June 9th, 2003, 01:59 AM
|
|
|
Re: Are you tough enough to be the "King of the Hill"?
Quote:
Originally posted by Slynky:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone Mill:
Congrats to Mark and Slinky for a riveting game... I really enjoy your accounts.
|
Tks, Stone. Not sure people care much about the bottom/base of the hill, but the game seemed a bit extroadinary. I suspect the game you had with Asmala was more of a nail-biter but I submit ours was the bloodiest (and for a standard start, very high tech).
Thanks Stone. I'm glad at least you enjoyed our updates. I did worry at one point that it seemed like we were spamming this forum, and I wasn't sure if anyone else was interested. But I think both Slynky and I were very enthusiastic about this game. In my experience of SEIV, it really did seem unique.
I learned SEIV by playing a series of two-player games against one of the friends I share a house with, and have played in several multiplayer games on PBW. In general, they've tended to follow a progression that goes something like this;
1. Two empires meet and skirmish until a border is defined.
2. Border defenses harden; both empires concentrate on research and economic buildup.
3. Empire A attacks, and in a handful of decisive battles, defeats Empire B's border defenses.
4. Empire B counterrattacks, but loses again because the rush to get ships in place means they are scattered and often untrained.
5. Player B may carry on, but from this point it's all over. Resistance is weak and unco-ordinated and Empire A's main problems are dealing with the logistics of supply and troop transport.
I think one of the reasons for the collapses that seem to happen may have more to do with player psychology than a built in game dynamic, but mostly that's been my experience of SEIV so far. Not that I haven't enjoyed it, mind 
But what was so different with this game was that the serious fighting started around turn 60, and went on until turn 120. Although there were heavy defeats for both sides during these 60 turns, it only became clear at the very end who was going to come out on top. So we got a rare chance to learn an opponent's style and tactics, try to adapt to them, and watch his own adaptation to ours at the same time. It felt much more chess-like - in the sense of strategic complexity - than my average SEIV game.
Did we mention that we really enjoyed this game?
OK, shutting up now...
Quote:
|
Mark is now 2-0. Is he the new "surprise" upstart?
|
Thanks a lot, Slynky! I was hoping to sneak up the Hill unnoticed until you shouted that out. 
Seriously; two games does not a valid sample make.
Mark
[ June 08, 2003, 13:02: Message edited by: Mark the Merciful ]
|