Request for strategy: Late game tips - Page 5

RamsHead · #41 May 15th, 2007, 01:44 AM

Another plus on trading is that it can increase the trust between nations.

Gandalf Parker · #42 May 15th, 2007, 01:55 AM

Is that just for you to figure with or that was what you were going to send out? You might also keep in mind that some people hate math. A general sending with a formula might not get you as many responses as some straight sales prices.

jutetrea · #43 May 15th, 2007, 02:25 AM

What I sent out, figured the math wasn't too deep or they could just ask me for the price of a specific item.

I agree on the value being based on rarity/utility but this way seemed much easier - at least to get the ball rolling maybe.

For instance, a ring of sorcery - highly highly useful, would be going for 56 astral or 64 misc gems. only a 16 profit on top, but add another (10?) with the hammer and it makes more sense.

For a mage turn I invest 40 of a gem i'm strong in and get back 26 extra or I shore up my weaker numbers with 64. On the useability side with someone who maybe maxed out at 2S it may be worth 100 astral to actually get the item...but far fewer sales (and far less buffing of opponents).

Is it worth not selling boosters at all? Why bootstrap a nation other than a pure ally into a new line?

Hmm, hope there's more dialogue on this as the more I think about it the more paranoid I get.

Will the volume/profit offset the helping of another nation? I'm assuming yes as it happens relatively frequently...

atul · #44 May 15th, 2007, 02:55 AM

Quote:

jutetrea said:Is it worth not selling boosters at all? Why bootstrap a nation other than a pure ally into a new line?

At least I tend to swap items. Usually there's something other than gems that you're needing, like boosters for your weak paths. Or, not everyone has earth for dwarven hammers. But I've also sold items for gems, good friends get the base forging cost as a price (so my gain is the one from using the hammer and some good will spreading around).

Regarding the alliances, I feel that there should be something to be gained in an alliance in order for it to last. Of course I'm not going to backstab at the first opportunity, but the guy whose only message to me ever was "NAP, 3 turns to call off?" and who then proceeded to cut off my path of expansion without consulting me isn't going to have a stable neighbour. On the other hand, people that are fun to play with or trade a lot I've defended even if we haven't had a formal alliance.

jutetrea · #45 May 15th, 2007, 03:12 AM

I consider a NAP completely different than an alliance. IMO while in an alliance its a NAP, a defensive treaty, and an "i'll back you up in anything you do...even if its really really dumb" all rolled into one.

A NAP is just a small measure of security, and 3 months warning is nothing really. If you're fighting on one front its tough to do anything about another front in 3 months.
6 months notice is best imo, if you can't respond in 6 turns you've got big problems.

atul · #46 May 15th, 2007, 04:12 AM

Yeah, well, the NAP thing was just an example from the "real" life. I think my main point was, if someone came to me really early with a proposition that let's be allies for the rest of the game, I'd be really wary. Maybe after few joint wars where both of us has had the change to prove that it's more than just talking the talk, but from the get go, no.

With some people it's easy to plan campaigns, share the spoils of victory and feel fair, with other it feels that each turn is battle of wills whether either gets a little more edge. I know which kind of people I want to ally with, my problem being, I don't know what kind of people most of the other players are. Yet.

jutetrea · #47 May 15th, 2007, 04:37 AM

Good point, unfortunately sometimes the best allies aren't initial neighbors as well. Both good and bad when you're ally is a few nations away.

Do folks ever let the strength of the nation play a role in who your allies are, or is it all personality/playing style?

Baalz · #48 May 15th, 2007, 09:53 AM

Yeah, I don't know about an alliance until the very end, I'm more inclined to ally until our alliance is almost certainly going to win (in my opinion), declare moral victory, then with plenty of warning start fighting my former ally for the win (hopefully with the help of some of the less powerful nations...keep then in and having fun). Not so much a cut throat attitude, just seems like actually going through the motions of conquering every territory with no real challenge, THEN starting the real end game would be more tedium than fun for everybody. I'd much rather lose a close game than win a shutout...

Gandalf Parker · #49 May 15th, 2007, 10:42 AM

Strength of nation definetly matters to me. I find it more satisfying, and often safer, to ally with people low on the scoreboard. Not completely on their way out but one who might be more grateful and sharing than someone already high up.

MaxWilson · #50 May 15th, 2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

jutetrea said:
Good point, unfortunately sometimes the best allies aren't initial neighbors as well. Both good and bad when you're ally is a few nations away.

Yeah, depending upon whether you need military support this may or not matter. I know my SP games are heavily affected by my need to ensure self-sufficiency; if I took two nations at once and played them as allies (hmmm, interesting thought) I could put e.g. Astral magic for Dispel and boosters on one and Fire/Water for Rune Smasher and map killers on the other. I'm not sure that I'm schizophrenic enough to play both nations well so I may or may not do this IRL, but having a reliable ally at pretender design time would affect how I spend points. (Yeah, yeah, I should try MP. It's too much of a time commitment.)

It's too bad you can't trade spells a la Master of Orion techs.

-Max