That is to say the Masterboard play is exceptional
and you might grow up that multi-ranger stack only to find yourself
chewing on 2-high stacks for the rest of the game. I personally don't
shoot for too many rangers in my Titan stack for this reason, you need to
at least have the ability to get to a top end creature (hydra, snake,
collosus). General rule for the Titan stack is to get the first ranger as
soon as you can, but not to necessarily pile them up. However, you will
still see more of the multi-angel Titan stack than even a single collosus
because, in many instances, you are forced to change your strategy with
your Titan stack and go on the attack. If I am faced with a battle that
will leave my Titan holding 3 angels at the end, I'll do it in a heart
beat. Seeking that battle, however, is not always a good strategy from
the outset since good players will avoid letting you have that battle and
your Titan, 6ran stack runs around for the whole game never seeing a battle
and never getting teleport either.
Now, I am by no means the best player at MIT, or even close. I don't even
play that often. I think it is fair to say that what you typically face
at the club is an attitude like this:
1. If you sit there (trying to recruit), I will attack you.
2. I'm losing, therefore I will attack you even if I rate to lose.
3. Since no-one is around to attack, I will recruit toward ser/hyd/col
4. I see your kill stack coming, I will move rather than recruit toward
ser/hyd/col. I will recruit ran/gor/warlock if available.
1+2 can often lead to a Titan/multi angel stack. Why? The Titan stack is
your best attack stack in the early game with the angel call available.
And you're looking good if you survive with even just tit/ang/ang/cyc or
the equivalent (i.e. one recruiter left).
My long winded point is this. Against all good players, a balanced and
dynamic strategy is required.
Now, to do well in Titan tournaments, I believe that overly aggressive
strategies will work. This is because, even at the semi-final level, it
only takes one slightly below average player to fight the wrong battle and
throw the game away (you experts may correct me on this, but it happens
pretty often). This is the case where the tit/6 x ran turns into tit/2 x
ang/4 x ran teleporting and he walks away with the game.
Anything to add, Aaron?
-chuck
Scatter Gatherer
> its
> drawbacks. This is especially true if the players are making deals
> to
> unentangle themselves to promote recruiting. The aggressive player
> will
> not benefit from this. It would be important to maintain some
> possibilty
> of getting the best stuff and selecting carefully what stacks you
> spend
> resources chasing down.
In my memory it was more a matter of making threats. :)
A little more seriously, I recall it being more a matter of not
being a roadblock until you felt you could get away with it.
> I also definitely agree with your statement about risk.
And having come from a group of continent builders into a group of
continent smashers, I did poorly until I adjusted my style of play.
> > Perhaps next summer. I'm floating at use or lose leave now. As I
> > have lose plans for a trip to Alaska and GenCon next year, I'll
> have
> > to see how my leave and money are doing at that point.
> I live in Milwaukee and maybe I can try to set something up if you
> go to
> Gencon. I am not as sharp as Titan as I once was, and even at my
> best,
> I was a notch below the best players to come to Avaloncon/WBC. It
> would be
> a good excuse to try to get some of the people I used to play
> games with
> a lot over for a cookout.
Truth be, I rarely get to play Titan anymore, and most people I get
a chance to play with are relative newbies, so I feel constrained
to nicer play than I might otherwise engage in. I remember how
Titan was for me that first few. . .several. . .darn'd many games
until something clicked.
As to GenCon, I'm very seriously considering it, since I've never
gone to any Con approaching it in size. If I do head that way, I'll
drop you email.
Thanks for the invite,
Donald
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
andre...@my-deja.com
br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu wrote:
> From article <7vqnbk$q3k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, by andrewgross@my-
I stand corrected.
For some reason, I had you confused with Brian Sutton.
mea culpa
--
Andrew B. Gross
andr...@microsoft.com
Scatter Gatherer
> > andre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> In article <7vq2d0$9s3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
> >>
> >> > Odd, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 Angels with a
> Titan
> >stack
> >> > before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
> >>
> >> Donald,
> >>
> >> No one is trying to beat you up here. But this is getting
> pretty
> >> frustrating. We all seem to be saying the same thing to you
> over and
> >> over and over again, in slightly different ways, and you keep
> ignoring
> >> it.
> >
> >I'm relating my experience as recalled from a few years play as
> >a student in college and subsequently. I will not make the claim
> >that those I played against in the MIT gaming society were the
> >best or smartest tacticians in the world, or even remotely
> >close. I don't suppose they were particularly bad either.
> been
> an officer for the past 4 years. Maybe you were there before then.
I think that when I was in the gaming society you may have been
entering first or second grade, assuming you to be in your late
teens or early twenties.
Agreed. If I allow you to recruit whatever you want, you'll
get powerful. If I have a stack that can win without heavy
losses, or the stack is relatively expendible in any event,
then attack is in order. Even if the stack will lose, if it
will take out sufficiently dangerous lines of recruitment,
it may be worth the attack.
> 2. I'm losing, therefore I will attack you even if I rate to lose.
A bit of a variation on "I'm losing, so I must do something that
throws the game open to my winning"--which I agree with.
> 3. Since no-one is around to attack, I will recruit toward
> ser/hyd/col
Doesn't this stand to reason?
> 4. I see your kill stack coming, I will move rather than recruit
> toward
> ser/hyd/col. I will recruit ran/gor/warlock if available.
Agreed. I do not see sitting and taking an attack where the attacker
stands to lose, at best, a stack that is expendable anyway. On
the other side, if places that you might move to are going to result
in being attacked anyway, stay where your creatures enjoy terrain
advantage. As to the Ran/Gor/War recruit. . .I think I'd try to
recruit whatever just on the idea that more creatures is a bigger
chance to win the battle. However, I like the angle that it suggests
the stack in question is a kill stack too, although if a person
is chasing it down, he probably has a pretty good idea on what
is in it.
> 1+2 can often lead to a Titan/multi angel stack. Why? The Titan
> stack is
> your best attack stack in the early game with the angel call
> available.
Hmmm. . . . I have trouble considering attacking anything with my
Titan stack early on that isn't going to result in an overly
lop-sided battle in my favor.
> And you're looking good if you survive with even just
> tit/ang/ang/cyc or
> the equivalent (i.e. one recruiter left).
Again, my experience is that most people who get their Titan stacks
into this type of situation lose. Someone's Titan stack with a Serpent
or a couple of Behemoths comes along and ends their days.
> My long winded point is this. Against all good players, a balanced
> and
> dynamic strategy is required.
Certainly agreed.
> Now, to do well in Titan tournaments, I believe that overly
> aggressive
> strategies will work. This is because, even at the semi-final
> level, it
> only takes one slightly below average player to fight the wrong
> battle and
> throw the game away (you experts may correct me on this, but it
> happens
> pretty often). This is the case where the tit/6 x ran turns into
> tit/2 x
> ang/4 x ran teleporting and he walks away with the game.
> Anything to add, Aaron?
I've no doubt that in tournament play, it pays to be aggressive.
I almost feel guilty that if I do manage to make next year's
gathering, I'll be the aforementioned below average [agression]
player who stands to toss a game.
Almost. . .and then only if I don't manage to find enough games
to bone up on the style.
Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful reply,
Warren J. Dew
evolving to Titan and angels is less likely to win than a Titan stack that
tries to grow to Colossi.
I'd like to explore further a point that Donald touched on tangentially - that
there might be more than one strategy that is stable.
Specifically, I think it is quite likely that Donald's strategy would not work
in a six player game where the other five players were focusing on killer
stacks of rangers and gorgons, accumulating points and angels. One of the
features of the game is that to get to the most powerful creatures, one has to
spend some time with somewhat vulnerable creatures like minotaurs and warbears
in one's stacks. It's quite unlikely that such a stack would survive if all
the other stacks were filled with rangers and gorgons.
That does not mean that Donald's strategy is necessarily inferior, however. In
a game where five of the players were going for climax (end of the recruiting
line) creatures more powerful than rangers and angels - specifically, colossi,
serpents, or hydrae - it might be impossible for a sixth player who focused on
points and angels to win. He might kill off several other players, filling his
Titan stack with angels, but that would still leave one or two to develop a
superior Titan/colossus or Titan/serpent stack.
I agree with Donald that this would be hard to test. Donald would have to play
in several national tournament style games, and David desJardins or Bruno Wolff
would have to play in several MITSGS style games. As an aside, in the SGS
games I've played in, I've taken the more aggressive strategy and been knocked
out early, though this may just be because I'm not as good a player in other
respects as David or Bruno. On the flip side, I've won a number of two player
games with nothing but angels accompanying my Titan - the fewer the players,
the more aggressive it rates to be.
It's also possible that there's usenet distortion going on here. Certainly one
has to be at least somewhat opportunistic to maximize one's chance of winning a
Titan game; giving up chances at hydrae by insisting on going for serpents is
not going to win. People may remember one favorite strategy, but still depart
from it frequently in practice. So I think an interesting question is, what
was actually in the winning Titan stack at the end of recent Avaloncon or Titan
National Tournaments? Can people who were there remember?
(And what is the Titan National Tournament, exactly?)
Warren Dew
Powderhouse Software
Scatter Gatherer
wrote:
> If you're still in the Boston area, come by SGS some Friday
> evening
> at 7PM as we play Titan almost every week and the style of play is
> very much
> like the tournament style of play for the most part which is why
> our players
> do so well when they go to the cons.
Unfortunately I'm half a continent away, and the best local gaming
seems to offer are shorter games. Too many people here seem to think
that Titan (and Civilization) take too long to play.
> This is true in Risk but Titan isn't Risk!! Titan is a very
> unusual
> game because it Rewards combats assuming they are smartly chosen.
> You can (and
> often do) actually gain strength from fighting which can never
> happen in Risk
> (or at least can only happen when you totally eliminate a player)
> - you at best
> gain territory which is much more ephemeral.
Risk was used as an example. In line with you earlier (snipped)
comment about Titan teleport, I've been in more than a few games
where appropriate aggression led one player to having Titan
teleport while my Titan stack was still developing towards its
ultimate end. In games where I was able to successfully stay outside
the teleporting stack's range and/or got lucky in that the owner
happened to attack elsewhere often enough, I eventually would
field a convincing stack, even if my Titan was weaker as a piece
than the one with teleport. Of course, in those times where I
got attacked by the teleporting Titan, I lost.
I agree with you that typically reward falls to the successful
attacker. I do feel that it is somewhat wise to avoid getting
yourself into the situation where your Titan is powerful, but
nothing else you have is.
> : I think I have managed sufficient understanding to realize that
> : the point of the game is to have the last Titan standing, thank
> you.
> : I've seen people lose the game because they have risked their
> Titan
> : in an unnecessary fashion to attempt to prevent the loss of
> another
> : creature--a serious lack of focus.
> Well, this depends. If you would otherwise lose a creature that
> you
> felt you must have to have a chance in the game, it is often well
> worth risking
> (note, I of course do not mean suiciding - I mean taking a
> considered gamble)
In one of the shortest games I ever played, in a bid to protect
a Griffon, my opponent left two spaces open next to his Titan
knowing that I had flyers. On average, he should have survived the
attacks in the time it would take on average to kill them, but
with it only requiring a minimal bit of luck to (an extra hit or
two) to switch that to a loss, I'd would never have left the
Titan open. As it was, he lost.
As example, I would never allow a Troll to engage my 6-4 Titan.
Sure I'll probably kill it in two sequences, but 16 dice can
roll 6 six times. Is it worth risking even a 3% chance of being
out of the game? Admittedly, having another creature to attack
with the Titan would change the consideration most likely.
> your Titan - ok, he may die and you are out of the game fast but
> if the other
> creature dies, you will just die a slow death. This issue of
> course takes a
> lot of thought and consideration and is entirely dependent on the
> particular
> circumstances of the battle and the game.
Fair enough.
> : Moreover, I never told anyone, "Do as I play to win". I reported
> : a preference in play style, and in this very thread stated that
> : for all its difficulties, I liked the challenge of following the
> : less followed course. The very serious problem here is that you
> : (and others) seem to think that my saying I like to follow the
> : course is a denial of what you are saying, or you can't stand
> : that someone might do something differently.
> This is fine of course and people should play as they wish.
> Others
> are just stating that they feel (and you even seem to partly
> realize) that
> this course gives you a lower chance of winning the game than a
> strategy of
> more aggressive play.
It may be that I'm misreading some statements to be more along
the line of, "You are challenging us, and we are much better players
than you are." I'll endeavor to read them more along the less
confrontational line you suggest.
Thanks,
Bruno Wolff III
>
> Now, to do well in Titan tournaments, I believe that overly aggressive
> strategies will work. This is because, even at the semi-final level, it
> only takes one slightly below average player to fight the wrong battle and
> throw the game away (you experts may correct me on this, but it happens
> pretty often). This is the case where the tit/6 x ran turns into tit/2 x
> ang/4 x ran teleporting and he walks away with the game.
Even with participation in the multiplayer Titan event down a bit, I feel
the semis are still getting better. We do get a lot of drop in players for
the preliminary heats, so that players there can be weak. The event is
designed to let people play both seriously and just for fun. While the
semi's have included a lot of the same people from year to year, I think
those people have been improving.
I think the expanded diversity this year hurt the total participation in
Titan. I think that the change to the WBC may have resulted in a few of
the people were in the semis in the last couple years to miss this past
year. Hopefully they will be back next summer.
Bruno Wolff III
>
> As to GenCon, I'm very seriously considering it, since I've never
> gone to any Con approaching it in size. If I do head that way, I'll
> drop you email.
I don't think Gencon is as good for serious play. Event tickets are a hassle.
There is more to do there. I usually only go every couple years to go through
the dealer area. Otherwise I give one of my friends an order to buy whatever
games I am looking for while they are there.
I live about 5-10 miles from the Gencon site.
Mike.Schneidér .
> > The best place to leave a legion of Gorgons, of course, is a
> > Tower-right Brush space. It will bottle up enemy inner-ring stacks
> > in the Warbear or Minotaur stage. They can't roll 1s and 2s *every*
> > turn....
>
> If they have Warbears or Minotaurs they can go to the inner circle
> to recruit. Of course on a 5 or 6 you sweep around through the
> tower to the land above, and you have access to half the lands
> they might escape to through the arch in that land above.
If an opponant has placed a legion of Gorgons in the Brush space to the
right of a Tower, that limits safe exit rolls of inner-ring opponants to
1s or 2s (unless they feel Titan/Gia/2War/3Ran are up to the challange of
attacking 7Gor in the Brush while God knows what lurks on the outer-track
waiting to mop up).
Any legion of yours in the middle *should* face severe mobility
problems, if your opponants know what they're doing.
David desJardins
> I've been in more than a few games where appropriate aggression led
> one player to having Titan teleport while my Titan stack was still
> developing towards its ultimate end. In games where I was able to
> successfully stay outside the teleporting stack's range and/or got
> lucky in that the owner happened to attack elsewhere often enough, I
> eventually would field a convincing stack, even if my Titan was weaker
> as a piece than the one with teleport.
Titan teleportation doesn't have a "range". And "luck" shouldn't play
any role in whether your titan is attacked or not: if your opponent has
titan teleport, and rolls a 6, and can kill your titan, then he should
essentially always do so, except only if the opponent chooses to kill a
different titan first. (And if you are the one who's close to colossi,
or whatever, then killing someone else doesn't make sense.)
Donald can claim that he is playing against expert opponents, but if
they are rolling sixes when they have titan teleport, and "happening" to
teleport somewhere else than where they could kill his titan, then they
are doing something very wrong. And if they play that way---if they
don't capitalize on titan teleportation when they get it, for example---
then it's indeed much more likely that the players who attack more
aggressively won't win when they should. But that's not because
aggression doesn't work, it's because they are doing something wrong.
> It may be that I'm misreading some statements to be more along
> the line of, "You are challenging us, and we are much better players
> than you are."
I think that's a fair summary. We've been having this disagreement
since at least 1993, when Donald wrote:
>>> Never, never, never (well, maybe in an act of desperation) summon an
>>> angel to your Titan stack. ... they reduce the number of Colossi
>>> that you may have in that stack (And yes, I usually wind up with a
>>> Titan stack that consists of the Titan and 6 Colossi.
It's impossible for me to read this sort of advice and not conclude that
the poster doesn't understand the game at all. (And reading that he
thinks he's outside the range of titan teleportation certainly
reinforces that belief.)
I frankly think Andrew Gross is overstating the case quite a bit too.
I'm not sure exactly what he's saying here, but it seems rather an
exaggeration:
>>> In tournament quality multiplayer Titan play, the vast majority of
>>> the games are won with Rangers, Gorgons, and Angels.
I think that serpents and behemoths are significant in most games,
hydras and hydra precursors in many, and the colossus precursors in
quite a few. I won the titan final at WBC this year basically because I
had a serpent while one opponent (Aaron) was pretty far behind in
recruiting, and he had to run away from me and I managed to kill him
with another legion. Then I had teleportation plus the serpent, and
another opponent (Mike Pustilnik) tried to attack me rather than sit
around and wait for me to roll a 6, and the serpent was enough that he
didn't have much chance. So I'd say that the serpent played a pretty
big role in that game. I don't think I would have won if I'd made the
same moves but not been able to recruit anything higher than cyclops in
the desert.
On the other hand, I won in the semifinal with angels and gorgons as my
strongest non-titan characters, against a player who had a serpent in
his titan legion (and lots of hydras and giants and other stuff
elsewhere), because I managed to roll a 6 just in time, and took out his
titan with the serpent in the jungle. That worked because I didn't
"happen to attack elsewhere". I had to wait a long time for the six
(almost 20 turns after I got teleportation, I think), but when I got it,
I didn't waste it on attacking the wrong legion! If I had just attacked
a random legion, then sure enough, the player with better recruiting
would have won, rather than the player with more points and more titan
power. I don't think I recruited anything worth more than 20 points
that whole game.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> in the "we" category, you can count David and Bruno, who have both won
> the Titan National Tournament (multiple times between them)
I won the WBC tournament this year (with a perfect 7-0 record). Before
that I hadn't won either of the two large titan tournaments (Avaloncon
and TNT), although I did make it to the finals almost every year.
I would rate myself third or fourth among regular attendees at these
tournaments, although it's certainly hard to say.
Bruno runs the Avaloncon tournament every year, and hasn't been able to
travel to TNT, so he hasn't had the opportunity to win. I think he
would have a reasonable chance, but that's also hard to say.
David desJardins
Kevin J. Maroney
>Though possibly more surprising than your reply.
Right. David is, year in and year out, one of the best _Titan_ players
in the nation, as demonstrated by his consistent high placings in
_Titan_ tournaments. So when he makes a comment about a successful
strategy, and you respond by saying "None of the people I play with
play that way", what do you *expect* his answer to be? "Gosh, I'm
sorry, someone I've never heard of and a bunch of his friends say that
my strategy doesn't work, I guess I must be playing badly?"
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
David Finberg
> That does not mean that Donald's strategy is necessarily inferior, however. In
> a game where five of the players were going for climax (end of the recruiting
> line) creatures more powerful than rangers and angels - specifically, colossi,
> serpents, or hydrae - it might be impossible for a sixth player who focused on
> points and angels to win. He might kill off several other players, filling his
> Titan stack with angels, but that would still leave one or two to develop a
> superior Titan/colossus or Titan/serpent stack.
I think it is less likely to work with 5 players going for
recruiting. That just means the board will be littered with tasty things
to kill. And no matter how well you are recruiting, a large titan fast
will probably win. 2 killers who make life miserable for each other gives
better hope.
> It's also possible that there's usenet distortion going on here. Certainly one
> has to be at least somewhat opportunistic to maximize one's chance of winning a
> Titan game; giving up chances at hydrae by insisting on going for serpents is
> not going to win. People may remember one favorite strategy, but still depart
> from it frequently in practice. So I think an interesting question is, what
> was actually in the winning Titan stack at the end of recent Avaloncon or Titan
> National Tournaments? Can people who were there remember?
Multiplayer:
Avalocon 1997 : Winning Titan ttn10 wlo*3 cyc*3, 2nd was
ttn8-9 wbe wbe ran tro tro ran.
TNT 1997 : Winning Titan. Hmmm. One Serpent I think. I think 2nd was
rangers/gorgons, but I really don't remember.
Avaloncon 1998 : Don't really remember. David was a kill stack, I was
crap. I can't remember what Aaron and Jung had. Nothing exceptional, at
most a beh or so.
TNT 1998 : Losing was ttn19 ang wlo, winning was ttn11 arc gia uni uni
wlo ran. The third place person also had a giant, but was stomped by
ttn16 arc ang ang wlo. Only outrageously good luck for him and bad luck
for mike let him do so much damage. I seem to recall a giant killing an
archangel and a warlock.
DonCon 1999 : Don't know. David just mentioned one serpent though.
TNT finals are six player games, and DonCon games are all 4 player.
> (And what is the Titan National Tournament, exactly?)
Next one is at PrezCon in Charlottesville, VA in Feb 2000 I think.Pretty
solid field normally.
-- Dave (not Dan!)
andre...@my-deja.com
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> I frankly think Andrew Gross is overstating the case quite a bit too.
> I'm not sure exactly what he's saying here, but it seems rather an
> exaggeration:
>
> >>> In tournament quality multiplayer Titan play, the vast majority of
> >>> the games are won with Rangers, Gorgons, and Angels.
Fair enough. One has to keep one's posts to a reasonable size, and
perhaps I was more pithy than I should have been.
What I was alluding to was the fact that a stack that has 2 rangers in
it has a reasonable chance to go to the upper circle, grab a warbear,
and make good on it; whereas a stack that has used 3 centaurs to grab a
Warbear needs to get very lucky to turn the warbear into anything
useful.
Or that if you grab a couple of Gorgons, you now recruit an 18 point,
rangestriking, flying creature in the most common terrain on the board;
so you care a lot less about losing some of them in battle.
It was an oversimplification for me to give the impression that I
thought that winning a game of Titan came down to simply recruiting a
lot of Rangers and Gorgons; it would be more accurate for me to say
that I believe a major component of a successful Titan player's
strategy should be the aggressive recruitment of Rangers and Gorgons,
because (1) these often lead to points and angels, which are very
important; and (2) they usually lead to more free recruiting
opportunities, since your opponents fear being attacked by those
stacks. I believe that aggressively optomizing your probability of
recruiting Rangers and Gorgons in the early and middle game leads to
better longterm chances of winning than trying to take a shortcut, or
taking a shorterm chance of getting something "better"; as a specific
example of this, I will quite often choose to get my first ranger,
rather than a warbear or minotaur, if I roll a 5 while sitting
underneath the upper circle (depending, of course, on the situation,
disposition of opponents, etc; but some people find the notion simply
unimaginable. I do it probably close to half the time).
dbac...@ionet.net
kmar...@crossover.com wrote:
> dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
>
> >Though possibly more surprising than your reply.
>
> Right. David is, year in and year out, one of the best _Titan_ players
> in the nation, as demonstrated by his consistent high placings in
> _Titan_ tournaments. So when he makes a comment about a successful
> strategy, and you respond by saying "None of the people I play with
> play that way", what do you *expect* his answer to be? "Gosh, I'm
> sorry, someone I've never heard of and a bunch of his friends say that
> my strategy doesn't work, I guess I must be playing badly?"
>
Lord give me strength. . .
Were the world shaped to my whims, I'd expect people to have somewhat
of a civil tongue in their heads. I'd also expect an ability to
read for understanding. There is more, but those two make a good
start, and in that I'm not going to get those two simple whims
fulfilled in any event, the rest might just as well be ignored.
Where did I say, or imply, ". . .that [David's] strategy doesn't
work. . ."? Were you perhaps to busy reading the last of a series
of posts to read the entire thread, or too much of a simpleton to
read an anlysis of the strength of following the Brush line over
recruiting the 3rd tower creature that I posted? That my initial
comment on the strategy was a listing of its weaknesses? My
correction, as yet unreplied to by David, of his presumptions
of advocacy (backed by creative half-quoting)?
Despite David's slight tendency towards snideness and condescension,
I generally find enough information and insight in his posts to
warrant their reading, even if he sometimes leaps to erroneous
conclusions about motivation. All I've seen from you and Andrew
Gross is the ability to leap to conclusions and that based upon
insufficient reading skills.
Donald | Who shall henceforth ignore idiocy of this type.
dbac...@ionet.net
> > I've been in more than a few games where appropriate aggression led
> > one player to having Titan teleport while my Titan stack was still
> > developing towards its ultimate end. In games where I was able to
> > successfully stay outside the teleporting stack's range and/or got
> > lucky in that the owner happened to attack elsewhere often enough, I
> > eventually would field a convincing stack, even if my Titan was
weaker
> > as a piece than the one with teleport.
>
> Titan teleportation doesn't have a "range". And "luck" shouldn't play
> any role in whether your titan is attacked or not: if your opponent
has
> titan teleport, and rolls a 6, and can kill your titan, then he should
> essentially always do so, except only if the opponent chooses to kill
a
> different titan first. (And if you are the one who's close to
colossi,
> or whatever, then killing someone else doesn't make sense.)
Indeed it doesn't have range. That'll teach me to reply in haste
on lunchbreak. I'll assume I was luckier than not. I'm not a big
fan of revealing my Titan, and if the opponent has to make even
an educated guess, then "luck" has entered the picture.
>
> Donald can claim that he is playing against expert opponents, but if
> they are rolling sixes when they have titan teleport, and "happening"
to
> teleport somewhere else than where they could kill his titan, then
they
> are doing something very wrong. And if they play that way---if they
> don't capitalize on titan teleportation when they get it, for example-
--
> then it's indeed much more likely that the players who attack more
> aggressively won't win when they should. But that's not because
> aggression doesn't work, it's because they are doing something wrong.
>
Is Titan teleport a cure all for every stack you might encounter?
Two stacks who differ only in Titan strength (one has teleport, one
is short by 1-99 points). . .do you attack it? Suppose a third player
has a large stack in the area which threatens to attack whomever
wins?
And before you start you typical campaign of distortion, no I'm not
suggesting either situation is going to predominate so much as to
make Titan teleport worthless (nearly or otherwise).
> > It may be that I'm misreading some statements to be more along
> > the line of, "You are challenging us, and we are much better players
> > than you are."
>
> I think that's a fair summary. We've been having this disagreement
> since at least 1993, when Donald wrote:
>
> >>> Never, never, never (well, maybe in an act of desperation) summon
an
> >>> angel to your Titan stack. ... they reduce the number of Colossi
> >>> that you may have in that stack (And yes, I usually wind up with a
> >>> Titan stack that consists of the Titan and 6 Colossi.
>
> It's impossible for me to read this sort of advice and not conclude
that
> the poster doesn't understand the game at all. (And reading that he
> thinks he's outside the range of titan teleportation certainly
> reinforces that belief.)
An error due to speed of response. Were I going to judge based upon
ability to read for minimal comprehension, I'd say the following
doesn't show you in a good light.
Me--
> > when I have quite clearly written that the option of the 3rd
> > tower creature has its risks.
>
David--
> What you actually wrote: "It has as one drawback in the time it
> takes to get your gargoyles off and multiplying is typically enough
> for other players to be a rung ahead in recruitment." This seems a
> gross understatement of the "risks". That's why I (and probably
> others) feel that your posting mischaracterized the relative merit
> of the choices.
Me--
Frankly, I thought writing that you would be a rung behind in
recruitment to be sufficient to underscore your relative position.
At least, I'd say that if I were being nearly so desJardinesque.
And given your already demonstrated willingness to creatively
quote to suit your own purposes, just about anything you do short
of a full quote is suspect.
And as to the quote. . .with 7 years passage of time, I'm not
sure what context the statement was made in. To your credit, it
is hard for me to swallow. I've had Titan + 6xCol before. I've
done it more than once. But usually? As much as I'm not inclined
to grant you anything, it does strike me as serious misrepresentation
on my part.
>
> I frankly think Andrew Gross is overstating the case quite a bit too.
> I'm not sure exactly what he's saying here, but it seems rather an
> exaggeration:
>
> >>> In tournament quality multiplayer Titan play, the vast majority of
> >>> the games are won with Rangers, Gorgons, and Angels.
>
> I think that serpents and behemoths are significant in most games,
> hydras and hydra precursors in many, and the colossus precursors in
> quite a few. I won the titan final at WBC this year basically
because I
> had a serpent while one opponent (Aaron) was pretty far behind in
> recruiting, and he had to run away from me and I managed to kill him
> with another legion. Then I had teleportation plus the serpent, and
> another opponent (Mike Pustilnik) tried to attack me rather than sit
> around and wait for me to roll a 6, and the serpent was enough that he
> didn't have much chance. So I'd say that the serpent played a pretty
> big role in that game. I don't think I would have won if I'd made the
> same moves but not been able to recruit anything higher than cyclops
in
> the desert.
I've had Hydra before, but it always struck me that they were
difficult to arrive at. I'm not sure how much of that impression
is due to not establishing the proper base to develop them early
on, a desire to work on other lines, poor luck in their recruitment,
or actually difficulty in achieving them.
>
> On the other hand, I won in the semifinal with angels and gorgons as
my
> strongest non-titan characters, against a player who had a serpent in
> his titan legion (and lots of hydras and giants and other stuff
> elsewhere), because I managed to roll a 6 just in time, and took out
his
> titan with the serpent in the jungle. That worked because I didn't
> "happen to attack elsewhere". I had to wait a long time for the six
> (almost 20 turns after I got teleportation, I think), but when I got
it,
> I didn't waste it on attacking the wrong legion! If I had just
attacked
> a random legion, then sure enough, the player with better recruiting
> would have won, rather than the player with more points and more titan
> power. I don't think I recruited anything worth more than 20 points
> that whole game.
>
>
I'm curious. If you wouldn't mind, could you detail his relative
development at the point you gained Titan Teleport and what he
managed or failed to do in the roughly 20 turns it took you to
get around to killing him?
David desJardins
> I'll assume I was luckier than not. I'm not a big fan of revealing my
> Titan, and if the opponent has to make even an educated guess, then
> "luck" has entered the picture.
I've played a couple of games where I had titan teleportation, wanted to
kill another player's titan, and I wasn't sure where it was. In each of
those games, it didn't really matter very much, because the only reason
that I wouldn't know the location is if the player hasn't been in any
battles and so has scored hardly any points. So in that case, just
taking out the legions with the best recruiting potential first is
enough. Usually when a player is so far behind in points, they aren't
much of a threat.
I can't remember ever playing a game where I had titan teleportation,
could have won if I had known where the opponents' titans were, and I
lost. I don't think that's a reasonable possibility with good players.
> Is Titan teleport a cure all for every stack you might encounter?
No. Sometimes the good player with titan teleportation loses anyway.
But not by rolling several sixes, frittering them away doing not much of
anything, and suddenly discovering that an opponent's titan legion now
has colossi in it. If your opponent is going to gain more by recruiting
than you are, then you should attack asap, before things get worse.
Even if things are bad now, it doesn't make sense to wait until they are
worse later.
> Two stacks who differ only in Titan strength (one has teleport, one
> is short by 1-99 points). . .do you attack it?
Let's see. I have titan teleportation, I roll a 6, my opponent is close
to getting titan teleportation but doesn't have it yet, my opponent's
titan legion is weaker than mine but not by much. Do I attack, or do I
sit around until the opponent gets teleportation and comes and attacks
me instead? What do you think?
A fundamental principle is that you should force the issue sooner if
later is going to be worse. Now that I think of it, I'll add that to my
Titan strategy notes.
> Suppose a third player has a large stack in the area which threatens
> to attack whomever wins?
It depends on the alternatives. Often I would go kill that third player
instead. If that legion is really strong enough to threaten my own
titan legion, then taking it out of the game by killing the third
player's titan is usually a good idea.
> I'm curious. If you wouldn't mind, could you detail his relative
> development at the point you gained Titan Teleport and what he
> managed or failed to do in the roughly 20 turns it took you to
> get around to killing him?
Recap of 1999 WBC semifinal:
When I achieved Titan teleport, my remaining opponent (Jason Ley) had a
relatively weak titan legion (I believe he had just gotten one behemoth,
or maybe he got it on the first turn after I achieved teleport). He had
several other decent legions, mostly not particularly strong but several
with recruiting potential. I had only one other legion of consequence,
with two minotaurs in it. Most of his legions were concentrated on one
side of the board, while my titan legion was on the other side of the
board, and my minotaurs were in the inner ring. (Several legions had of
course disappeared when I killed the other two players, which happened
in quick succession.) Jason fairly quickly chased my minotaurs out of
the center and killed them. Meanwhile his titan legion got good
recruiting rolls and in about five turns it was in the jungle seven high
with a serpent. A couple of turns after that, my titan had replaced its
battle losses, so it was up to seven high with one angel and the rest
gorgons.
During the next dozen turns or so, Jason recruited up with several
legions (one I recall caught a couple of hydras) and started chasing me
with them. It took him a while to get them strong enough to hurt me and
then onto my side of the board. Meanwhile I was moving around the board
while waiting for a 6. He did have a couple of smaller legions on my
side of the board. At one point I caught one, splitting to replace a
gorgon with an angel, and then recruited back up to seven pieces.
Jason's titan stayed in the jungle without splitting or moving this
whole time. Certainly if he left the jungle, and/or split, and I rolled
a 6 before he could get back into the jungle or a tower, he would have
no chance. So presumably he hoped or believed that he had some chance
to win if he stayed in the jungle where his defense was maximized.
But I didn't happen to roll a 6 for a very long time, nor could he catch
me. As time went on, he became closer and closer to catching me, so
there was less and less reason for him to consider leaving the jungle.
Finally, on probably my last roll before he would have caught me with a
legion which would have at least significantly weakened me, I rolled a 6
and attacked in the jungle where his titan was sitting. I got a couple
of good rolls to start the battle, and won the battle fairly easily.
In my opinion, and certainly in hindsight, I think he would have done
better to go ahead and split his titan stack, move out of the jungle,
and look for at least one more serpent, or else if he were lucky get
into a tower. Or he could try the deception move of splitting off his
titan into a two high legion, hoping I would waste my teleport by
hitting the serpents. But perhaps he overestimated his chances on
defense in the jungle. Or perhaps I'm underestimating them.
I didn't discuss this with Jason, but I'm sure both of us knew that as
soon as I rolled a 6 it would be titan on titan. He wasn't under any
illusions (although I'm sure he was still hoping) that I wouldn't know
where his titan was.
David desJardins
Mike.Schneider .
<da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
snip
> Recap of 1999 WBC semifinal:
>
snip
> During the next dozen turns or so, Jason recruited up with several
> legions (one I recall caught a couple of hydras) and started chasing me
> with them. It took him a while to get them strong enough to hurt me and
> then onto my side of the board. Meanwhile I was moving around the board
> while waiting for a 6. He did have a couple of smaller legions on my
> side of the board. At one point I caught one, splitting to replace a
> gorgon with an angel, and then recruited back up to seven pieces.
>
> Jason's titan stayed in the jungle without splitting or moving this
> whole time. Certainly if he left the jungle, and/or split, and I rolled
> a 6 before he could get back into the jungle or a tower, he would have
> no chance. So presumably he hoped or believed that he had some chance
> to win if he stayed in the jungle where his defense was maximized.
>
> But I didn't happen to roll a 6 for a very long time, nor could he catch
> me. As time went on, he became closer and closer to catching me, so
> there was less and less reason for him to consider leaving the jungle.
> Finally, on probably my last roll before he would have caught me with a
> legion which would have at least significantly weakened me, I rolled a 6
> and attacked in the jungle where his titan was sitting. I got a couple
> of good rolls to start the battle, and won the battle fairly easily.
>
> In my opinion, and certainly in hindsight, I think he would have done
> better to go ahead and split his titan stack, move out of the jungle,
> and look for at least one more serpent, or else if he were lucky get
> into a tower.
What were the relative strengths of your Titans?
What were Jason's other creatures beside Serp/2Beh? (3Cyc? Gorgans?)
> Or he could try the deception move of splitting off his
> titan into a two high legion, hoping I would waste my teleport by
> hitting the serpents. But perhaps he overestimated his chances on
> defense in the jungle. Or perhaps I'm underestimating them.
[Below written with assumption that Jason's stack was all "green".)
I've always considered the Jungle a sucky location for defense, and
versus your Gorgons the battle might as well be in Woods for all the
difference the weed bonus would make. The utility of one Serpent is just
lost if the other player has a stack full of green 3~* commanded by a
Schwartzenegger Titan. Trying to hold the Serpent back (so it can recruit
on 4th turn) is a non-viable strategy, since your guys are all fliers
who'd zone straight in on my defending Titan anyway, the Serpent must play
shield and get cut to shreds by the higher-skilled attackers -- so the
rational for staying in Jungle just isn't there.
I would have tried for a Tower, figuring (on the basis of the above)
that: #1, I'm dead on *any* level terrain if you roll a 6; and #2, since
only your Angel would have been at any disadvantage in Brush, terrain is a
moot point and the fighting won't last until the 4th turn. But if I make a
Tower with Serp/2Beh (+Warlock on 4th when you attack), victory would
almost certainly be mine.
On the way to a Tower, I should try to park on anything with slopes
(Hills, Mountains, Deserts), rather than Brush, since your non-native
creatures will lose skill attacking up them.
But ideally, if you're way ahead of me in points with a Gorgon-grinder
Titan while I'm way ahead of you in stacks, I want to be in a Tower with a
couple bath towels and wizards before you're ready to land on my head.
> I didn't discuss this with Jason, but I'm sure both of us knew that as
> soon as I rolled a 6 it would be titan on titan. He wasn't under any
> illusions (although I'm sure he was still hoping) that I wouldn't know
> where his titan was.
>
> David desJardins
Kevin J. Maroney
>Where did I say, or imply, ". . .that [David's] strategy doesn't
>work. . ."?
When David said that one favored strategy was to build a Titan stack
with six Angels or Archangels, you said:
>Odd, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 Angels with a Titan
>stack before, and most times those stacks weren't all that powerful.
That seems like a clear statement that David's strategy was
irrelevant, untried, flawed, or otherwise not worth pursuing.
>Were you perhaps to busy reading the last of a series
>of posts to read the entire thread, or too much of a simpleton to
>read an anlysis of the strength of following the Brush line over
>recruiting the 3rd tower creature that I posted?
I will admit to not having read all of the thread. But then, I don't
really have the time to waste reading every half-baked theory on how
_Titan_ "should" be played by someone who considers himself superior
to a tournament-level player and whose strategy revolves around the
exceptionally chance ploy of recruiting six Colossi.
Andrew Hardin
>really have the time to waste reading every half-baked theory on how
>_Titan_ "should" be played by someone who considers himself superior
>to a tournament-level player and whose strategy revolves around the
>exceptionally chance ploy of recruiting six Colossi.
What joy, the thread I started has finally revolved into back and
forth insults by two sides.
Well, since beginning this thread, and generally having a good time
thinking and pondering, I played again. My recruiting was much better
than my opponents, except for my Titan stack, which was working
towards Colossi, since my opponents got the jump on Hydra recruiting.
Thoughts:
1. Titan Teleport was the deciding factor. I fleed anytime I couldn't
win or really cause serious harm just to deny my opponent points, and
ended the game with 813 points to his 443. Unfortunately, he hit the 6
right as I was on the Plains, positioned to move into good recruiting
territory and had just left him with no strength but his Titan, and my
firepower about to move towards his Titan. The final battle was my
14*Tit Wbr Wbr Wlo Wlo Gia against 10*Tit Hyd Hyd Wlo Wlo Wyv Wyv. I
forgot to roll 14 dice with my Titan, instead rolling only 12, and
failed to kill a Warlock with 17 dice at skill 4. I ended up taking
exactly 14 hits on the turn I managed 9 hits on his Titan, so I was
close to a mutual and close to a win.
2. I followed pretty much specifically the recruiting ideas on this
thread. My opponents got Hydras really quickly due to good rolls, but
couldn't manage much else. Overall, I was quite pleased with the ideas
suggested. I didn't push the higher recruiting path until the
opportunities came, and found this worked out rather well. By the end,
I had 4 Behemoths, 4 Hydras, and would have gotten a Serpent if I
wasn't using the stack to pin his Titan stack. At the same time, I got
a good portion of the Gorgons and Rangers (more than my 2 opponents
combined), and was able to use them to get points, kill a Titan, and
weaken an opponent.
3. I was too unaggressive with my Titan. This is just a hard thing for
me to be willing to do. At one point, I had 495 points, and couldn't
quite get the rolls necessary to attack with the stack. A couple of
times I could have attacked with 2 or better and rolled a 1. In
another case, I had a stack with 2 Behemoths against an enemy ready to
be attacked in the Jungle 2 Spaces away and rolled a 1. I also had my
opponents on the run most of the game, but ended up rolling too low a
couple of times while chasing stacks that kept rolling sixes and
fives.
Overall, I learned a whole bunch of things, but the strategy suggested
of recruiting Ranger/Gorgons first actually works, and is much safer
than the Warbear/Minotaur path I had tried before. I had below average
rolls in a number of critical cases and did just fine. I think it
should be possible to switch the Titan stack to Colossi recruiting,
but it is risky. Our group is not the epitome of aggressive, and the
problem with my Titan stack was I was trying too hard for Colossi,
since I was concerned about my last opponent's Hydra Titan stack. One
of my opponents got in trouble trying to recruit Hydra (split his
Titan stack, got pinned and then killed by a suicide stack), and the
other got Hydra's going early in the game (and had 2 Warlocks after
the opening rolls). If anything, I needed to attack more, to keep them
from getting good recruiting while I built my army.
At the same time, I am not totally sold on the idea that current
tournament play in Titan is the final stage of the game. As with any
game that is as young as Titan is, and is played with as few people as
play it, the game still has a lot of exploration and ideas in it. It
will be interesting to see how the game is played in 20 years.
On a final note, anybody willing to play a PBEM game? Or point me to
one going on. I am not an expert, but am willing to learn, and I learn
quickly. I don't mind getting crushed as long as the person is willing
to show me what I did wrong.
- Drew
- Drew
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
David desJardins
> Now, to do well in Titan tournaments, I believe that overly aggressive
> strategies will work. This is because, even at the semi-final level, it
> only takes one slightly below average player to fight the wrong battle and
> throw the game away (you experts may correct me on this, but it happens
> pretty often). This is the case where the tit/6 x ran turns into tit/2 x
> ang/4 x ran teleporting and he walks away with the game.
I would say this underestimates the skill of the average player or
semifinalist at Avaloncon. Players who are so weak that they fight
battles that just strengthen their opponents are not the norm. Even if
someone wanted to do that, there's likely to be another good player in
the game who will point out that it doesn't make much sense.
In a game with one better player and a few weaker players, most
strategies work pretty well. One can be aggressive, and count on one's
skill to lead to better-than-expected results in battle, and the lack of
skill of one's opponents to lead them to allow attacks that they
shouldn't allow. Or one can play more conservatively, playing for a
longer game which gives more chance for luck to average out and skill to
dominate. It's not clear to me that either of these strategies
dominates the other. I might well make a risky attack against a strong
player, because I think it's my best chance, while against weaker
players I just wait patiently for a better opportunity to come along.
Games with a couple of better players and a couple of weaker players can
be the most skewed, because then it can come down to a race between the
better players to exploit the weaker players, or just a random choice of
whom the weaker player's blunders happen to help. For that reason I do
prefer to avoid games where there's a pretty wide difference in ability.
I'd say that in the tournament games at Avaloncon, particularly the
semifinals and finals, there's a narrower range of ability than in most
other games I get to play.
David desJardins
John_Da...@acm.org
>
> dbac...@ionet.net wrote:
>
> >Though possibly more surprising than your reply.
>
> Right. David is, year in and year out, one of the best _Titan_ players
> in the nation, as demonstrated by his consistent high placings in
> _Titan_ tournaments. So when he makes a comment about a successful
> strategy, and you respond by saying "None of the people I play with
> play that way", what do you *expect* his answer to be? "Gosh, I'm
> sorry, someone I've never heard of and a bunch of his friends say that
> my strategy doesn't work, I guess I must be playing badly?"
Could be. Everything desJardins says about the rules is wrong, which is
one of several reasons I killfiled him years ago.
John David Galt
David desJardins
>> So I think an interesting question is, what was actually in the
>> winning Titan stack at the end of recent Avaloncon or Titan National
>> Tournaments?
>
> crap. I can't remember what Aaron and Jung had. Nothing exceptional, at
> most a beh or so.
I had Ttn(6) Ran Ran Cyc Cyc Cyc when I died. But I was the first one
out. If I had lasted longer, I might have ended up with behemoths and
serpents, or I might have split off cycs and just filled up with
rangestrikers. My angel legion had two minotaurs when I died.
> DonCon [WBC] 1999 : Don't know. David just mentioned one serpent though.
I had a serpent but it didn't last until the end of the game. I lost it
defending against Mike Pustilnik. Going into that battle, I think I had
Ttn(10) Ser Beh Beh Gor Ran Ran.
Going into the final battle against Brian Sutton, I believe that I had
Ttn(12) Arc Ang Ran Ran Tro.
I have some notes on the 1999 final game. I should write them up for
Bruno's web site.
David desJardins
David desJardins
>>>>> In tournament quality multiplayer Titan play, the vast majority of
>>>>> the games are won with Rangers, Gorgons, and Angels.
>
> thought that winning a game of Titan came down to simply recruiting a
> lot of Rangers and Gorgons; it would be more accurate for me to say
> that I believe a major component of a successful Titan player's
> strategy should be the aggressive recruitment of Rangers and Gorgons,
> because (1) these often lead to points and angels, which are very
> important; and (2) they usually lead to more free recruiting
> opportunities, since your opponents fear being attacked by those
> stacks.
Thanks for clarifying that. I agree entirely with this.
> as a specific example of this, I will quite often choose to get my
> first ranger, rather than a warbear or minotaur, if I roll a 5 while
> sitting underneath the upper circle
This is a good thought which I'm sure I don't consider often enough.
Thanks for the pointer.
David desJardins
Alan Kwan
> as a specific
>example of this, I will quite often choose to get my first ranger,
>rather than a warbear or minotaur, if I roll a 5 while sitting
>underneath the upper circle (depending, of course, on the situation,
>disposition of opponents, etc; but some people find the notion simply
>unimaginable. I do it probably close to half the time).
This is an interesting issue; let's discuss this in more detail.
This is probably a good idea if the exit from the upper circle will be
into a hostile, congested area, or if the legion will have to split
off something other than tower creatures after this mustering (so
we'll get the ranger now and split off the trolls next), but is this
really a good idea in general? It is generally quite easy to get a
ranger 'at another opportunity', and though a legion (with 2 trolls
already) which gets a ranger /now/ will be able to start mustering in
plains right away, a legion which gets a warbear will be able to
muster in woods (and tundra) for as long as the warbear remains there.
I feel that mustering the warbear or minotaur might be the more
profitable move in general, since this move by no means close off the
path to rangers.
A warbear or minotaur is not as good as a ranger in battle, but ... by
how much? Aren't the extra mustering opportunities in a couple more
terrain types, plus the possibilities for unicorns and collosi, worth
that slight loss in battle strength?
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / ta...@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
Dimension S editor: http://209.213.100.47/
Kevin J. Maroney
>Could be. Everything desJardins says about the rules is wrong, which is
>one of several reasons I killfiled him years ago.
I find that difficult to credit, given the high praise extended to him
by Bruno Wolff, who, in fact, *defines* the rules of _Titan_.
You're under no obligation to read his posts, of course, but that
seems peculiar.
David desJardins
> I find that difficult to credit, given the high praise extended to him
> by Bruno Wolff, who, in fact, *defines* the rules of _Titan_.
A while back Mr Galt proposed a detailed sequence of play for Titan
(http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=338397732) which differs in small but
very significant ways from Bruno's "official" interpretation. (Not
particularly official any longer, now that Avalon Hill no longer exists
nor sponsors an official tournament.) Mr Galt evidently thinks that his
interpretation is self-evident from the rules, and so he doesn't think
very highly of those who interpret the rules otherwise.
David desJardins
Bruno Wolff III
> John_Da...@acm.org wrote:
>
>>Could be. Everything desJardins says about the rules is wrong, which is
>>one of several reasons I killfiled him years ago.
>
> by Bruno Wolff, who, in fact, *defines* the rules of _Titan_.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. I was offical answer person for a few years,
but now that Titan is owned by Hasbro I am not. I was never free to do
whatever I wanted with the rules. I mostly tried to fill in gaps.
The issues Galt has with my rulings (from memory of past discussions here) in
a couple of areas is where the game was being played slightly differently than
what the rules literally said by people who were playing with the designers.
This includes being able to decide your initial splits when it gets to your
first turn and being able to choose the next battle to fight when you are
ready to start a new battle, rather than decing the complete order before
fighting any battles.
Since I had had these questions answered before I was the answer person
(by virtue of running the multiplayer tournament at Avaloncon), I chose
to stick with those answers rather than try to change how the game was being
played by people who were knowlegable players and who had played with
the designers. I also thought both of those interpretations made the game
better than the alternate rulings.
My rulings will get used for the 2000 WBC as I intend to run the event again.
If a new version of Titan is released in the Fall of 2000, what happens will
depend on what they do with the rules. If there are major rul changes,
the Titan tournament will probably be called Classic Titan and will use
the old rules. There probably wouldn't be a tournament using the new rules.
If they keep the rule wording the same, then I would expect to continue using
the previous rulings. If they change some wording in minor areas to
contradict the way I have currently ruled, then I will probably switch those
rulings to match Hasbro.
Kevin J. Maroney
>A while back Mr Galt proposed a detailed sequence of play for Titan
>(http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=338397732) which differs in small but
>very significant ways from Bruno's "official" interpretation. ...
>Mr Galt evidently thinks that his
>interpretation is self-evident from the rules, and so he doesn't think
>very highly of those who interpret the rules otherwise.
Thank you for the footnote.
Mike.Schneider .
<da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> writes:
> > I find that difficult to credit, given the high praise extended to him
> > by Bruno Wolff, who, in fact, *defines* the rules of _Titan_.
>
> A while back Mr Galt proposed a detailed sequence of play for Titan
> (http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=338397732) which differs in small but
> very significant ways from Bruno's "official" interpretation. (Not
> particularly official any longer, now that Avalon Hill no longer exists
> nor sponsors an official tournament.) Mr Galt evidently thinks that his
> interpretation is self-evident from the rules, and so he doesn't think
> very highly of those who interpret the rules otherwise.
>
> David desJardins
David's response to John's post indicated above:
Date: 1998/03/30
John David Galt (invalid address) writes:
> There is no requirement that you do your rangestrikes before other
> strikes. The correct, complete order is:
The official rules of Titan permit either player to concede "at any
time". While problematical---what happens if both players want to concede
at the same time?---this statement certainly seems to allow players a
great deal of flexibility in the timing of their concessions. John David
Galt's proposed sequence only permits concessions at certain specific
points during the battle. This can have a substantial effect on play.
For example, Player A has 498 points and a legion consisting of a titan,
two serpents, two behemoths, and two gorgons. Player B attacks this
legion with a legion consisting of two rangers. According to the rules of
Titan, player B can concede "at any time", including before player A
enters the battle land. According to Mr Galt's sequence of play, player
B's attempt to concede at this point is only a "proposal", and may be
rejected. That means that player A can decline the proposal, and choose
to enter only six characters onto the battle land, thus ensuring that he
can add an archangel to his legion once the two rangers are defeated. This
would be a substantial change, and I've never heard anyone else suggest
this ruling.
Another common situation is that a player hopes to kill a key character in
the opposing legion, so rolls those strikes first. Failing to do so, that
player then wants to concede, rather than continue with required strikes
which kill weaker characters that the opponent is happy to lose. Given the
language of the rules, I can't see any reason for allowing a player to
concede before making *any* of the required strikes, as Mr Galt would do,
but not allowing a player to concede after making some strikes but before
making others.
Otherwise, John David Galt's sequence of play seems to closely conform to
the usual interpretation.
David desJardins
>> I believe a major component of a successful Titan player's
>> strategy should be the aggressive recruitment of Rangers and Gorgons,
>> because (1) these often lead to points and angels, which are very
>> important; and (2) they usually lead to more free recruiting
>> opportunities, since your opponents fear being attacked by those
>> stacks.
>
> about this statement in the context of 2-player games?
The same principles apply, but the bias is even stronger. (It's easier
to win a multiplayer game by outrecruiting your opponents despite having
weaker stacks for much of the game, than it is to win a two-player game
that way.)
David desJardins
Dave Kohr
>I believe a major component of a successful Titan player's
>strategy should be the aggressive recruitment of Rangers and Gorgons,
>because (1) these often lead to points and angels, which are very
>important; and (2) they usually lead to more free recruiting
>opportunities, since your opponents fear being attacked by those
>recruiting Rangers and Gorgons in the early and middle game leads to
>better longterm chances of winning than trying to take a shortcut, or
>taking a shorterm chance of getting something "better"
How do the tournament-level players on RGB (David, Bruno, you, etc.) feel
about this statement in the context of 2-player games?
--
Dave Kohr <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER!
Visit the Silicon Valley Boardgamers at http://www.best.com/~davekohr/svb
"It's official: Micro$oft is a Monopoly!" No big surprise there.
Dave Kohr
Bruno Wolff III <br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>I think the expanded diversity this year [of WBC] hurt the total
>participation in Titan.
Is the Titan National Tournament still being held?
Bruno Wolff III
>
> Is the Titan National Tournament still being held?
It is being held with Prezcon this year. It will be in the same area of
the country, but will be in February (I think). This was necessitated
because of a big football game that was going to increase the cost of hotel
space during the weekend that TNT was run. They decided that it would be
better to combine with Prezcon.
There has also been talk of moving TNT around, in particular being held at
the WBC next summer (sort of like the World Diplomacy Championships). I
think this would be a mistake. But I haven't had any detailed discussions
with the people running TNT about this.
David desJardins
> There has also been talk of moving TNT around, in particular being held at
> the WBC next summer (sort of like the World Diplomacy Championships). I
> think this would be a mistake. But I haven't had any detailed discussions
> with the people running TNT about this.
I don't see the point of holding TNT at the WBC.
I have been thinking of organizing TNT on the west coast if I can get
the agreement of the principals. It makes more sense to me to have one
tournament a year on the east coast (WBC) and one on the west coast,
rather than both on the east coast. The main question in my mind is how
many people we could get to attend.
I'd appreciate it if anyone reading who would probably attend a Titan
tournament in the SF bay area in Fall 2000 or Winter 2000-01 would drop
me a line. Assume that: the tournament will be three or four days
(e.g., Thursday am through Saturday evening, perhaps with optional
gaming on Sunday and/or Wednesday evening but the championship final
held on Saturday so that people can travel on Sunday; or perhaps one day
shifted from this if Monday is chosen to be a common holiday); it will
be at a facility in the bay area reasonably convenient to SFO (San
Francisco), SJC (San Jose), or both; attendance will be free, or at most
a nominal charge; the same rules as used for WBC (Bruno's published
errata and clarifications) will apply, although the tournament format
may be somewhat different than WBC.
David desJardins