Re: Concepts of Creation: Conceptual Balance (sign
Ironhawk, Folket,
Back to the 40% vp condition being in my opinion to easy and perfectly fine in your opinions.
On my side I point to the sudden, sort of trick move, end to our game and others using these low threshold victory conditions.
Your counter argument is that people should have built castles on the vp provinces right away,
The reality is that people don't build the castles on those provinces early on to the detriment of their regular buildup. Ironhawk even mentions the gamemaster should urge players to build early castles on their vps.
Sounds a little gamey doesn't it? The game victory conditions should naturally reflect a victor, someone with the dominant position, without playing to the victory conditions themselves. Hosts should not have to advise players to alter their gameplay to avoid certain victory condition pitfalls.
Folket says "from this game we will learn that VPs can't be left undefended. In next game a raid will be much harder."
Truth there, but you miss the next move down in this logic. If a certain number of players are aware of this tactic they will indeed sacrifice their normal objectives to fortify every vp province in their possesion, which may fall very nicely into the hands of those players who do NOT make the sacrifice and gain an advantage over them. As long as a good number of vp provinces are early fortified, the strategy is foiled, therby benefitting all players including those who do not make that sacrifice.
Another point is we have tried the low threshold victory condition game. It requires, at best, no choice stratagies to accomodate and specific host warnings to players.
Would it kill you to just crank up that threshold just a wee bit and see how that goes?
|