|
|
Shogun
» Forums » General
Why the dice tower ruined a near perfect game.
I love everything about Shogun, I love the theme because I have studied the Kamakura Period which the game represents extensivly. I love the maps, there beautiful and the sun and moon reflect the poetic feelings of the time. The mechanics are inventive and exciting and feel just right( I realize its a rehash of Wallenstien BTW). They allow alot of thought and decision making in a relative short time. I love the way the game turns flow diffrently every time due to the event order mechanic. I love it all except...You guessed it the dice tower. Cant stand it. It is the sole reason i dont and will not own this game. I dont like the pure randomness of this mechanic in an otherwise thoughtfull game. I thought about this for awhile. What is it about the tower that i dont like. Is it the fact that it adds chance to the game? Nope I have played wargames since before i can remember and with dice and tables they most definatly add chance. Is it the fact that it seems to be a tacked on mechanic? Nope, Dont realy care if its tacked on if it works. Is it because it completly negates attrition and rewards losing? Yep, Thats it. I hate the fact that if I attack with 10 armys and my opponent defends with 3 . Not only is there a chance of me losing, this happens with dice too, but counterintuitivly there is a chance that if he has lost multiple times before that he will have more armies then with what he started with. This is the big differnce between the dice tower and dice. And makes planning ahead almost impossible. You can plan for an attack to fail but weaken, I can even plan for an attack that does nothing, but one that actually makes my opponent stronger..hmm not so much. Well thats my two cents. Im honestly thinking of figuring out a way to add dice to the game and remove the tower. Then it would be the best of both worlds.
|
|
|
Wow, when I saw your post I thought you were talking about The Dice Tower podcast.
|
|
|
coyotelaughs wrote: Is it because it completly negates attrition and rewards losing? Yep, Thats it. I hate the fact that if I attack with 10 armys and my opponent defends with 3 . Not only is there a chance of me losing, this happens with dice too, but counterintuitivly there is a chance that if he has lost multiple times before that he will have more armies then with what he started with. This is the big differnce between the dice tower and dice. And makes planning ahead almost impossible. You can plan for an attack to fail but weaken, I can even plan for an attack that does nothing, but one that actually makes my opponent stronger..hmm not so much. Why is this "counterintuitive"? If it's because you suppose thematically armies do not increase in size then I have to say this is easily explained away (fifth-columnists, desertion, fog of war, poor intelligence - the list goes on). As you point out, it does usually depend on prior loss for there to be cubes in the tower; but most players I have played against find it fairly easy to estimate whether or not a player has the potential of being reinforced via the tower - at which point any counterintuitivity ceases to exist and the risk is more easily assessed. Top tip: never weaken a territory too much to attack another. If your opponent does get stronger then you would be in trouble.
|
|
|
Dan,
I disagree. Shocker huh.. since I won the game. IMO, the tower is no more random than dice. Next time we play, with the tower, we'll keep track of how many armies each player has in the tower if you want so you can plan the odds. I honestly don't believe that it would make a bit of difference in how I play the game. The cool thing about Shogun/Wallenstein is they are not really true "Wargames". You are not really rewarded by conquering other players countries. The only exception is if there are buildings there, otherwise its just a 1 point swing, which is pretty worthless in my opinion. You and Larry didn't seem to realize that and were attempting to conquer each others and Wade and I's territories with no buidings in them. Neither Wade nor I did this though. Thus the difference in scores. I learned this the last time I played Wallenstein and lost. The game is all about protecting/isolating your buidings from attacks, and attacking others at the right time. You also need to pay close attention to what buildings others have on board and make sure you at a minimum are tied for the lead in that type of building, otherwise they are only worth 1 point. You and Larry are also used to typical Wargames that last hours and have MANY MANY attacks and that's the sole purpose of the game. Conquer, conquer, conquer. You can't do that in Shogun/Wallenstein and have any chance at winning. You only have 6 turns to build and attack. That's it. So every turn is VERY important. You can't waste any opportunity. After writing this I'm jazzed and ready to play it again, with the Tower of course!! ;o)
|
|
|
The fact that more units can come out then were throwed in represent the reinforcements. Seems like it workes just fine and is a perfect fit.
BTW if someone lost a bunch of armies in the tower before a couple of times he didn't had much luck so far, so give him a break.
And I have yet to see someone lose a fight with 10 vs 3. and i have played this and wallenstein at least about 50 times. usually 2-1 ratio is more than you need for winning the fight (with a min of 6 attack) otherwise you're taking chances!
Cheers
Alex
|
|
|
So, essentially, you want there to be more randomness and less predictability in the results of attacks. To each their own.
I believe that there are any number of mechanisms you could substitute for the tower (which, since it doesn't involve any dice, is not called a dice tower).
|
|
|
I can't wait to see the next review: "Why dice ruined a near perfect game."
|
|
|
You should edit your post. "You guessed it the dice tower. Cant stand it. It is the sole reason i dont and will not own this game. I dont like the pure randomness of this mechanic in an otherwise thoughtfull game." Probably why you don't like it. Your playing with the wrong tower!
Last edited on 2007-09-19 13:23:21 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
|
|
I think the cube tower (where are the dice, again?) is an awesome mechanic. It presents a leveling over time of the randomness that it (ironically) introduces. So if you got the short end of the stick in the past, you know next time you might do better. And you take that into account when you attack. And so should your opponent.
It's a "You'll get what's coming to you . . . probably" mechanic. And far from ruining the game, it makes it more "fair", while still allowing for uncertainty.
|
|
|
adam.skinner wrote: I think the cube tower (where are the dice, again?) is an awesome mechanic. It presents a leveling over time of the randomness that it (ironically) introduces. So if you got the short end of the stick in the past, you know next time you might do better. And you take that into account when you attack. And so should your opponent.
It's a "You'll get what's coming to you . . . probably" mechanic. And far from ruining the game, it makes it more "fair", while still allowing for uncertainty. I think this is wrong The tower does not level the randomness over time. It is true that if few of your cubes comes out in a battle, you will most likely get more next time. But the important thing is not how many of your cubes comes out or not. Those which does not are simply delayed. Not terribly important. The important thing is how many of your opponents cubes which comes out of the tower in battles against you. Because those which do kill your units. That is permanent and far more important than a temporary delay. And how many of your opponents cubes comes out in battles against you is not leveled over time in any way. Rather the opposite, if I am unlucky in a battle against green (many green cubes comes out of the tower) it is likely that the next person who fight green will be lucky (few green cubes). Because of the turn structure of the game, it is likely that the next battle against green is already planned, so the player harvesting the luck resulting from you being unlucky does so not because of any good plan.
|
|
|
This cube tower is a neat gimmick that doesn't quite work. (note I have not played shogun just Wallenstein)
the op is only partly correct. It does not reward losing, it rewards the player who gets the most cubes stuck in. I can attack yo with 5 to 1 and beat yo 2 to one and have 3 loaded cubes for the next fight.
I like the fact that the game designer was trying to make a randomizer that was less predictable than dice. lets face it odds are odds and most gamers can figure out % chance of winning any battle with dice. (this is why CRT tables are a good thing). What I do not like about the cube tower is that even if I know i got tons of cubes in there there is still a good chance they will not fall. It makes the odds of attack so unpredictable that when playing this game you are almost always better off simply building up and only fighting where yo have overwhelming odds. It turns what should be a fun war-game into a stale game about building different buildings for points.
Personally I feel it was a noble effort that in the end didn't work in practice. This could be also due to some of the games other rules, Its length in terms of game turns (why only 2?). The tied wreck the place rule etc etc.
-M
|
|
|
Quote: I think this is wrong The tower does not level the randomness over time.
I'm undecided if you're right in this or not. Perhaps what I meant to say was "leveling the effect of randomness". By no means am I saying that this is introducing a net effect of zero randomness. Just that if you got some stuff stuck up there and got the shaft for it due to coming in too thin, the next time you come in thin you may get that back. Regardless, I think the cube tower does an excellent job of implementing chance in the game, while still giving you enough information so that you can make informed decisions (though not perfectly informed ones). Most of the time, we don't count (oh, he put in 6 cubes and only 5 came out, so now I need to remember that blue has another cube stuck in there, and that makes 3) - we just go by feeling.
|
|
|
coyotelaughs wrote: I love everything about Shogun, I love the theme because I have studied the Kamakura Period which the game represents extensivly. I love the maps, there beautiful and the sun and moon reflect the poetic feelings of the time. The mechanics are inventive and exciting and feel just right( I realize its a rehash of Wallenstien BTW). They allow alot of thought and decision making in a relative short time. I love the way the game turns flow diffrently every time due to the event order mechanic. I love it all except...You guessed it the dice tower. Cant stand it. It is the sole reason i dont and will not own this game. I dont like the pure randomness of this mechanic in an otherwise thoughtfull game.
I thought about this for awhile. What is it about the tower that i dont like.
Is it the fact that it adds chance to the game? Nope I have played wargames since before i can remember and with dice and tables they most definatly add chance.
Is it the fact that it seems to be a tacked on mechanic? Nope, Dont realy care if its tacked on if it works.
Is it because it completly negates attrition and rewards losing? Yep, Thats it. I hate the fact that if I attack with 10 armys and my opponent defends with 3 . Not only is there a chance of me losing, this happens with dice too, but counterintuitivly there is a chance that if he has lost multiple times before that he will have more armies then with what he started with. This is the big differnce between the dice tower and dice. And makes planning ahead almost impossible. You can plan for an attack to fail but weaken, I can even plan for an attack that does nothing, but one that actually makes my opponent stronger..hmm not so much.
Well thats my two cents. Im honestly thinking of figuring out a way to add dice to the game and remove the tower. Then it would be the best of both worlds.
If you fail to plan ahead it is your own fault. You should keep track of armies left in the tower and you can perfectly calculate your odds of winning. While with dice the loser will say that they were unlucky in each single turn. This is impossible with the dicetower since sometimes the odds will be in your favor (when there are more of your armies remaining in the tower)and sometimes they clearly won't be in your favour.
|
|
|
Harald wrote:
Because of the turn structure of the game, it is likely that the next battle against green is already planned, so the player harvesting the luck resulting from you being unlucky does so not because of any good plan.
Well, you have to plan to minimize randomness.Of course, in every game there will be some bad luck and some lucky breaks. But at the end of the day, the winner is usually the one who plays it safe. No gambling. It is never fun to be the first to attack a neutral province when playing on the Spielbyweb, I admit.
|
|
|
I love the cube tower, by the way (look at my microbadge), but what I find annoying about the game(s) is the randomness of when drawing provinces. Often we know who`s going to win the game before we start the action planning year 1 spring.
The basic set up is even worse.
Still, I find Wallenstein an almost perfect game (and so Shogun). I want to play it all the time:-)
|
|
|
adam.skinner wrote: Quote: I think this is wrong The tower does not level the randomness over time.
I'm undecided if you're right in this or not. Perhaps what I meant to say was "leveling the effect of randomness". By no means am I saying that this is introducing a net effect of zero randomness. Just that if you got some stuff stuck up there and got the shaft for it due to coming in too thin, the next time you come in thin you may get that back. Regardless, I think the cube tower does an excellent job of implementing chance in the game, while still giving you enough information so that you can make informed decisions (though not perfectly informed ones). Most of the time, we don't count (oh, he put in 6 cubes and only 5 came out, so now I need to remember that blue has another cube stuck in there, and that makes 3) - we just go by feeling. Even with the word effect added, I claim the tower does not level the effect of randomness, rather the opposite. The problem is not when few of your units comes out. (I agree that this minor effect evens out over time). The problem is when many of your opponents cubes comes out in battles against you. They kill your cubes, something you are not getting back in any way. The opposite of evening out the effect of randomness happens when another player fights the player who just got many of his cubes out of the tower. He is likely to have few of his cubes killed because my enemy has few cubes left in the tower. It is higly unlikely that you will be the next player to fight the player you just fought, because you can only do one attack at a time. Since You being unlucky has the direct effect of another player being lucky, the randomness represented by the tower is much more likely to produce big differences between the players than other random methods,(like dice), and hence randomness of the tower has a greater effect than other randomness.
|
|
|
The tower rewards taking chances and not spend the game turtling. Given that the game doesn't have that much combat to begin with, a simple dice based system that doesn't provide some benefits to the loser would lead to less combat. And with less combat, the luck in the roll of the dice becomes huge, since there's no chance to make up from a critical loss.
Without the tower, the game would not be popular at all.
|
|
|
If you (the original poster) love the idea of a multiplayer light/medium war game set in Fedual Japan but don't like the way it was executed in this game, then I really recommend you like at Samurai Swords aka Shogun from the Milton Bradley gamemaster series. It's an awesome game.
|
|
|
coyotelaughs wrote: Is it because it completly negates attrition and rewards losing? Yep, Thats it. I hate the fact that if I attack with 10 armys and my opponent defends with 3 . Not only is there a chance of me losing, this happens with dice too, but counterintuitivly there is a chance that if he has lost multiple times before that he will have more armies then with what he started with. This is the big differnce between the dice tower and dice. And makes planning ahead almost impossible. You can plan for an attack to fail but weaken, I can even plan for an attack that does nothing, but one that actually makes my opponent stronger..hmm not so much.
You might have a fair point there, except that you left out one important consideration: each player can attack at most twelve times during the course of the game. That's all. Twelve. They can be attacked more times than that, but if you are either attacking or defending with the express intent to lose so that your cubes get stuck in the tower, you are really wasting your resources and opportunities. Also, your use of the tower doesn't seem to mesh with our use of the tower. The more times you throw cubes in, the more likely those that are already stuck in there are going to get dislodged. It doesn't keep sucking up more and more cubes, at least not when we play. I think your tower might be broken.
|
|
|
A trio of points: First, attacking is a portion of the game. As pointed out, only 12 attacks can be performed by each player, and that assumes they always make all the attacks they can. Attacks are important, but only in conjunction with well executed play in the other aspects of the game. Second, the fact that the tower can store units is well understood by most after a few demonstrations, so if a large number of units do get stored, everyone knows to plan accordingly (read: not attack that player until the excess re-enforcements are back to normal levels). Finally, I would agree that if the tower is storing a *lot* of units for any period of time that it is defective in some way (assembled incorrectly, has a small back hole inside, double sided sticky tape... something).
Last edited on 2007-09-20 01:58:00 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
|
|
The game would be boring without the tower. That's what really makes the game. Take that out and you take away a lot of the fun. I've never felt the tower has taken away from the game, even in games where I get pounded senseless. If I wanted something much more evened out and logical I would be an ASL player by now. I just want to have some fun in my game while still being able to make fairly calculated changes.
|
|
|
It's about remembering what happened to the armies you lost.
So you have lost the battle, and your man are scattered around the place.
Please remind they are loyal and will regroup and fight under your flag.
One day you might even strike with little force, and suddenly there your army stands with full pride and crushes even the biggest army!
Maybe some farmers see in you the Daimyo they longed for and will fight along your side.
In other words, the tower mechanic can be harsh, but remember. What goes in, must come out!
Regards,
Keimpe
|
|
|
Just empty the tower after every battle, I know you are not supose to but it would remove the abilty to reinforce your armies with zombies.
Last edited on 2009-06-28 21:15:10 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
|
|
Posted Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:38 pm
