Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

So in the end, what place did my AI end up in? 3rd place?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

Yes, I figured you might anticipate it was a trap and not go for it. But it was worth a shot. Actually, my early offensive strategy was quite simple and straightforward, detailed here: http://noobsvets.silverforum.net/vie...php?f=12&t=351

It is clear your team's extensive planning and your determination to win was most helpful. My leadership philosophy (which matches my playing philosophy) was somewhat minimalistic, I outlined certain things, but gave a lot of freedom to players to explore, learn, and have fun (and to make mistakes). I have no doubt had DrP and his team been in the game you'd have had a serious run for your money at the very least. And Chris' extraordinarily detailed, machine like, centralized, and highly efficient management philosophy (TAM) might have well have crushed you in the long run, if utterly, completely, and fully implemented, especially coupled with an alliance with another team. :D

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

Your team put in a respectable showing, finishing in second place in terms of VPs with 6. Eriu was totally wiped out though.
The Usurpers came in 3rd with 5 VPs.
And the Children of Crom and Atlantis both ended with 4 VPs each.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

Anything could have happened, but my management philosophy is much more detailed than Chris'. If you dived into the files I provided, you could notice that. That's actually why we stopped using the forums. It was just much more inconvenient than a regular chat in Skype. And it was very centralized while I remained the top skill player in our team but became less so after karnoza joined. I warned you about it and suggested 8-nation alliance right off the bat but you didn't listen.
Anyway, it was a nice teaming experience.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

Glad to hear someone else get a reputation on the TAM style = ).

I started to comment on this, but essentially, as soon as I saw the first turn (turn 23 ) I realize the game was lost.

To have any chance at all in this game we needed mictlan to have 15 castles - more or less on turn 25. We had 5.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

I also think that making a good plan and sticking to it was a reason to ano's victory. Maybe another reason was that their team had played together before, too.
Considering our team - firstly, we started to plan before previous analysis of strong and weak sides of our nations. Then, we didn't correct Marignon's player mistake in design in time. Maybe the reason was that we didn't state a clear goal for each nation. :(
Maybe also I made my Pretender somewhat too single-player oriented and he didn't need all paths that he had as we had them in the team.
And then we didn't stick to a plan we had! As with our Forge Lords we should be more active in forging Bloodstones (and maybe Fever Fetishes) without using their time for other activities. Plus, we didn't pull gold for making castles at year 1 as I offered. As a result, we had too little too late.
Anything else?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

And what is TAM style? :confused:

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

Tight Assed Management Style.

I really don't think that playing together matters much, so long as everyone contributes ideas, but then accepts the captains dictates.

I'm not in any games at the moment; I'd be up for a rematch.
But a rematch would have to involve:
a). A fair map. No border mountains. Reasonable water.
No planning for 4 teams - and then having only 3 = ).
b). No silly bless restrictions on mictlan.

But the biggest problem really is that the teams are not matched.

This is the biggest problem with letting Sept choose themes. His ideas of a 'cool theme' result in unbalanced teams. (no offense sept).

Also, if you set the conditions before hand, (border mountains, no water) and then bid, it makes the quantification of what is 'fair' much easier. Captains can just change their bid, rather than wrangling over how to fix 'unfair' conditions.

Now if sept wants to create themes ( I hope not); I'd suggest bidding on an entire theme - with bid points subtracted from the pretenders in the nation.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

T.A.M. actually stands for:

Tight Asset Management :D

It is a team management and leadership philosophy stressing extremely detailed and super efficient control of all of a teams assets including its human ones. Every gold piece, every gem, every move, every increment in PD, every unit recruited, every spell that is scripted, every research point spent, has a very specific, discreet, and expressly defined purpose and is painstakingly plotted and planned for each of the team members every turn and in advance. The team members function as an extension of the captain, and as a single unit with few decisions made by individual members. I'm not knocking it, it can be a very powerful style, especially if fully implemented. Just not my style of play.

How dare you Chris? I am offended. :) Yes, I admit I enjoy the fantasy role playing aspects of themes (which are actually inherent in the game itself) and just get a bang out of ancient or medieval warfare in general. I also tend to be a casual gamer, so trying to correct every perceived imbalance (I've noticed a few other balance mods coming out now, BTW) and getting into the all the technical details is sort of secondary for me. For those who are hyper competitive by nature, the need to having everything balanced the way they want is important, but this can turn into something of an all consuming, never ending obsession IMO, especially considering that opinions may differ.

I do think that game 3, will do a better job if not as good a job at balancing the various factions while still preserving and maintaining the very real and unique advantages and disadvantages of each team which is the goal behind the theme concept (expecially in the pretender selections). As for the nation match-ups of this game, even if Ashdod or Mictlan was allowed to take the full dreaded bless, or the nations e on each team were somehow different, it would likely not have changed the outcome which had more to do with other circumstances in my opinion, including the loss of the Sangiunarium, team leadership style, player experience and skill level, the strength of the AI, team placement, geography, etc.

Our team did do some initial strategy and laying out of goals, research and so forth for each player, but we certainly were far more laid back than the other teams it seems. :cool:

As for just mountain provinces and no border mountains at all, for some nations, that might make a difference, for others maybe not so. If it benefits one team more than another, that could certainly be viewed as imbalancing, perhaps why the compromise of mixed mountain and border mountain masks was agreed to.

As for water, well I suppose it depends on if your going to have water nations or not, how the water is distributed on the map, and how easy it is for certain nations to exploit it. Frankly, I think that with our central sea, the coastal provinces surrounding it, the swamps, and all the freshwater sites, there will be enough water for the teams who need it. And since I can find no custom map that really suits our placement needs (excepting a smaller version of AOM Ogre), and a random map with water here and there would not be distributed equally for every team, I think it's the best way to go. If anyone has image editing and artistic ability, though, and is willing, feel free to contact me to volunteer. I'd certainly love to have each teams quadrant made more thematic, terrain-wise.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!
 

Sept, if you think that one team is unbeatable, then why play the game; if you think one team is unbeatable why set up those teams.

I think ano did a great job organizing his team. But I think leadership is only about 35% of a game. Game design is probably 30% and diplomacy 35%.

Any number of factors easily could have shifted this game. If the AI had decided to attack the Sets on turn 12 or so, that alone would have *significantly* altered the game.

I reiterate.. I REALLY would like to ban powerful sites - no construction sites, no circle master sites.

I suggest using sombre's mod.