RAND Game - Fomoria Wins!

[djo]

Interested bystander here. I've been reading this thread since the win was announced, and I want to thank everyone for the interesting game notes.

I'm fascinated that people could identify their opponents. What are the characteristics people notice? Things mentioned above: aggressiveness, what a player summons. I would imagine pretender design and tactical scripting might also be distinctive. And WraithLord's point about economy of force. I'm interested more in what makes a player's style "personal", not simply experienced vs. inexperienced.

Anything else?

[Micah]

Thanks for the complements Wraith...What battles did you think I was taking large risks in? I don't recall being in doubt of the outcome of most of the pitched battles during the game.

I think the only battles I lost before turn 45 or so was the one against Marverni's 40-PD province, the wholesale slaughter of my fomorian giants against Jurri's gargoyle (bound to happen after 2 or 3 forts fell in a row) and the attempt on Arco's first army (which did take out about 40 mages in return for my kitted out king, so more of a draw really) There was the fear-induced fleeing from Ctis, but I didn't lose anything there aside from the teleport and Wrathful gems. A few kings died off over the turns as well, but you gotta crack a few eggs and all...I had over 30 at the end of the game.

I'm also surprised that I'm the most aggressive player you've seen...I think I was playing nearly as aggressively as possible within the bounds of a winning strategy, but I'm sure there are some players out there that are more aggressive (though ultimately less effective). In fact I just met one in Swarm...he attacked me, ignored my efforts at diplomacy, and took me out of the game...however, I did enough damage to himself in the process that he's pretty much doomed now...especially since he just lost over 60 high-end units to the 63 PD I have in my last stand province.

I also felt my hand was forced into some of the aggression, since the map left me precious little room to expand (and offered a tasty morsel up in the form of early-game research focused Marverni). After Marverni went down Mictlan started in on Tir, who was to be my next target, so I capitalized on their war and took out Mictlan while his forces were split...Tir was then a breeze, since Mictlan had already crippled them. Ulm was next, as the FotA was a ticking time bomb and I knew I couldn't let it stay in play...I was fairly confident I could win out against them with the shadow seer support and my superior income, and I proved correct (I lucked out that Jurri hadn't found any astral indies, luck and MR items would have made things a lot more painful)...and after that it was just a cap-grab for the win before TC could really engage with me (I think I could have held off Oceania and limited the damage Arco could do while I slowly killed Sauro off, but I knew I was done for once TC entered into the mix...there would have been too many fronts to deal with, especially with Calmon's superb raiding).

As a side note I was really happy with the E/N bless for the kings, I wouldn't consider playing them without it...The astral was a safety net in case I didn't find any astral indies, as was the point of fire. I wish I'd gotten to see Dance of the Morrigans in action, sadly the AI decided to spend tons of gems killing off a bishop fish/mermage combo from Oceania and a wraithlord from Sauro (all of which died from soul slays before they moved) and left all of my BEs uncast for the final assault on Lanka =(

[WraithLord]

Micah said:
Thanks for the complements Wraith...What battles did you think I was taking large risks in? I don't recall being in doubt of the outcome of most of the pitched battles during the game.

I have probably done a poor job of explaining my intention.
I did saw a few battles that might have gone the other way, for example when your nemedian warriors attacked Mictlan capital PD. Moral could have caused to rout if they would have taken some more losses.
Anyway, I was referring less to battles and more to your strategy. Since you were all the time on the attack sometimes on more than one front.

Micah said:
I'm also surprised that I'm the most aggressive player you've seen...I think I was playing nearly as aggressively as possible within the bounds of a winning strategy, but I'm sure there are some players out there that are more aggressive (though ultimately less effective). In fact I just met one in Swarm...he attacked me, ignored my efforts at diplomacy, and took me out of the game...however, I did enough damage to himself in the process that he's pretty much doomed now...especially since he just lost over 60 high-end units to the 63 PD I have in my last stand province.

I'm playing dominions MP since Dom PPP, but I think I have always played with more, how to call it, "moderate" (for lack of better term) aggression levels players. I've had the pleasure the play with and vs. some excellent players (some of them even participated in this game) but I think they're way less aggressive than the example you've set in this game.

Now, its possible that due to the growing amount of ppl playing dom-III MP that there are ever more competitive players that bring some fresh attitude and possibly strategies to this game (which if true, I find to be excellent).

As for your example of Swarm, let me comment from a different angle. I think these forums and the availability to all ppl to see everyones win/lose record makes the frequent winners (you probably are first amongst them ) become default targets in MP game. Interesting...

[calmon]

Any plans for a successor game next time? Its may!

[Griefor]

This sounds pretty cool...

But I'm wondering, wouldn't it be better to turn score graphs off for a game like this?

[ano]

Why do you think it is better to have them off?
I am pretty sure that turning the graphs off in a game like this will mean the victory of skilled aggressive player even faster.

[Griefor]

Because it adds to the whole unknown environment deal.

You need to scout well before attacking another nation because they might be far stronger than you. You can't check scores to see that another nation is in an expensive war elsewhere and ready to be invaded by you.

I suppose there's some flaws to it as well, but I thought at least the idea was interesting.

[Micah]

Having played in the game I have to say that having the graphs on is my preference. The radio silence makes things tricky enough, losing out on graphs as well would be nightmarish in terms of actually planning functional strategies. Especially in an EA game with the lack of scout poptypes. No graphs and table talk works nicely since you can leverage other people's info, but it's incredibly hard to scout the whole world yourself, and I don't like the idea of being that blind in a serious game.

[ano]

I agree with you, Micah, however, having played (and almost won) a big game with LA R'lyeh I must say that having graphs off was one of my biggest advantages. Good players who simply don't tend to build a lot of scouts just weren't aware that I controlled almost a half of the map by turn 50. They saw my provinces here and there but just didn't realize what was happening. When they do realize it now, it's far too late, I think, to change something. So graphs off definitely played for me in this game.
But I have plenty of scouts everywhere and know almost everything, so it really hardly implies to EA where scouts are uncommon.

[Amhazair]

I have to agree with Micah here. While I generally prefer to play with graphs off myself in regular games, I feel it becomes a bit too much in this environment where you can't trade information with your allies, and don't have the possibility to coördinate once you do finally find out someone is about to win the game