Suggestions--I need to hear from YOU

[Mike Brines]

The purpose of this exercise was to test the game and make corrections. I think we got to a good spot where it's probably better to make major changes and then start again. That said, let's try to make all the changes NOW so we don't have to do this again. I appreciate any feedback.

My suggestions:

1. Let's just declare the Way of Nature people winners since they figured out how the game wasn't working right and capitalized on it.

2. Going forward the only ways to gain resources should be from options like not choosing horse domestication and such-like and from having cities. No more harvesting resources using people. If you want the multiplication benefit of resources, you need to invest the multiplication costs to build cities. (Or beat somebody up and take theirs)

3. To give more possibilities for income for players without requiring them to build cities add Herding. If you domesticate horses, cattle, sheep, chocobos, etc. You can herd them. One type of herd per non-desert, non-city or non-sea place. Gain 1 wealth per 3 people herding to a maximum of 100 wealth per place. This way if a player hunts out an area he can herd something else there. This gives players options. They can build expensive cities that are more valuable, or else do less expensive things with people and gain a smaller income. Herding doesn't require much investment, doesn't need to be protected like cities do, and the herdsmen can be used to attack other players any turn you forego using them to earn wealth by herding. Players could use herding to ramp up an income to build cities with, as an additional income while they're also building cities, or instead of having cities. This gives a player options rather than just making the game about "Can you figure out the only real solution these rules allow?"

4. Switch wizards so that they make attacks against campsites, cities, fortresses or ships at sea that kill people based on the strength of the attack but can't capture territory. They can't choose specific targets beyond the place attacked so their plague might kill a bunch of hunters or the storm might sink some ships but they don't get to choose which. 

5. Assassins--I'm not sure what to do with these. They aren't workable as they are. Might just drop 'em from the game. Chaos already has cultists, which are pretty nifty. Any suggestions?

6. Other suggestions for things that seem to need fixing? I need brains and eyes that see things other than from my point of view. Remember, the game is supposed to be about significant choices. Real options--not just puzzling out the only real choice because the rest suck. Choosing to be a barbarian should make sense in the short run. Civilization should be a good idea in the long run. Maybe taking horse domestication is good because you want T3 cavalry later. Or maybe right now you can use the 2 hides more. It's significant choices, not just "can you figure out which of these is always the better deal?" Are there any things in the game what you should always and forever do? Or options you could do but never would? Are there Ways that are too good to pass up, or too useless to ever bother with? Or suggestions for things you'd like to see but don't? 

[Frank Lordi]

seriously?

again????

GRR

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mike Brines]

We said at the beginning we're testing. Do you honestly expect me or ANYONE to get a game perfectly right from the start without testing? We've reached a point where the game I made is not the one we're playing, where there's only one real way to play it--the Way of Nature, where if you don't you're screwed over. There will be no civilization because the game doesn't pay you to play that way. 

We can either stop, fix it and then play an improved game. -OR- just keep playing the flawed one -OR- everybody just quits in disgust and we've wasted our time. We've done numerous games where I couldn't get people to accept the fixes so we could try again and eventually get to a point where the game is SUPER because people just quit and walked away. 

Do you disagree there is a major problem? Or would you rather just ignore it?

[Frank Lordi]

I say if the rules need to change then change them, but keep going.

If we restart every time we discover an issue we want to tweak then we'll never have a game.

In leadership it is often more important that a leader make 'a' decision than that the leader make the 'best' decision.  In gaming,especially games  of this nature,  I think it is more important that the game run than that it be perfect.

If we want a game in which people RP and become emersed in their faction, then we have to allow them the time and reason to do so.   

Just my thoughts.  I know i'm sick of halfbuilding an empire only to have the rug yanke dout from under me.   <My position means something ot me because i've worked to build it, not because it is min/max power gamer perfectly constructed.>

[Megan Tee]

My vote is to start over.

But I'm biased. [:

[[MOB] OneEyedBadger]

I dunno about this, I think the GM is jumping the gun. :/

#1 - I think Nature is balanced vs Machines, so nerfing nature and restarting will just mean your 'observant' players will probably restart as Machine (because Machine effectively gets cities at 50% off)

#2 - Restarting with a Nerf on Nature doesn't do anything for Rui, Chaos, Warrior, or Kharma. Sorc may or may not be OP. Against a same size same income rival I think Sorc will have edge because his attack is unblockable, albeit expensive.

Before restarting I would advise thinking about how to make the other Ways balanced with Machine and Nature, otherwise restart will just be a waste of time. Every Way needs to have something that affects production, otherwise the stated goal of having multiple ways to play is an illusion.

Expecting 'powerful' units, especially units that are priced at $1:1T or more is not very practical. Go ahead and give Rui a 100T Armored Warmammoth costing 200 wealth each and Rui would still be sub par because they are utterly lacking in anything that enhances their production.

If it is

#4 - I can only speak from my experience, but only around 25% of my income is due to nature. Gold, hides, and wool are available for anyone, and is not unique to Nature. Only resource Nature makes available is Timber and if that edge is breaking the game I would argue the problem is most likely related to the exponential way resources are cashed in.

[Kevin Darrow]

while I am not a big fan of starting over and losing all the gains, if a player has had such a huge advantage like it appears that the harvesting of resources has created, I guess I would vote to start over.

I am good with exploration gaining a one time resource, like discovering a slick of oil, or maybe some surface gems or gold.

I am good with hunting things like Terradactyles, Wolves, etc to lose the ability and gain the resource instead.  This should require a certain number of hunter strength.

I don't really see a purpose developing in hunting the predators other than making sure your chief is the highest TL.  This may need some development to ensure

I suggest having buildings required to build the other resources (i.e. Farms for Grain, Ranches for Wool, Mills for Timber)  at a cost of $300.

I suggest using the cities to create the set bonus you were looking for (i.e.if you have one city you can bundle two resources for $400, two cities three resources for $900).  

I suggest using raids more effectively, basically stealing the resource from a territory with a resource building.  I am not sure how nomads would develop wealth anyway.  Maybe have units that steal half their strength and a group of 50 can steal a resource.

Just my thoughts

[ME Brines]

On 10/29/2018 7:07 PM, [MOB] OneEyedBadger wrote:

I dunno about this, I think the GM is jumping the gun. :/

My original suggestion was to just fix the rules and keep going but a Nature player suggested he'd just as soon start over. Maybe I could go ahead and make the change and continue with the option you could always just start over elsewhere? The main issue seems to be the Nature Bloc invested a lot of time and effort building up a massively overpowered position and now that I'm trying to balance things they want to either keep what they have or start over fresh. Not fixing the problem isn't an option. The choices are whether we start fresh, or make the changes where we are. Which is why I want to make ALL the required adjustments now rather than have this happen again in a few turns.

#1 - I think Nature is balanced vs Machines, so nerfing nature and restarting will just mean your 'observant' players will probably restart as Machine (because Machine effectively gets cities at 50% off)

They aren't 50% off. He doesn't get 2 production per city at the same price as one city. He gets to basically buy a second city in the same place. If he wants the double production it costs him the same as a new city. The only real advantages are that he doesn't need as many places and he can guard "two" cities with the same army. He gets no extra resources he didn't pay for.

#2 - Restarting with a Nerf on Nature doesn't do anything for Rui, Chaos, Warrior, or Kharma. Sorc may or may not be OP. Against a same size same income rival I think Sorc will have edge because his attack is unblockable, albeit expensive.

Before restarting I would advise thinking about how to make the other Ways balanced with Machine and Nature, otherwise restart will just be a waste of time. Every Way needs to have something that affects production, otherwise the stated goal of having multiple ways to play is an illusion.

I don't see this as required, but  make suggestions. Machine isn't as OP as you seem to think. Nature is massively OP as it stands. Making cities is pointless if you can get the same resources at a discount. And Nature has the most ways to get resources without cities. As I see it the quickest, easiest fix is just to make a note for new players not to bother with anything else.

Expecting 'powerful' units, especially units that are priced at $1:1T or more is not very practical. Go ahead and give Rui a 100T Armored Warmammoth costing 200 wealth each and Rui would still be sub par because they are utterly lacking in anything that enhances their production.

You complain in #4 that cities shouldn't multiply. But that's the point. Rui can build cities. They have a production enhancement. It's called cities. Nature can't build them but they can get wealth another way that is only good in the short run--not as much wealth but not much cost either. But if Nature gets resources from harvesting, and at the hunting cost, they have a production bonus Rui can't ever compete with. If Nature can "harvest" timber, wool, gold, black lotus and all those resources at a cost of only $300 each why would anyone build a city that does the same thing but costs way more? Rui isn't too weak. Nature is too powerful.

If it is  

#4 - I can only speak from my experience, but only around 25% of my income is due to nature. Gold, hides, and wool are available for anyone, and is not unique to Nature. Only resource Nature makes available is Timber and if that edge is breaking the game I would argue the problem is most likely related to the exponential way resources are cashed in.

If you get a gold for having 300 gold panners, and a timber for having 300 woodsmen, and a wool for having 300 herders, it costs you 300 to get a resource. People building cities have to pay 300 for the first one, 900 for the second, 1500 for the third, etc. You pay 300 for the first place that makes resources, 300 for the second, 300 for the third, etc. If you spend 2700 wealth you can get 9 resources a turn. If a city boy pays $2700 he gets 3. You cash your 9 in for $8100 and can outfit 27 more places to produce resources. The city guy gets 3 resources earns $900 and can't even buy another city. Is this because cities are too expensive? No. It's because the Nature Way allows you the benefit of cities without the cost.

This is the point. Resources are exponential while hunting and fishing are arithmetic. If you give a player (Nature) exponential income on an arithmetic investment of course it causes trouble. My suggestion is just to make herding like hunting and fishing. Keep people who didn't pay for cities from getting the city benefit. That's all I'm saying. The other fix would be to say if barbarians (people without cities) want resources they'd have to pay the city investment costs to get them--in which case if it works just like having a city why is it different--just call it a city. It's also way more complicated to do it that way.

[[MOB] OneEyedBadger]

Ugh, trying to reply on phone while having dinner and chatting it up with friends resulted in a mess of a post :)

[ME Brines]

On 10/29/2018 7:25 PM, Kevin Darrow wrote:

while I am not a big fan of starting over and losing all the gains, if a player has had such a huge advantage like it appears that the harvesting of resources has created, I guess I would vote to start over.

Check the math in my long example below and see if I'm not right.

I am good with exploration gaining a one time resource, like discovering a slick of oil, or maybe some surface gems or gold.

I am good with hunting things like Terradactyles, Wolves, etc to lose the ability and gain the resource instead.  This should require a certain number of hunter strength.

I don't really see a purpose developing in hunting the predators other than making sure your chief is the highest TL.  This may need some development to ensure

They also make a element of danger so you can't just spread out and never worry about trouble. They tend to block/channel player movement and encourage people to use scouts. I just assume that most players will eventually kill off all preditors. A T12 T-rex is pretty scary in the early game when you don't have that many guys. If you have 800, it's no longer a threat, just an annoyance.

I suggest having buildings required to build the other resources (i.e. Farms for Grain, Ranches for Wool, Mills for Timber)  at a cost of $300.

Broken. If resources multiply (without which there's no point in trading, or even having different resource types) giving them at a flat 300 investment means within 6 turns you are fielding armies of tens of thousands and have production in every place you control. If something costs you 300 to get, it shouldn't make more than $100. If it earns you the square of the number of them, it needs to cost you more than $300 each to make.

I suggest using the cities to create the set bonus you were looking for (i.e.if you have one city you can bundle two resources for $400, two cities three resources for $900). 

The cities already give a bonus= the resources. If you change things so that resource production only costs you 300 each, then here's how it goes.
As soon as you get 300 people, you can get a resource a turn. This probably takes no more than four turns if all you do is hunt and throw out an explorer or two, maybe less if take the hides instead of domestication.
Next turn you have 2 resources. You trade one of those for a different type and cash the two in for $400, get 400 more people and are now set up to get a second resource each and every turn.
The sixth turn you get 2 resources, trade one for another type and cash them in for $400, and set up to get a third resource. At this point you have $200 you probably used for more hunters or something.
The seventh turn you get 3 resources, do the trade exchange and cash them in for $900, doubling your resource production for the next turn.
The eighth turn you get 6 resources, worth $3600, which, when you invest, gives you enough people for 12 more resources, or 21 next turn. This entire time nobody can capture your resources because they are made by 300 people, not cities. They don't need armies to protect them, so there's no point in spending on anything but more people, because more people = more production.
The ninth turn you get 21 resources. Six turns, no cities, huge incomes, no need to protect anything, and probably getting production from every place you've explored. No reason for another player to even attack you. He can't capture anything. He might drive you off some land, but by endlessly expanding the map, that doesn't matter.

No choices, no strategy, no short/long game tactics. Cities are entirely pointless. It's essentially impossible to knock a player out of the game. If you're unlucky enough not to find a lot of resources that are "harvest-able" then you're screwed by the luck of the draw and lose. This is not a fun game, nor is it the game I intended.

I suggest using raids more effectively, basically stealing the resource from a territory with a resource building.  I am not sure how nomads would develop wealth anyway.  Maybe have units that steal half their strength and a group of 50 can steal a resource.

If "nomads" had herding like I suggested they'd earn wealth from that. Plus they could hunt. And they can capture civilized cities either to loot or to keep for the production. They wouldn't really be entirely nomads at that point, but it's how the Mongols operated.

Just my thoughts

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:41 PM Megan Tee <mnta...@gmail.com> wrote:

My vote is to start over.

But I'm biased. [:

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 5:00:21 PM UTC-7, Mike Brines wrote:

The purpose of this exercise was to test the game and make corrections. I think we got to a good spot where it's probably better to make major changes and then start again. That said, let's try to make all the changes NOW so we don't have to do this again. I appreciate any feedback.

My suggestions:

1. Let's just declare the Way of Nature people winners since they figured out how the game wasn't working right and capitalized on it.

2. Going forward the only ways to gain resources should be from options like not choosing horse domestication and such-like and from having cities. No more harvesting resources using people. If you want the multiplication benefit of resources, you need to invest the multiplication costs to build cities. (Or beat somebody up and take theirs)

3. To give more possibilities for income for players without requiring them to build cities add Herding. If you domesticate horses, cattle, sheep, chocobos, etc. You can herd them. One type of herd per non-desert, non-city or non-sea place. Gain 1 wealth per 3 people herding to a maximum of 100 wealth per place. This way if a player hunts out an area he can herd something else there. This gives players options. They can build expensive cities that are more valuable, or else do less expensive things with people and gain a smaller income. Herding doesn't require much investment, doesn't need to be protected like cities do, and the herdsmen can be used to attack other players any turn you forego using them to earn wealth by herding. Players could use herding to ramp up an income to build cities with, as an additional income while they're also building cities, or instead of having cities. This gives a player options rather than just making the game about "Can you figure out the only real solution these rules allow?"

4. Switch wizards so that they make attacks against campsites, cities, fortresses or ships at sea that kill people based on the strength of the attack but can't capture territory. They can't choose specific targets beyond the place attacked so their plague might kill a bunch of hunters or the storm might sink some ships but they don't get to choose which. 

5. Assassins--I'm not sure what to do with these. They aren't workable as they are. Might just drop 'em from the game. Chaos already has cultists, which are pretty nifty. Any suggestions?

6. Other suggestions for things that seem to need fixing? I need brains and eyes that see things other than from my point of view. Remember, the game is supposed to be about significant choices. Real options--not just puzzling out the only real choice because the rest suck. Choosing to be a barbarian should make sense in the short run. Civilization should be a good idea in the long run. Maybe taking horse domestication is good because you want T3 cavalry later. Or maybe right now you can use the 2 hides more. It's significant choices, not just "can you figure out which of these is always the better deal?" Are there any things in the game what you should always and forever do? Or options you could do but never would? Are there Ways that are too good to pass up, or too useless to ever bother with? Or suggestions for things you'd like to see but don't? 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
In a world where butter, sugar, and caffeine are illegal, can a baker turned revolutionary give the People back their just desserts? The Donuts of Doom, a silly steampunk novel and cookbook available @ https://www.amazon.com/Donuts-Doom-ME-Brines-ebook/dp/B005U41R0I/ref=la_B005H3CVNE_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1532647412&sr=1-18&refinements=p_82%3AB005H3CVNE

[[MOB] OneEyedBadger]

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:39:57 PM UTC-7, Mike Brines wrote:

On 10/29/2018 7:07 PM, [MOB] OneEyedBadger wrote:

I dunno about this, I think the GM is jumping the gun. :/

My original suggestion was to just fix the rules and keep going but a Nature player suggested he'd just as soon start over. Maybe I could go ahead and make the change and continue with the option you could always just start over elsewhere? The main issue seems to be the Nature Bloc invested a lot of time and effort building up a massively overpowered position and now that I'm trying to balance things they want to either keep what they have or start over fresh. Not fixing the problem isn't an option. The choices are whether we start fresh, or make the changes where we are. Which is why I want to make ALL the required adjustments now rather than have this happen again in a few turns.

True but if you restart you might as well think on fixing other problems and not just reboot with Nature nerf. Or reboot with other ways being made competitive with Nature and Machine. 

#1 - I think Nature is balanced vs Machines, so nerfing nature and restarting will just mean your 'observant' players will probably restart as Machine (because Machine effectively gets cities at 50% off)

They aren't 50% off. He doesn't get 2 production per city at the same price as one city. He gets to basically buy a second city in the same place. If he wants the double production it costs him the same as a new city. The only real advantages are that he doesn't need as many places and he can guard "two" cities with the same army. He gets no extra resources he didn't pay for.

Yeah, I misread it. Machine actually not as impressive to me now. I read it as pay double for the city to get double production, which is not the case.

#2 - Restarting with a Nerf on Nature doesn't do anything for Rui, Chaos, Warrior, or Kharma. Sorc may or may not be OP. Against a same size same income rival I think Sorc will have edge because his attack is unblockable, albeit expensive.

Before restarting I would advise thinking about how to make the other Ways balanced with Machine and Nature, otherwise restart will just be a waste of time. Every Way needs to have something that affects production, otherwise the stated goal of having multiple ways to play is an illusion.

I don't see this as required, but  make suggestions. Machine isn't as OP as you seem to think. Nature is massively OP as it stands. Making cities is pointless if you can get the same resources at a discount. And Nature has the most ways to get resources without cities. As I see it the quickest, easiest fix is just to make a note for new players not to bother with anything else.

Then give every Way the ability to gather resources like Nature does. 

Expecting 'powerful' units, especially units that are priced at $1:1T or more is not very practical. Go ahead and give Rui a 100T Armored Warmammoth costing 200 wealth each and Rui would still be sub par because they are utterly lacking in anything that enhances their production.

You complain in #4 that cities shouldn't multiply. But that's the point. Rui can build cities. They have a production enhancement. It's called cities. Nature can't build them but they can get wealth another way that is only good in the short run--not as much wealth but not much cost either. But if Nature gets resources from harvesting, and at the hunting cost, they have a production bonus Rui can't ever compete with. If Nature can "harvest" timber, wool, gold, black lotus and all those resources at a cost of only $300 each why would anyone build a city that does the same thing but costs way more? Rui isn't too weak. Nature is too powerful.

Meh. So basically Rui, Warrior, Machine are just copies of each other? Why not merge those three ways into a single way and not worry about it. 

If it is  

#4 - I can only speak from my experience, but only around 25% of my income is due to nature. Gold, hides, and wool are available for anyone, and is not unique to Nature. Only resource Nature makes available is Timber and if that edge is breaking the game I would argue the problem is most likely related to the exponential way resources are cashed in.

If you get a gold for having 300 gold panners, and a timber for having 300 woodsmen, and a wool for having 300 herders, it costs you 300 to get a resource. People building cities have to pay 300 for the first one, 900 for the second, 1500 for the third, etc. You pay 300 for the first place that makes resources, 300 for the second, 300 for the third, etc. If you spend 2700 wealth you can get 9 resources a turn. If a city boy pays $2700 he gets 3. You cash your 9 in for $8100 and can outfit 27 more places to produce resources. The city guy gets 3 resources earns $900 and can't even buy another city. Is this because cities are too expensive? No. It's because the Nature Way allows you the benefit of cities without the cost.

This is the point. Resources are exponential while hunting and fishing are arithmetic. If you give a player (Nature) exponential income on an arithmetic investment of course it causes trouble. My suggestion is just to make herding like hunting and fishing. Keep people who didn't pay for cities from getting the city benefit. That's all I'm saying. The other fix would be to say if barbarians (people without cities) want resources they'd have to pay the city investment costs to get them--in which case if it works just like having a city why is it different--just call it a city. It's also way more complicated to do it that way.

I would have almost same income as Rui, though. xD

If I was suddenly Way of Rui, right this second, I would lose the ability to harvest timber, but my other resource generation options stay the same. 

Gold is a location, anyone can mine gold.

Wool is a Domestication, anyone can learn to make +1 Wool per turn.

Hides is from hunting/exploring, anyone can hunt/explore.

So, yes, I am paying $300 per resource, so would a Way of Rui player in my position, even if he had NO cities.

Also, unless I trade I never get 5th resource, so my exchange rates are capped at $1600 per set. City construction would allow me to have access to FIVE different resources I currently do not have access too (Grain, Gems, Iron, Oil, and Ivory).

[Kevin Darrow]

Comments below

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:04 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

On 10/29/2018 7:25 PM, Kevin Darrow wrote:

while I am not a big fan of starting over and losing all the gains, if a player has had such a huge advantage like it appears that the harvesting of resources has created, I guess I would vote to start over.

Check the math in my long example below and see if I'm not right.

I didn't say I disagreed it was broken, just wasn't aware that was the case already. 

I am good with exploration gaining a one time resource, like discovering a slick of oil, or maybe some surface gems or gold.

I am good with hunting things like Terradactyles, Wolves, etc to lose the ability and gain the resource instead.  This should require a certain number of hunter strength.

I don't really see a purpose developing in hunting the predators other than making sure your chief is the highest TL.  This may need some development to ensure

They also make a element of danger so you can't just spread out and never worry about trouble. They tend to block/channel player movement and encourage people to use scouts. I just assume that most players will eventually kill off all preditors. A T12 T-rex is pretty scary in the early game when you don't have that many guys. If you have 800, it's no longer a threat, just an annoyance.

Agreed but this might be a better way to have the random resource... make the player fight for it and as a bonus you get a hero too.  

 

I suggest having buildings required to build the other resources (i.e. Farms for Grain, Ranches for Wool, Mills for Timber)  at a cost of $300.

Broken. If resources multiply (without which there's no point in trading, or even having different resource types) giving them at a flat 300 investment means within 6 turns you are fielding armies of tens of thousands and have production in every place you control. If something costs you 300 to get, it shouldn't make more than $100. If it earns you the square of the number of them, it needs to cost you more than $300 each to make.

I do not think you are not seeing my point here, maybe because every territory has a resource it can produce.  If you limit the outlet for resources or at least limit the variety of different resources, you make this less possible and push for trade more... the only difference between a mill and hunting is the resource can be stored and combined.   Also, if you look at my next suggestion a city would no longer produce a resource.  Instead would allow you to market them (i.e. get the bonus for combining them).

So your math is way off.  When I get 300 hunters lets say I can build a mill.  So now I have a resource of timber... that is worth $100... if I had hunted with the same 300 hunters I would have $100.  The only difference is now I can trade something or hold onto it to combine with another resource.  Now to do this I need two cities.  That means I need $300 for the first city, $900 for the second city, $300 for a mill and $300 for a farm (grain).  All this to net $400 a turn instead of $200.  After a couple cities and different resources you might get that up to $900.  

I agree this is less likely to develop trade so maybe a city gives a bonus for trade.  Maybe a traded resource is always allowed to get the bonus no matter the number of cities as long as all the bundled resources are different.  I guess I see cities are the market for trade and selling resources, not the producer of them.  Maybe a city even ruins the resource for that territory.

Just an idea... take it or leave it.

I suggest using the cities to create the set bonus you were looking for (i.e.if you have one city you can bundle two resources for $400, two cities three resources for $900). 

The cities already give a bonus= the resources. If you change things so that resource production only costs you 300 each, then here's how it goes.
As soon as you get 300 people, you can get a resource a turn. This probably takes no more than four turns if all you do is hunt and throw out an explorer or two, maybe less if take the hides instead of domestication.
Next turn you have 2 resources. You trade one of those for a different type and cash the two in for $400, get 400 more people and are now set up to get a second resource each and every turn.
The sixth turn you get 2 resources, trade one for another type and cash them in for $400, and set up to get a third resource. At this point you have $200 you probably used for more hunters or something.
The seventh turn you get 3 resources, do the trade exchange and cash them in for $900, doubling your resource production for the next turn.
The eighth turn you get 6 resources, worth $3600, which, when you invest, gives you enough people for 12 more resources, or 21 next turn. This entire time nobody can capture your resources because they are made by 300 people, not cities. They don't need armies to protect them, so there's no point in spending on anything but more people, because more people = more production.
The ninth turn you get 21 resources. Six turns, no cities, huge incomes, no need to protect anything, and probably getting production from every place you've explored. No reason for another player to even attack you. He can't capture anything. He might drive you off some land, but by endlessly expanding the map, that doesn't matter.

No choices, no strategy, no short/long game tactics. Cities are entirely pointless. It's essentially impossible to knock a player out of the game. If you're unlucky enough not to find a lot of resources that are "harvest-able" then you're screwed by the luck of the draw and lose. This is not a fun game, nor is it the game I intended.

I suggest using raids more effectively, basically stealing the resource from a territory with a resource building.  I am not sure how nomads would develop wealth anyway.  Maybe have units that steal half their strength and a group of 50 can steal a resource.

If "nomads" had herding like I suggested they'd earn wealth from that. Plus they could hunt. And they can capture civilized cities either to loot or to keep for the production. They wouldn't really be entirely nomads at that point, but it's how the Mongols operated. 

So what is the difference between the nomads herding and a $300 ranch?  

I ams still undecided on the benefit of raiding a city in the game... maybe later when cities are available.  Like you said Cities are too expensive to build and if there is an easier way to gain the bonus for multiple resources players are going to exploit it.

[Frank Lordi]

I agree with badger, and FWIW, i've been playing as Rui so...

--

[jpatte...@gmail.com]

My few bit:

- with any serious changes you can either restart or simply make everyone equivalent - pick a wealth number and tell people to rebuild their positions to that level.

- I’m not sure if the value of predators right now. 1 TL seems a pointless exercise as a bonus and predators just a speed bump 

- I would take an entirely different route. Harvesting a resource should make it disappear forcing non city dwellers to keep moving and way of nature is largely fixed. Make fishing 2 wealth with city and then 1 wealth without. 

-Bear in mind nature guys seem to need 3 times the wealth to compete and take cities anyway so I’m not sure why there is such a panic to change the rules, I’d tweak as above and run it. We haven’t even had a major war yet to test cities vs nature!

Sent from my iPhone

[Charles Hurst]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:39 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

On 10/29/2018 7:07 PM, [MOB] OneEyedBadger wrote:

I dunno about this, I think the GM is jumping the gun. :/

My original suggestion was to just fix the rules and keep going but a Nature player suggested he'd just as soon start over. Maybe I could go ahead and make the change and continue with the option you could always just start over elsewhere? The main issue seems to be the Nature Bloc invested a lot of time and effort building up a massively overpowered position and now that I'm trying to balance things they want to either keep what they have or start over fresh. Not fixing the problem isn't an option. The choices are whether we start fresh, or make the changes where we are. Which is why I want to make ALL the required adjustments now rather than have this happen again in a few turns.

Alright, I'm calling official poop on this whole argument of yours about the way of nature being OP based on OneEyedBadger's feedback that he gets exactly one resource from gathering (timber).  Sheep herding and wool is available to anyone who finds it exploring.  Hides are one-shot non-renewable exploration/heavy duty hunting results.  And apparently OneEyedBadger was getting a gold resource or two from exploration (there being no way to generate it regularly via the rules other than building a city there - oh, maybe he built a city before choosing the way of nature).

I don't see this as required, but  make suggestions. Machine isn't as OP as you seem to think. Nature is massively OP as it stands. Making cities is pointless if you can get the same resources at a discount. And Nature has the most ways to get resources without cities. As I see it the quickest, easiest fix is just to make a note for new players not to bother with anything else.

Nature is not OP.  You are wrong.  Redo the math based on what nature players can actually harvest.  Go and look at nature player's regions, resources, and how they are gaining wealth.  Feel free to share just how any nature player is getting immense wealth from sets of resources gained gathering.  I don't care, the other nature player would rather a restart so I imagine he doesn't care, and I suspect OneEyedBadger might not object either as he's given out lots of details already.

You complain in #4 that cities shouldn't multiply. But that's the point. Rui can build cities. They have a production enhancement. It's called cities. Nature can't build them but they can get wealth another way that is only good in the short run--not as much wealth but not much cost either. But if Nature gets resources from harvesting, and at the hunting cost, they have a production bonus Rui can't ever compete with. If Nature can "harvest" timber, wool, gold, black lotus and all those resources at a cost of only $300 each why would anyone build a city that does the same thing but costs way more? Rui isn't too weak. Nature is too powerful.

They do not have a production bonus Rui can't ever compete with.  Please show me the math.  No nature player that I know of has more than 1 resource he can actually gather.  Rui can also gain 1 resource a turn for 300 wealth for his first city.  Nature can't harvest gold.  They can harvest black lotus, dye, papyrus, pearls, resin or timber.  People will build cities because those are more economically viable past the very short term.  The only compensation nature has for its severely limited set of gainable resources is the ability to cheaply make more than one for trade.  Once a city player gets to 4 cities they will leave nature players in the dust, all else being equal and not considering warfare.  The only reason I choose the way of nature was because I had a mental lapse and thought it could harvest more than the six resources listed.

 

If you get a gold for having 300 gold panners, and a timber for having 300 woodsmen, and a wool for having 300 herders, it costs you 300 to get a resource. People building cities have to pay 300 for the first one, 900 for the second, 1500 for the third, etc. You pay 300 for the first place that makes resources, 300 for the second, 300 for the third, etc. If you spend 2700 wealth you can get 9 resources a turn. If a city boy pays $2700 he gets 3. You cash your 9 in for $8100 and can outfit 27 more places to produce resources. The city guy gets 3 resources earns $900 and can't even buy another city. Is this because cities are too expensive? No. It's because the Nature Way allows you the benefit of cities without the cost.

Gold cannot be gathered/harvested by nature players.

No Nature player has more than one resource type currently that they can harvest at 300 toughness.  Yes, we may all have more than one region with that resource so we can trade to get bigger sets.  Which types and how many each nature player can harvest is 100% up to you as the GM, and cannot be manipulated by players.  Thus the Way of Nature is only OP in theory.  In reality, it can't be unless you screw up as GM.  So far you don't appear to have done that (in fact, you may have screwed up on the side of making way of nature a less viable choice), assuming you haven't been letting OneEyedBadger harvest gold.  GM processing errors are not broken rules. : )

Charles

[David Micheal Coddy]

I like your post Triggered Charles! xD

Yes, I mine gold, without cities, but only because how the Gold resource is designed.

The rule is specific to the gold resource and every 3 men you have panning/mining for gold grants you a 1% chance to get a gold resource.

So, not 'harvested' like other resources, I don't think you can even mine it with a city, I think you have to use guys. O.o

Actually, now I think about it, that one extra resource is a big part of why I am so wealthy.

Instead of capping at 900 per set w/o trades I cap at 1600 per set. That is almost double my production. xD

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fantasy-nations/m6hRS7angOA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.

[David Micheal Coddy]

I don't mind GM posting details about me, I have been very open with where I am and what I have. 

Losing focus on this game anyway. :-/

I like Nature for Rangers and option to harvest. However, now that I see where things stand I was about to switch to fishing to make up for what I perceived as resource cap without allies trading to me. 

It was either that or just add about 1000 T3 Rangers and try and get slave resources from Pyrites or Red Herrings, but trying not to be a jerk in first game. xD

[Charles Hurst]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:22 AM David Micheal Coddy <davidmic...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, I mine gold, without cities, but only because how the Gold resource is designed.

The rule is specific to the gold resource and every 3 men you have panning/mining for gold grants you a 1% chance to get a gold resource.

 

This is not in the rules (at least not those dated 10/27/2018).

Charles

[David Micheal Coddy]

No, nothing about gold in the rules.

Details are listed on my Orders Sheet under locations. The Pyrites have the same resource if I am not mistaken as they took over the second gold location that I had discovered. ;)

--

[Daniel B. Karpouzian]

Yep 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.

[David Micheal Coddy]

Daniel, do use men to mine the gold or do you use your city's ability?

[Daniel B. Karpouzian]

Men.  Based on the rule,  I kind of figured I could not do it with a city,  but i never asked either. 

[David Micheal Coddy]

Thanks for reply.

You would probably not want to even if you could - why waste a city resource on something men can grab? xD

I wonder how many more resources are like that? I know gems are not but I wonder about silver, copper, and maybe crystals...

[Charles Hurst]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:02 PM David Micheal Coddy <davidmic...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, nothing about gold in the rules.

Details are listed on my Orders Sheet under locations. The Pyrites have the same resource if I am not mistaken as they took over the second gold location that I had discovered. ;)

So he gets gold from a special hidden rule resource gathering capacity, he's domesticated sheep, he gathers some hides like everyone else, and then he picks way of nature and can harvest timber.  That really doesn't support a contention that the way of nature players have picked some superior way to win the game. *bites tongue to hold back snark*

So what we really need to talk about is how crippled the way of nature is versus say Rui or Mechanics, and what can be done to fix it.

Charles

[jpatte...@gmail.com]

Or.... we could all just play and find out :)

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.

[ME Brines]

On 10/29/2018 8:07 PM, [MOB] OneEyedBadger wrote:

Then give every Way the ability to gather resources like Nature does. 

--

This is an interesting suggestion. But how would it work? Hunting & fishing are pretty universal. What resources are specifically linked to particular Ways? I could see maybe Black Lotus for magic, but what about Karma? Or Rui? Does Rui even need one? If everybody has the same abilities in different colors there really isn't much choice between them. You just play the color you like.

In previous versions I didn't have Ways. I had a bunch of different abilities and such and anybody could have any of them. You paid the cost and there you were. I think if I follow this suggestion, that's where we end up.

I set out with the Ways to make different player positions with different strengths & weaknesses. In my mind were the different races in Warhammer 40K. They're all different. They have their own special rules and way of being played and some appeal to some people and not to others.As long as they aren't totally OP (like Nature currently is) people have a choice. They might play one game as Nature and another as Rui just for variety.

I'll consider this but I think we've already tried it. But if you have a suggestion how to do it, say on.

[ME Brines]

On 10/29/2018 8:07 PM, [MOB] OneEyedBadger wrote:

You complain in #4 that cities shouldn't multiply. But that's the point. Rui can build cities. They have a production enhancement. It's called cities. Nature can't build them but they can get wealth another way that is only good in the short run--not as much wealth but not much cost either. But if Nature gets resources from harvesting, and at the hunting cost, they have a production bonus Rui can't ever compete with. If Nature can "harvest" timber, wool, gold, black lotus and all those resources at a cost of only $300 each why would anyone build a city that does the same thing but costs way more? Rui isn't too weak. Nature is too powerful.

Meh. So basically Rui, Warrior, Machine are just copies of each other? Why not merge those three ways into a single way and not worry about it. 

--
Not at all. There are a set of standard rules and all the Ways are just exceptions to those. The standard thing to do is hunt until you can build cities then develop a civilization from there. Nature is just the exception to that.

Rui is all about discipline. Seems like that would give better troops.
Machine gets machines= mills are machines. Seems like they'd give increased production. The other benefits go along with machinery. Catapults, crossbows, orinthopters, I considered steam powered stuff but that seemed excessive.
Warrior got better troops in an individual sort of way--berzerkers not legionaries or pike squares.
Karma was defensive, protective. You set wealth aside and lost that instead of troops. This is pretty cool. If you have a lot of karma you can't lose battles because you never lose troops, just Karma. But if you spent the wealth on troops you actually do damage to the enemy. Two sides one with karma and some troops the other spends it all on troops will be at a stalemate.
Magic was more destructive. The flip side of karma, you paid wealth to harm somebody else. Again, it's who has more wealth. And it isn't all one-sided like you suppose. If some wizard blasts one of your towns, you invade "Mordor" and conquer it. And if spent a lot on magic he won't have many troops.
I considered of another Way with alchemy that used gunpowder weapons but couldn't decide if I wanted to do that, or have some sort of tech progression or just keep things simple. If you make each ability available to everyone then it's just a tech tree, those always end up being only one "best" way to go--it's all about what's the fastest way to the best abilities. If I do Ways then I can match up good abilities with drawbacks--like Nature can't build cities, or Warriors can, but they don't get the added benefits of Rui. Chaos is sneaky but doesn't have good troops or magic. If everything is for everyone then everyone is basically the same.

[ME Brines]

On 10/29/2018 8:07 PM, [MOB] OneEyedBadger wrote:

This is the point. Resources are exponential while hunting and fishing are arithmetic. If you give a player (Nature) exponential income on an arithmetic investment of course it causes trouble. My suggestion is just to make herding like hunting and fishing. Keep people who didn't pay for cities from getting the city benefit. That's all I'm saying. The other fix would be to say if barbarians (people without cities) want resources they'd have to pay the city investment costs to get them--in which case if it works just like having a city why is it different--just call it a city. It's also way more complicated to do it that way.

I would have almost same income as Rui, though. xD

If I was suddenly Way of Rui, right this second, I would lose the ability to harvest timber, but my other resource generation options stay the same. 

Gold is a location, anyone can mine gold.

Wool is a Domestication, anyone can learn to make +1 Wool per turn.

Hides is from hunting/exploring, anyone can hunt/explore.

So, yes, I am paying $300 per resource, so would a Way of Rui player in my position, even if he had NO cities.

Also, unless I trade I never get 5th resource, so my exchange rates are capped at $1600 per set. City construction would allow me to have access to FIVE different resources I currently do not have access too (Grain, Gems, Iron, Oil, and Ivory).

First, yes, Rui could do the same. But the point is, the way things stand it's stupid to build cities. If you want six resources a turn you round up 1800 people and you're in business. 1800 people costs a minimum of $1800 wealth. To get six resources a turn from cities costs you 300+900+1200+2100+2700+3300=10,500. If I am Rui I look at the math and don't bother. If I'm really smart, I don't pick Rui, I choose Nature because it gives me the most resources I can harvest. This is the same thing every reasonable player who examines the options will do. It's the only reasonable choice. To flip your earlier comment on its head--So basically Rui, Warrior, Machine are just copies of each other? Why not merge those three ways into a single way and not worry about it. Or better yet, since nobody in their right mind would ever choose anything but Nature, why have anything else? Hell, since cities are stupid to build (they cost way more than harvesting, require protection and can get captured) why have rules for them in the game? Nobody but a fool would build them. Anybody who built more than a couple would eventually be overrun by barbarians who got their resources from harvesting and spent all the extra cash on warriors. To build six cities to get six resources a barbarian could spend the same amount of wealth and have 35 resources. $122,500 versus $3600

OK, maybe you can't get 35 different resources, but you trade and get the ones you don't have. Or you make smaller sets of just five. Every set = $2500 With 35 resources you could have 7 sets of five = $17500. Meanwhile the guy who spent the same amount building cities has $3600 for his six resources. No matter how you do the math if you get to pay 300 per resource and cities pay more, there's no point to building cities.

If you get a flat $1 per 3 people harvesting it does not compare to the massive wealth from cities but it is cheaper to get, doesn't have to be protected, and can't be captured. It gives a choice. Do you want a better return on investment? Build cities. But they need protection and can be captured. You want something cheap (especially early in the game when everybody is poor) then do hunting and herding. Yes, cities are WAY better but they also cost WAY more. They also have some downsides. This is what makes it a choice. But if harvesting is cheaper, and just as profitable with no downsides, what's the point of anything else?

[David Micheal Coddy]

I don't get it. Only resource Nature gives me is timber.

6 timbers and I am using 1800 guyz to earn 600 wealth/turn. -.-

Also, would like to say that this game does even feel close to WH Fantasy or 40k xD

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fantasy-nations/m6hRS7angOA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.

[ME Brines]

On 10/30/2018 7:09 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

They do not have a production bonus Rui can't ever compete with.  Please show me the math.  No nature player that I know of has more than 1 resource he can actually gather.  Rui can also gain 1 resource a turn for 300 wealth for his first city.  Nature can't harvest gold.  They can harvest black lotus, dye, papyrus, pearls, resin or timber.  People will build cities because those are more economically viable past the very short term.  The only compensation nature has for its severely limited set of gainable resources is the ability to cheaply make more than one for trade.  Once a city player gets to 4 cities they will leave nature players in the dust, all else being equal and not considering warfare.  The only reason I choose the way of nature was because I had a mental lapse and thought it could harvest more than the six resources listed.

--

Nature can harvest gold if they have the option. Any player can.
Anybody can harvest wool if they have sheep.  Nature can harvest black lotus, dye, papyrus, pearls, resin or timber, which is why you choose Nature because other positions are more limited. But harvesting is the problem, not Nature. Nature just allows it best.

People will not build cities because they are NOT viable. Not if you can get a resource with 300 people.
You got unlucky and didn't have those resources immediately available. No big deal, you're going to explore until you find them. You're not tied to the territory you have in any way. You can take your whole tribe and wander around until you do find them. Then the following happens: (I know I've said this like three times before but people don't seem to get it)

If you want six resources a turn you round up 1800 people and you're in business. 1800 people costs a minimum of $1800 wealth. To get six resources a turn from cities costs  300+900+1200+2100+2700+3300=10,500. Why spend over 10,000 when you can do the same thing harvesting for 1800?

If I am Rui I look at the math and don't bother to build cities. I go into the wool business and pan gold. If I'm really smart, I don't pick Rui, I choose Nature because it gives me the most resources I can harvest. This is the same thing every reasonable player who examines the options will do. It's the only reasonable choice. Nobody in their right mind would ever choose anything but Nature, so why have anything else? Hell, since cities are stupid to build (they cost way more than harvesting, require protection and can get captured) why have rules for them in the game? Nobody but a fool would ever build them. Anybody who built more than a couple would eventually be overrun by barbarians who got their resources from harvesting and spent all the extra cash on warriors. To build six cities to get six resources a barbarian could spend the same amount of wealth and have 35 resources. $122,500 for 35 cities versus $3600 for 35 harvesting places

OK, maybe you can't harvest 35 different resources, but you trade and get the ones you don't have. Or you make smaller sets of just the five you can. Every set of 5 = $2500 With 35 resources you could have 7 sets of five = $17500. Meanwhile the guy who spent the same amount building cities gets $3600 for his six resources. No matter how you do the math if you get to pay 300 per resource and cities cost more, there's no point to building cities.

[ME Brines]

On 10/30/2018 7:22 AM, David Micheal Coddy wrote:

The rule is specific to the gold resource and every 3 men you have panning/mining for gold grants you a 1% chance to get a gold resource.

So, not 'harvested' like other resources, I don't think you can even mine it with a city, I think you have to use guys. O.o

--
3 men per 1%
means 300 men = 100% so it's exactly like harvesting except you can do it with fewer than 300 people.
And yes, you can build a city and get the gold the "normal" way
But why would you given 300 people do the same thing and cost WAY less than a city.
This is my point.
You put 300 people in each gold spot (and you have several) and it's massively more efficient than building cities. You don't have to guard them. They can't be captured. And any time you get in a jam you can stop panning and use them to attack something. So you never build cities, not because you made a tactical decision but because it's dumb and costs too much. Anybody in your position would do the same. There will never be cities in those gold locations no matter who found them.

[ME Brines]

On 10/30/2018 3:00 PM, David Micheal Coddy wrote:

I don't get it. Only resource Nature gives me is timber.

6 timbers and I am using 1800 guyz to earn 600 wealth/turn. -.-

Also, would like to say that this game does even feel close to WH Fantasy or 40k xD

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:19 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

So you trade five of those timber to somebody else for five other resources. then you have a set of six worth 3600.
Then you go on a mad exploration spree to find where the other resources Nature can harvest are, plunk down 300 people in each and pump out the resources.
The game shouldn't turn on the luck of where the harvestable resources are located. Charles is right about that.

There's no reason to make cities unless you're not nature. And if you're not nature, you have until the Nature players find the resoueces, then they quickly outstrip your city production. With greater income and not having to defend anything they soon conquer the non-Nature players. Then the end game lasts forever as they fight it out over those eight types of resources and the few remaining cities, which probably end up looted so they don't have to be defended any more. Game over. The Nature guy who got lucky and found the harvestable resources first wins.

Now can we play a new game where players build civilizations?

[David Micheal Coddy]

Well this has nothing to do with Nature being broken. All Ways can mine gold like this......

--

[David Micheal Coddy]

Sheesh, yeah right.

I border two players, three at one time, and only one trade entire time.

In order to trade 5 timber to someone they would have to want timber and be next to me.

Who is gonna trade for 5 timber unless it makes sets for them? If they have 5 different resources to trade for 5 timber to make 5 different sets they are already making like $12500 a turn in trades to my potential $3600....

--

[ME Brines]

On 10/30/2018 3:29 PM, David Micheal Coddy wrote:

Sheesh, yeah right.

I border two players, three at one time, and only one trade entire time.

In order to trade 5 timber to someone they would have to want timber and be next to me.

Who is gonna trade for 5 timber unless it makes sets for them?

They won't. They'll trade for one or two and you trade with somebody else. If they're smart they'll buy an extra to trade with somebody next to them who isn't next to you. When you trade you are only going to get their duplicates and they are only going to get yours.

[Charles Hurst]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:03 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

Nature can harvest gold if they have the option. Any player can.

I recommend you update the rules for gold panning, as that may impact how hard and where someone might explore.

 

Anybody can harvest wool if they have sheep.  Nature can harvest black lotus, dye, papyrus, pearls, resin or timber, which is why you choose Nature because other positions are more limited. But harvesting is the problem, not Nature. Nature just allows it best.

How exactly is being able to harvest at a maximum 6 resources mean other players, who may build cities and collect an infinite amount of different resource types mean they are more limited?

Nature allows better harvesting of a small set of resources.

 

People will not build cities because they are NOT viable. Not if you can get a resource with 300 people.

If you never allow nature players more than one resource to harvest (the current norm), then cities quickly become more economical due to the squaring of resource set values.  Which argues you need to let us find more than one as otherwise it's a very bad way to take.  You're confusing people taking a way with it being the best way.  At least one of those choices was a misunderstanding of the rules (me), so at best 25% of your player base has picked it.

 

You got unlucky and didn't have those resources immediately available. No big deal, you're going to explore until you find them. You're not tied to the territory you have in any way. You can take your whole tribe and wander around until you do find them. Then the following happens: (I know I've said this like three times before but people don't seem to get it).

Only if you the GM refuse to actively manage the game.  I've explained already, but perhaps it bears repeating, my exploring until recently had nothing to do with getting more of those resources because I thought you had okayed my using more than the 6.  It had everything with trying to get to 300 toughness of troops after I lost 100 hunters when I walked into a region bordering my camp with 300 T1 troops.  Nature gave me scouts with toughness and I thought more than the 6 resources (apparently it used to be unrestricted and then you added the six, and I thought the addition of the six was adding more than the original six ... well, anyways, it was a poor choice).

 

If you want six resources a turn you round up 1800 people and you're in business. 1800 people costs a minimum of $1800 wealth. To get six resources a turn from cities costs  300+900+1200+2100+2700+3300=10,500. Why spend over 10,000 when you can do the same thing harvesting for 1800?

How am I going to get one of each of the 6 types of resources?  I explore and find regions with those resources.  Are the resources preset for all regions in the world?  Or are you making it up as you go?

 

If I am Rui I look at the math and don't bother to build cities. I go into the wool business and pan gold.

If you find gold (I haven't), if you find wool (I didn't find it until two turns ago).

 

If I'm really smart, I don't pick Rui, I choose Nature because it gives me the most resources I can harvest.

So how is that working out for the current nature players?  We're obviously getting very big, collecting 3-4 resources now every turn with harvesting, etc?  I tell you what, let me restart and I'll spank your nature players with cities now that I know sabercats/dogs/horses/chocobo are nearly worthless long term, which means I'd have my first city within 3-4 turns and after that it's just math (city every two turns until you hit 5 or 6 cities and then it's one a turn and then a bit later it's two a turn, with enough extra income to build the army to defend that).

This is the same thing every reasonable player who examines the options will do. It's the only reasonable choice

No it isn't.  Your logic has been disproved.

And this move around and don't need to defend anything argument?  Well I sure as hell need to keep control of every region with one of those 6 resources, don't I?  Which means I suspect trying to hold a massive bunch of regions that are mostly useless to glue together the few that are of value.

 

OK, maybe you can't harvest 35 different resources, but you trade and get the ones you don't have. Or you make smaller sets of just the five you can. Every set of 5 = $2500 With 35 resources you could have 7 sets of five = $17500. Meanwhile the guy who spent the same amount building cities gets $3600 for his six resources. No matter how you do the math if you get to pay 300 per resource and cities cost more, there's no point to building cities.

Again, you are using pie-in-the-sky hypothetical possibilities versus what can actually be accomplished with an active GM with invisible control over the reality of what a player finds by exploring.

Arguments need to be based on the actual potential reality, not imaginary numbers which have no bearing on the game as it exists.

Charles

[Charles Hurst]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:19 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

First, yes, Rui could do the same. But the point is, the way things stand it's stupid to build cities. If you want six resources a turn you round up 1800 people and you're in business.

How is a nature player going to get those 6 specific resources?  I've explored a big bunch of my local regions and only found 1.

[Charles Hurst]

I'm locked on three sides, and you are pumping more and more nasties into the west to try and stop me there.  So tell me, which is it, you have no control and we'll easily gain access to 6 resource types, or you have complete control and we'll never see a second one?  Cause I can tell you which the game I'm playing and you are GMing is arguing is the case.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.

[ME Brines]

On 10/31/2018 5:09 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

You got unlucky and didn't have those resources immediately available. No big deal, you're going to explore until you find them. You're not tied to the territory you have in any way. You can take your whole tribe and wander around until you do find them. Then the following happens: (I know I've said this like three times before but people don't seem to get it).

Only if you the GM refuse to actively manage the game.  I've explained already, but perhaps it bears repeating, my exploring until recently had nothing to do with getting more of those resources because I thought you had okayed my using more than the 6.  It had everything with trying to get to 300 toughness of troops after I lost 100 hunters when I walked into a region bordering my camp with 300 T1 troops.  Nature gave me scouts with toughness and I thought more than the 6 resources (apparently it used to be unrestricted and then you added the six, and I thought the addition of the six was adding more than the original six ... well, anyways, it was a poor choice).

--
If by "actively manage the game" you mean look at the player's goals (most of which I can't see because they're in his head) and anticipate his wants/needs and then when he explores create the world in such a way as to give him what he wants, then, yeah, I don't do that. First because it's hard enough to follow you guy's orders sometimes. And I don't read minds. And if I did, my job isn't just to hand out candy. I see it as making the game challenging. Throwing T-rexes at people and make them work to win. That makes the game more fun. Playing Candyland isn't. You seem to be complaining that because I didn't go out of my way to make sure that Nature guys get access to all those resources I failed somehow. I set out resources. You guys find 'em and THEN decide what Way you like. Maybe Nature isn't a good pick if you don't have those resources--oh that's right (really need a sarcasm punctuation sign) Nature is the ONLY way given the current rules to get ahead. So I see your point. Given rules that make city based resources expensive and hard to protect, while harvesting is cheap and has no downside, since Nature has the most choices there it is a bad handicap if the GM doesn't throw you the right resources. Of course, if all resources were the same--there weren't any "magic" ones you could get without a city then it doesn't matter which ones are out there. So my setting up the resources ahead of time wouldn't matter. That was the intent of the design. But it was entirely subverted by that one change of allowing harvesting and then handing Nature the massive benefit of having the best selection of the means to take advantage of the game breaking flaw.

[ME Brines]

On 10/31/2018 5:09 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

If you want six resources a turn you round up 1800 people and you're in business. 1800 people costs a minimum of $1800 wealth. To get six resources a turn from cities costs  300+900+1200+2100+2700+3300=10,500. Why spend over 10,000 when you can do the same thing harvesting for 1800?

How am I going to get one of each of the 6 types of resources?  I explore and find regions with those resources.  Are the resources preset for all regions in the world?  Or are you making it up as you go?

--
If the world is infinite and I have to just keep adding places when you keep exploring, then you just push on until you find them. You're already up to the edge of what I thought I needed for the number of players we have. No reason to stop until you find all six. The only thing holding you back will be somebody else will probably find them first. Is the game supposed to be about who can "get lucky" and find the six hidden resources first or was it supposed to be about building a civilization.

You complain that I'm only using hypothetical situations, then complain because you can't find the resources to employ the very tactics I am deploring! You say my arguments aren't valid because nobody can do it--then ask for me to "actively manage the game" in such a way that you can.

The game as it stands is against what it was designed for. It needs to be fixed. The only real question is do we fix it and continue or start over? I think such a massive change requires a restart.

[Daniel B. Karpouzian]

I know you are just one person, but I can’t help but think a couple of playtest “servers” where people try different strategies, etc., may be beneficial in the long run.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

-Daniel B. Karpouzian

[ME Brines]

On 10/31/2018 5:27 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

I'm locked on three sides, and you are pumping more and more nasties into the west to try and stop me there.  So tell me, which is it, you have no control and we'll easily gain access to 6 resource types, or you have complete control and we'll never see a second one?  Cause I can tell you which the game I'm playing and you are GMing is arguing is the case.

--
It's a defensive measure on my part not to have to create a gigantic endless map with an infinite number of places. It's only from talking to you here I realize what you're doing, that it's a natural result of the game design being what it is.

Giving players resources without cities forces them to very logically:

Never build cities. This defeats the whole purpose of a civilization building game.
It makes Nature the unquestioned choice of Way since they can harvest eight resources and everybody else only has two.
Explore endlessly searching for those magic 8 resources. This means the map has to be VAST and mostly full of useless empty spaces. Or I could just delete all resources but the magic 8. Why bother with coal or bronze or anything else?

Because of these the game turns on how lucky you are at the set up--did you get those resources or do you have to scour a whole continent to find them while somebody else concentrated on producing? This is not a good game.

There will be no cities or civilization or if there are they quickly get taken out by the Nature players who can out produce them easily. Sets of eight resources net them $6400 but cost only 2400 to set up the infrastructure to make. For a 2400 investment (300x8 places) they can get 8 resources a turn and still have those 2400 men available for war if necessary. Their production  can't be captured and doesn't need extra warriors to protect it. Building cities to get 8 resources costs 19,200. And they have to be guarded or the enemy can capture them. Even with only 8 resources Nature is so vastly superior there's no comparison.

You say "well, I played and I couldn't find the 8 I needed." The point is you saw exactly how this works and are complaining you can't do what it takes to win. THE POINT OF THE GAME IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THIS!!!!!
It's supposed to be about building a civilization not searching for the magic eight resources and complaining that "the game's just luck" or "the GM ought to hand me those magic 8 resources. Why does he stick me with all these useless resources?" In the game this was supposed to be they wouldn't be useless. You wouldn't need to explore a whole continent before you could start making serious wealth.
I didn't want to make THIS game. I want to fix it so it is not THIS game. The point isn't to perfect the current mess. It's to fix it.

I'm done discussing this. If you can't see the flaw is not that the game doesn't get you to those eight magic resources--it's not supposed to be about finding and harvesting those resources.
The rules need to be fixed. They're going to be fixed. And the fix isn't about how to make a flawed mess better, but to fix the flaw that ruined a good game.
The only real issue is whether you want to provide input on the fix and whether you believe the fix is severe enough it requires a restart. From the fanatical resistance to the very idea of changes I think we have to restart. People have too much invested in their current positions. They don't want any changes because they know it'll change their current situation, usually weakening them because anybody with sense played to the broken rule set I provided. I don't fault you for playing like you did. The mistake I made allowing harvesting encouraged it. You're not wrong given the rules. You're absolutely right. The rules were wrong. That's why I say, anybody who picked Nature "won." Now let's start over a play a different game. A better game. One with real choices where the whole thing doesn't turn on whether you luck out and get those magic 8 resources.

[ME Brines]

That's an excellent idea. Trouble is these days it's hard to find players.

--
In a world where butter, sugar, and caffeine are illegal, can a baker turned revolutionary give the People back their just desserts? The Donuts of Doom, a silly steampunk novel and cookbook available @ https://www.amazon.com/Donuts-Doom-ME-Brines-ebook/dp/B005U41R0I/ref=la_B005H3CVNE_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1532647412&sr=1-18&refinements=p_82%3AB005H3CVNE

[David Micheal Coddy]

What other game options are there? I am kinda over this one now. How about that Alien Nations thing Frank was talking about?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fantasy-nations/m6hRS7angOA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.

[ME Brines]

Alien nations is done. It got down to 2 players and I shut it down. A lot of what's right about Eemian Civ came from observing how that one didn't work.

You're over this flawed game. How about playing the improved correct version? Making an all new game just starts the whole process over and wastes the effort we've put into things so far. I'd much rather perfect the current one so it works as intended.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Frank Lordi]

thats because the games alway sdevolve into rules debates and restarts!

The only game math i know right now is that me - game turn = bored nerd.

[ME Brines]

Yeah, exactly. So let's finish this off and get to playing!

[Frank Lordi]

but its 'never' finished off!

I mean it just seems like we've been here before.

[ME Brines]

Yes, because I never end up fixing the game and finishing it. I end up switching to something new. Now when I want to finish the thing, nobody wants to do anything about it.

[jpatte...@gmail.com]

Don’t switch - make your changes and redstart or let players rebuild their positions with the same wealth

Sent from my iPhone

[Charles Hurst]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:15 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

On 10/31/2018 5:27 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

I'm locked on three sides, and you are pumping more and more nasties into the west to try and stop me there.  So tell me, which is it, you have no control and we'll easily gain access to 6 resource types, or you have complete control and we'll never see a second one?  Cause I can tell you which the game I'm playing and you are GMing is arguing is the case.

--
It's a defensive measure on my part not to have to create a gigantic endless map with an infinite number of places. It's only from talking to you here I realize what you're doing, that it's a natural result of the game design being what it is.

 

That's funny, I thought we were all on a predefined smaller map than Alienations so make it easier to process for the GM.  That was not my reason for exploring.  It may be my new reason, if you insist there is no way for you to control the game.

Giving players resources without cities forces them to very logically:
Never build cities. This defeats the whole purpose of a civilization building game.
It makes Nature the unquestioned choice of Way since they can harvest eight resources and everybody else only has two.
Explore endlessly searching for those magic 8 resources. This means the map has to be VAST and mostly full of useless empty spaces. Or I could just delete all resources but the magic 8. Why bother with coal or bronze or anything else?

It's not endless on a predefined map.  It's also pointless if you as the GM never allow them to find more of the 6 resources than you want them to.  I mean, you don't even have to say its deliberate, you could just say "the rolls didn't go your way" or "your part of the world only has what you've found".  Now of course, others will realize what's going on, where if you'd taken my earliest hints you'd be fine without a rules changes.  From my reading of the front pages and rules, no player should have any expectation of being able to find all resources.  I thought it very much set an expectation you were going to have to trade (otherwise why allow one way to have the strategically nice choice to double up production to reduce the sites he needs to protect?).

 

Because of these the game turns on how lucky you are at the set up--did you get those resources or do you have to scour a whole continent to find them while somebody else concentrated on producing? This is not a good game.

So answer the question - is every region already defined or are you randomly rolling what's in each region as we explore them?  Either way, you have the ability before one of the 6 is found to alter the results, so it isn't.

 

There will be no cities or civilization or if there are they quickly get taken out by the Nature players who can out produce them easily. Sets of eight resources net them $6400 but cost only 2400 to set up the infrastructure to make. For a 2400 investment (300x8 places) they can get 8 resources a turn and still have those 2400 men available for war if necessary. Their production  can't be captured and doesn't need extra warriors to protect it. Building cities to get 8 resources costs 19,200. And they have to be guarded or the enemy can capture them. Even with only 8 resources Nature is so vastly superior there's no comparison.

Mathematical argument fail again.  You make a bad assumption, that players can somehow get all 6 of the resources, or that they will be able to do so quickly enough to always be a better choice than building cities.

 

You say "well, I played and I couldn't find the 8 I needed." The point is you saw exactly how this works and are complaining you can't do what it takes to win. THE POINT OF THE GAME IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THIS!!!!!

To be fair, you never stipulated this was a finite turn game, so I assumed it was open ended, which calls for very different strategic thinking.  And the point is that if people know it's unlikely you'll find all 6 resources, they can make better decisions about picking the position.

 

It's supposed to be about building a civilization not searching for the magic eight resources and complaining that "the game's just luck" or "the GM ought to hand me those magic 8 resources. Why does he stick me with all these useless resources?" In the game this was supposed to be they wouldn't be useless. You wouldn't need to explore a whole continent before you could start making serious wealth.
I didn't want to make THIS game. I want to fix it so it is not THIS game. The point isn't to perfect the current mess. It's to fix it.

Since your standard MO is to leave players who have now made bad choices because of your rules changes in the lurch with no ability to adjust their positions, what do you expect us to do?  Tell you how wise and wonderful your changes are and submit immediately?  And nothing in the rules or expectations guarantees any player how many of those 6 resources they will find, so again you are making an assumption that is a poor one.

I'm done discussing this. If you can't see the flaw is not that the game doesn't get you to those eight magic resources--it's not supposed to be about finding and harvesting those resources.

You're the one making bad assumptions and then reaching bad conclusions.  I pointed out your bad assumption.  Your response was that players would expect to get all 6 resources.  My response was why would they do that?  Are you promising all nature players they will find all 6 in a time frame quick enough to make the choice a good one versus cities?  You argued they can just rapidly expand their search area infinitely.  Is it an infinite map?  I wasn't given that impression based on what you thought one of the biggest flaws of AN was.  You appear to be arguing from a theoretical standpoint that has no chance of occurring ever in the game, or no chance of occurring in a time frame to make it competitive or better than city building.

 

The rules need to be fixed. They're going to be fixed. And the fix isn't about how to make a flawed mess better, but to fix the flaw that ruined a good game.

Then you'd better figure out a better way to implement radical rules changes than your standard MO in a way that allows players to adjust instead of getting hosed.  Otherwise no matter how good the rules changes are, you're going to kill your game.

 

The only real issue is whether you want to provide input on the fix and whether you believe the fix is severe enough it requires a restart. From the fanatical resistance to the very idea of changes I think we have to restart. People have too much invested in their current positions. They don't want any changes because they know it'll change their current situation, usually weakening them because anybody with sense played to the broken rule set I provided. I don't fault you for playing like you did. The mistake I made allowing harvesting encouraged it. You're not wrong given the rules. You're absolutely right. The rules were wrong. That's why I say, anybody who picked Nature "won." Now let's start over a play a different game. A better game. One with real choices where the whole thing doesn't turn on whether you luck out and get those magic 8 resources.

No, the real issue is you need to actually listen to me and stop repeating your arguments again and again.  You need to address and respond to the points I'm making.  Otherwise I'll just shut up and move on to exploiting the next way your rules changes break the game.  So process my turn, give me my last stack of rangers, then let me convert 300 toughness of troops to one city and switch to another way.  Then you can frack the way of nature over all you want with nary a peep from me.

You might as well throw ways out then, if all you want to do is making them various expressions of "special unit x and y".  Because otherwise I'll just shift to machinist and then you'll be sure that one is broken.  Then I'll shift to magic, and that will be broken.  Finally I'll go with cult (or convince Dizzy to come back and do it right) and that will be broken.  When options are very different and just not cookie cutters of each other, an excellent player is going to pick and "exploit" whichever one best suits his situation.  You have to be very careful about using success, luck, and situational results as a litmus test for whether rules are broken.

Charles

[Charles Hurst]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:58 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

On 10/31/2018 5:09 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

Only if you the GM refuse to actively manage the game.

--

If by "actively manage the game" you mean look at the player's goals (most of which I can't see because they're in his head) and anticipate his wants/needs and then when he explores create the world in such a way as to give him what he wants, then, yeah, I don't do that.

No, I mean specifically managing how many of the 6 resources any way of nature player finds so it doesn't imbalance the game.  In more general terms, I mean watching the development of each position to assess if there is a problem and then adjusting under the covers / behind the GM screen.  You don't need to know our goals in those scenarios.  But definitely feel free to ask, since it is a play test, that might be more useful to you to know to assess how well the game is enabling people to do different things, what's confusing, what's problematic, etc.

 

I see it as making the game challenging. Throwing T-rexes at people and make them work to win. That makes the game more fun.

Right.  So you've got a very successful player and it turns out that has more to do with luck and good play than the way of nature.  A few T12 T-Rexes aren't really going to slow him down, so you may have to get creative to make his game more interesting (though I understand your hope is that players will bump into each other and provide the mid and late game challenges).

 

Playing Candyland isn't. You seem to be complaining that because I didn't go out of my way to make sure that Nature guys get access to all those resources I failed somehow.

You clearly do not understand what I've been saying.  I'm pointing out you can (and should) RESTRICT how many of the 6 resources any player finds and that will PREVENT the way of nature from being imbalanced.

 

Maybe Nature isn't a good pick if you don't have those resources--oh that's right (really need a sarcasm punctuation sign) Nature is the ONLY way given the current rules to get ahead.

No it isn't, if the GM is actively managing access to the 6 resources involved.

 

So I see your point. Given rules that make city based resources expensive and hard to protect

This is also incorrect.  This begins to really suck.  By the time I'm done I'll have given away every bit of strategic insight I have and how I think and approach the game for free to everyone.  I'll just say that no-cities and cities are two very different strategic situations defensively, both with pluses and minuses.  The specific situation a player is in will have a big impact on which may be better.

 

, while harvesting is cheap and has no downside

It has a major downside if you don't find many of the 6 resources you can actually harvest.

 

, since Nature has the most choices there it is a bad handicap if the GM doesn't throw you the right resources.

The most choices?  No, under certain circumstances, entirely under the control of you the GM, it can be a very good choice.  In other circumstances, not so good.  Your selling point is that human processing allows a customized and richer experience, versus computer games that can easily crank out more basic results but for larger sets of data.  That sets an expectation that as the GM you actively manage the game behind the scenes to prevent the game from becoming an easy run-away for a player or cabal.

 

Of course, if all resources were the same--there weren't any "magic" ones you could get without a city then it doesn't matter which ones are out there. So my setting up the resources ahead of time wouldn't matter. That was the intent of the design. But it was entirely subverted by that one change of allowing harvesting and then handing Nature the massive benefit of having the best selection of the means to take advantage of the game breaking flaw.

Mike, you still haven't answered my question, which makes it harder to provide constructive feedback.  Are the resources in each region already pre-set?  Or are you randomly rolling it up and tweaking so that you get the groupings of resources geographically that you talked about before the game began?  It actually doesn't matter how it is done, as we players have no clue or idea until we actually explore a region.  Schrondinger's Cat.

Charles

[Charles Hurst]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:03 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

If the world is infinite and I have to just keep adding places when you keep exploring, then you just push on until you find them. You're already up to the edge of what I thought I needed for the number of players we have. No reason to stop until you find all six. The only thing holding you back will be somebody else will probably find them first. Is the game supposed to be about who can "get lucky" and find the six hidden resources first or was it supposed to be about building a civilization.

You are making the  (bad) assumption that it's possible to find all 6 before another player can build 6 cities.  I'm stating that's not my or any of the two other way of nature players actual game experience, and that's with you no actively managing the situation.

 

You complain that I'm only using hypothetical situations, then complain because you can't find the resources to employ the very tactics I am deploring! You say my arguments aren't valid because nobody can do it--then ask for me to "actively manage the game" in such a way that you can.

No I'm not.  So we're 100% CRYSTAL CLEAR HERE, you are claiming its' broken because I can easily and quickly find and harvest all 6 resource types.  I am stating that 1) that is not the experience of the three way of nature players in the game so far, and 2) pointing out that you as the GM have the ability to manage how quickly it happens (if at all) to make sure it doesn't break the game.  No change of rules needs apply.  You are also contending that way of nature players would expect to easily find all 6 resources, and I'm am countering that I had no such expectation.  You contend I do believe this because I'm exploring a lot.  I've explained I was exploring as a way to get to 300 toughness so I could start gaining resources as I badly misunderstood a game mechanism and had a bit of bad luck that set my position back considerably.

I am always trying to win (in the sense of trying to enjoy the game by meeting some internal goal), and I'm always trying to keep rules changes from hurting my position and the ability to have fun in the game.  If you're open to working with players to mitigate/migrate to resolve the impact of rules changes, you might find a lot less resistance to those changes.  But as long as your attitude keeps on being, too bad, so sad, suck it up buttercup, you are going to have two kinds of unhappy players - those that just drop, and those that get mouthy like me.  I can and have often been wrong, misunderstood the rules, misread the situation, etc.  But I've also often been right. *shrug*  I'll say it one last time, you are not understanding what I've been saying.  Hopefully I've finally gotten through with the above.

Charles

[ME Brines]

On 11/1/2018 5:57 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

That's funny, I thought we were all on a predefined smaller map than Alienations so make it easier to process for the GM.  That was not my reason for exploring.  It may be my new reason, if you insist there is no way for you to control the game.

--
The only reason for a gigantic map is you can't find those magic 8 resources. Except for the fact you can exploit the hell out of only those types you have plenty of space now--more than you need. Would you continue to explore if you could harvest ALL resources? Of course not. That one mistake has screwed this game in every way.

[jpatte...@gmail.com]

The simpler thing to do is restart with the rules you want. It was a play test - it’s normal. Just put out the new rules and send everyone a startup and they can choose way on turn 1.

Sent from my iPhone

--

[ME Brines]

On 11/1/2018 7:22 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:58 PM ME Brines <s...@cox.net> wrote:

On 10/31/2018 5:09 AM, Charles Hurst wrote:

Only if you the GM refuse to actively manage the game.

--
If by "actively manage the game" you mean look at the player's goals (most of which I can't see because they're in his head) and anticipate his wants/needs and then when he explores create the world in such a way as to give him what he wants, then, yeah, I don't do that.

No, I mean specifically managing how many of the 6 resources any way of nature player finds so it doesn't imbalance the game.

Yeah, trying to do that by fixing the error in the rules that makes this necessary.

  In more general terms, I mean watching the development of each position to assess if there is a problem and then adjusting under the covers / behind the GM screen.  You don't need to know our goals in those scenarios.  But definitely feel free to ask, since it is a play test, that might be more useful to you to know to assess how well the game is enabling people to do different things, what's confusing, what's problematic, etc.

 

I see it as making the game challenging. Throwing T-rexes at people and make them work to win. That makes the game more fun.

Right.  So you've got a very successful player and it turns out that has more to do with luck and good play than the way of nature.  A few T12 T-Rexes aren't really going to slow him down, so you may have to get creative to make his game more interesting (though I understand your hope is that players will bump into each other and provide the mid and late game challenges).

 

Playing Candyland isn't. You seem to be complaining that because I didn't go out of my way to make sure that Nature guys get access to all those resources I failed somehow.

You clearly do not understand what I've been saying.  I'm pointing out you can (and should) RESTRICT how many of the 6 resources any player finds and that will PREVENT the way of nature from being imbalanced.

IF THERE AREN'T ANY MAGIC 8 RESOURCES AND NATURE DOESN'T GET A MAGIC MASSIVE ECONOMIC CHEAT CODE THIS IS UNNECESSARY

 

Maybe Nature isn't a good pick if you don't have those resources--oh that's right (really need a sarcasm punctuation sign) Nature is the ONLY way given the current rules to get ahead.

No it isn't, if the GM is actively managing access to the 6 resources involved.

 

So I see your point. Given rules that make city based resources expensive and hard to protect

This is also incorrect.  This begins to really suck.  By the time I'm done I'll have given away every bit of strategic insight I have and how I think and approach the game for free to everyone.  I'll just say that no-cities and cities are two very different strategic situations defensively, both with pluses and minuses.  The specific situation a player is in will have a big impact on which may be better.

 

, while harvesting is cheap and has no downside

It has a major downside if you don't find many of the 6 resources you can actually harvest.

 

, since Nature has the most choices there it is a bad handicap if the GM doesn't throw you the right resources.

The most choices?  No, under certain circumstances, entirely under the control of you the GM, it can be a very good choice.  In other circumstances, not so good.  Your selling point is that human processing allows a customized and richer experience, versus computer games that can easily crank out more basic results but for larger sets of data.  That sets an expectation that as the GM you actively manage the game behind the scenes to prevent the game from becoming an easy run-away for a player or cabal.

 

Of course, if all resources were the same--there weren't any "magic" ones you could get without a city then it doesn't matter which ones are out there. So my setting up the resources ahead of time wouldn't matter. That was the intent of the design. But it was entirely subverted by that one change of allowing harvesting and then handing Nature the massive benefit of having the best selection of the means to take advantage of the game breaking flaw.

Mike, you still haven't answered my question, which makes it harder to provide constructive feedback.  Are the resources in each region already pre-set?  Or are you randomly rolling it up and tweaking so that you get the groupings of resources geographically that you talked about before the game began?  It actually doesn't matter how it is done, as we players have no clue or idea until we actually explore a region.  Schrondinger's Cat.

Charles

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[ME Brines]

That's what I am going to do.

[David Micheal Coddy]

Well, fun playing with you guys but I am not grinding through another 72 dudes and a chieftain start, especially as I am thinking there is a reasonable chance that the game is just gonna restart again in a couple weeks anyway.

So love ya, it was fun, and see ya later! xD

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Fantasy Nations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fantasy-nations/m6hRS7angOA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to fantasy-natio...@googlegroups.com.

[jpatte...@gmail.com]

Could be but when it does work right it looks like it may be a good enjoyable game of which there are very few nowadays. Good luck!

Sent from my iPhone

[ME Brines]

Sorry to see you go. Maybe you can jump in later sometime.