Game: In the Shadow of the Emperor

Thread: Re: Its good to be the king, er, emperor

caltexn — 2008-11-16T04:29:01+00:00

Enjoyed the read. I want to play again, after only one play. Lost on the last move of the game when I stupidly sent a married baron to secure a seat in a non-secular province. Really enjoyed the game.

Thread: Its good to be the king, er, emperor

Joshuaaaaaa — 2008-11-16T00:13:54+00:00

I just wrapped up a game of In the Shadow of the Emperor on MabiWeb, and it was my 3rd game and I put into practice the lessons I learned from losses in my first two game. Lesson #1...BUILD CITIES! My experience in the first two was that players who built cities did better. Yeah, they are expensive (4 thalers) and they are worth VP (4 if you build all 3) and they generate income. In fact, if you put them into play on the first 3 turns, you will earn 9 of the 12 thalers you spent back, and its extra control points in those areas. Lesson #2...The Emperor breaks ties. I used this to my advantage to win several areas and pad my lead a bit. Lesson #3...It doesn't help to win an area by 2 or 3 points. Winning by 1 point is plenty. Keep your aristocrats spread and mobile. Lesson #4...If you can take over a new area, unless the old area has great benefits, move your guys around. You don't get points for staying in charge of a given province.

Here's how things went down. I started the game as Emperor, which is nice, if I could retain it through turn 1 and get the 2 VP and get to place a city. If not, I was at a disadvantage because I didn't start out as an elector anywhere. I started with the first imperial city in Rhein, because with Rhein's ability to generate new barons, I looked at is as a control target. The electorates chosen by the other 3 players were Rhein, Koeln and Saxony. Of my remaining forces, I concentrated 2 points (a baron and a knight) in Koeln. I added a city on my second move (after de-aging the emperor) and later added another knight. However, I wasn't paying attention, and one of the players used both other doctor moves to age the emperor to death, and I used my Koeln baron to replace him. Each of the 4 players took control of one area. I got Saxony just because no one else put anyone there, and I had my age 35 couple there. I lost the emperor election to the guy who had aged the old emperor to death by 1 vote, and sent the former emperor (he was a Gerald Ford emperor) to Bohemia. At the end of the first turn I had 3 VP, tied for last.

Thanks to controlling Saxony, I had 9 thalers on turn 2, while everyone else except the emperor had 7. The emperor only had 6 and promptly dropped dead of old age. Two sons and two daughters were born (I had the former) and both women headed for the convent after being spurned for marriage. My major move was building another city and also promoting my knight in Koeln so he could be an elector. And, determined to recapture my throne, I grabbed the rival card. 6 electorates changed hands, with me taking control of Koeln and Bohemia, one other player taking 2 provinces and the other two (including the emperor) taking 1 apiece. Only Trier didn't change control. I had the excommunication card and made sure the current emperor lost a vote and won a crushing victory, 8 votes to 1 and was back on the throne, this time with a 25 year old. I had racked up 7 points on the turn, and when turn 2 was over, I was now tied for first with 10 points.

I had banked a thaler from turn two and added 8 more to give me 9, which was only 2nd place. The last place player was first with 11 (controlling Saxony really helps with income, and she also had 2 cities up). I had a daughter whom I married off to the last place player, and she in turn sent one of her daughters to my decrepit old 45 year old baron, netting us each a VP. However, the old man's joy was short lived, as he had a heart attack soon after a routine checkup with his doctor. Well, it wasn't his normal doctor. That guy was out of town, so the previous emperor sent someone...maybe I should have been suspicious? With a bit of money to spend, I permitted a new baron in Trier, and used the mystical powers of Koeln to cause a noble couple there to get hit by a out of control cart. I couldn't afford city #3 this turn, so I grabbed the indulgence card for 1 VP. I also worked on cementing my position on the throne with the excommunication card. There were 2 ties for elector, and I assigned one to me, and the other (in which I was not involved) went to the last place player. 5 electorates changed hands this turn, I gained control of Saxony back for income purposes and awaited for the onslaught of the former emperor. The other electors must have thought I was doing a great job, because they elected me in a 5-2 landslide. With the 2 VP I picked up for being emperor I scored 6 on the turn, and now had a 3 point lead in the game. I figured I was in for a fight for my throne on turn 4 and moved an imperial city to Bohemia to help.

I had saved 1 thaler again and earned 11, putting me at the top of the chart at 12, 4 ahead of one player and 5 ahead of the other two. I increased my position by begetting a son in Bohemia while the last place player married off one of my older barons. I was in position to grab those 2 votes. I took down the age of the emperor, and not wanting a repeat of turn 1 I paid closer attention to moves by other players although I was too slow to prevent my Saxony baron from kicking the bucket. I built my last city in Trier for 2 VP and permitted 2 barons in Mainz for a shot at that province. It was nice to have lots of thalers to spend. I then used the aforementioned mystical Koeln powers to get rid of the current Mainz elector. There were ties in 3 provinces, Koeln, Trier and Mainz, and I planned to break the tie on all 3 in my favor...but I forgot about the Gray Electorate and was outmaneuvered in Koeln. Still, picking up Trier and Mainz and an outright victory in Bohemia netted me 6 points. Although I lost in Koeln, the other player had nobody to place as the elector, so no points were disbursed. Nobody challenged me for the throne, and at the end of the turn I had a commanding 7 or 8 point lead (a point has disappeared from scoring somewhere).

I think the game was all but over in the 4th year. To make up that big a gap would have taken major luck, and this is a Eurogame that is sans luck. The emperor died of old age and replaced by someone almost as old. All players got out their 3rd city (I was the only one to have all mine out by turn 4). Bunches of new barons were permitted or received foreign brides. I set up a couple of areas as ties and broke them in my favor again. However, I was in a weak position when the election came around, and did not survive on the throne to the end of the game. And when the dust cleared, that didn't matter, as I walked away with a significant victory with 29 points. 2nd place had 24, 3rd 22 and 4th 18. I enjoyed this game a lot (easy to do when I win) and really realized how powerful the tie-breaking power of the emperor is, and used it to great advantage. That being said, other players should know the emperor has this power, and should make sure he doesn't get to use it much. As mentioned at the beginning of this session, it does no good to win an area by 3 points if you can win it by one.

You can see the entire game here and if you click through to the game log, you can see all the moves.

The more I play this game, the more I enjoy it and am challenged by it.

Image

rober — 2008-11-14T08:41:56+00:00

overview

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

ekted — 2008-11-08T05:40:50+00:00

Let the Emperor decide.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

dcorban — 2008-11-08T04:55:06+00:00

A tie breaker in this game doesn't make much sense. Even if you made it something like "whoever has the most money". Since "making money" is such a minor part of the game and everyone is artificially limited to 12 thalers income anyway, it would be relatively arbitrary. What other tie breaker could there be? Person with the most aristocrats on the board? Least aristocrats?

Tie breakers are good when they are strongly tied to the objective or mechanics of a game. For example, ties going to the player with the most money in a game of Power Grid seems reasonable.

Thread: Re: If the emperor is offered marriage..

vialiy — 2008-10-27T05:14:19+00:00

Specific Aristocrat.

Thread: Re: If the emperor is offered marriage..

Bathtub Hoax — 2008-10-27T03:25:56+00:00

One question. When you offer marriage, do you offer it to a player's specific Aristocrat tile? Or do you offer it to a player, and if he accepts it's up to him to give the daughter to any of his Aristocrats?

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

micklizzy — 2008-10-04T00:01:39+00:00

Thanks everybody!!!!!!!!!
Boy, I love BGG.

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

asmiles — 2008-10-03T16:24:00+00:00

micklizzy wrote:
Thanks, whats a good score to aim for?

There were 8 games completed in the last week on MaBiWeb. Granted the game play may be slightly different in that format, as far as group think and interaction, etc. So take the results with a grain of salt.

4-player:
23-22-15-14
23-22-18-14
26-23-20-20
33-19-18-17

3-player:
35-30-21
22-21-20
22-21-21
28-23-22

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

Big Bad Lex — 2008-10-03T15:50:06+00:00

micklizzy wrote:

Thanks, whats a good score to aim for?

One more than any of your opponants.

And that is a serious answer. This isn't a solitaire game. It's not about stoking the points fire, its important to monitor what the other guys are up to and slap them down. Inexperienced opponants will allow you to rack up high 20's-30 odd. A game against equals will only have one or two points in it.

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

micklizzy — 2008-10-03T07:15:40+00:00

verandi wrote:
Windopaene wrote:
Been a while since I've played, but I think you only get the points if you replace another player's barons, not your own, even if your own died and is no longer there.

This is incorrect. You get the 2 victory points whenever you ascend to power, which includes ascending to an empty throne that was vacated earlier this turn when your own guy died.

focusing all your resources in an effort to score one region over and over isn't going to produce a winning score, especially if there is a high turnover of power between other players.

Thanks, whats a good score to aim for?

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

verandi — 2008-10-03T05:26:14+00:00

micklizzy wrote:
ekted wrote:
Then you get 10 points total and lose the game.

Unless you are emperor and you are Sovereign of Meinz.

I still don't see how this produces a winning score, unless the other players are investing resources into holding onto power in a region rather than try to win new ones. Rational play sees regions constantly shifting power as players are more focused on winning new regions (gives VPs) than protecting old ones (gives no VPs).

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

verandi — 2008-10-03T05:20:49+00:00

Windopaene wrote:
Been a while since I've played, but I think you only get the points if you replace another player's barons, not your own, even if your own died and is no longer there.

This is incorrect. You get the 2 victory points whenever you ascend to power, which includes ascending to an empty throne that was vacated earlier this turn when your own guy died.

But remember you cannot use the doctor card to kill one of your own guys, so in order to pull this strategy off, you'll need to always ascend to the throne with a 45-year old, so that he can die before next election.

Moreover as Ekted has pointed out, focusing all your resources in an effort to score one region over and over isn't going to produce a winning score, especially if there is a high turnover of power between other players.

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

micklizzy — 2008-10-03T05:15:13+00:00

ekted wrote:
Then you get 10 points total and lose the game.

Unless you are emperor and you are Sovereign of Meinz.

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

micklizzy — 2008-10-03T05:11:07+00:00

Windopaene wrote:
I think you only get the points if you replace another player's barons, not your own.

but I am not replacing one of my own sovereigns as he/they died in phase 2.

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

ekted — 2008-10-03T05:08:37+00:00

Then you get 10 points total and lose the game.

Thread: Re: Am I breaking the rules?

Windopaene — 2008-10-03T05:06:35+00:00

Been a while since I've played, but I think you only get the points if you replace another player's barons, not your own, even if your own died and is no longer there.

EDIT: No, I was wrong. Disregard...

Thread: Am I breaking the rules?

micklizzy — 2008-10-03T04:53:30+00:00

I have put all my barons/couples in one district.
Then I place my 45 year old as elector and collect 2 points. He/they then die in phase 2 so i can do the same again naxt time and so on, and collect the 2 points each time.
Seems to easy?

Anyone help?

Thread: Re: Descendant Questions

MaBi — 2008-09-23T10:39:43+00:00

micklizzy wrote:
This is not in the rules that I have (printed off net).
Well, it is in the Rio Grande Games pdf rulebook:
http://www.riograndegames.com/uploads/Game/Game_172_gameRule...
page 3, toward the end of the page.

Thread: Re: Descendant Questions

micklizzy — 2008-09-23T10:28:11+00:00

MaBi wrote:
Look carefully, this is the last sentence before the example:
The player may also choose to send his daughter to the convent instead of offering her in marriage and earn 1 thaler.

This is not in the rules that I have (printed off net).

Hopefully I will get game (and rules!) before the weekend.

Thread: Re: Descendant Questions

MaBi — 2008-09-23T08:14:27+00:00

Look carefully, this is the last sentence before the example:
The player may also choose to send his daughter to the convent instead of offering her in marriage and earn 1 thaler.

Thread: Re: Descendant Questions

micklizzy — 2008-09-23T07:26:53+00:00

rodspade wrote:
micklizzy wrote:
Where does it say this in the rules?
The last sentence before "Example of a successful marriage" under Phase III: Descendants.

But it says "If the player refuses"

Do you have to propose a marriage in the first place?

Thread: Re: Descendant Questions

rodspade — 2008-09-22T23:47:54+00:00

micklizzy wrote:
Where does it say this in the rules?
The last sentence before "Example of a successful marriage" under Phase III: Descendants.

Thread: Re: Descendant Questions

micklizzy — 2008-09-22T23:15:31+00:00

DaveD wrote:
1. You can send her straight to the convent for 1 taler, without proposing marriage.

Where does it say this in the rules? I just can't find it.

Thanks Dave

Thread: Re: Descendant Questions

DaveD — 2008-09-22T14:33:17+00:00

1. You can send her straight to the convent for 1 taler, without proposing marriage.

2. You choose which baron, the controlling player then decides whether to accept.

Thread: Re: Placing nobles and knights in setup phase.

micklizzy — 2008-09-22T13:10:05+00:00

About to play my first game this week, looking forward to it.

PS was born in Wolverhampton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thread: Re: Placing nobles and knights in setup phase.

DaveD — 2008-09-22T12:42:04+00:00

In the preparation section it always refers to placement in an electorate of the player's choice. I can't see anywhere a limitation on placement in the same electorate so I would say that multiple placements in the same electorate is OK.

Thread: Re: Placing nobles and knights in setup phase.

JimF — 2008-09-22T12:19:33+00:00

Haven't played in a while, but I recall that you can place your pieces in the same province during setup.

Image

jsper — 2008-09-11T15:47:26+00:00

Promotional sheet in english

Thread: Re: Underappreciated!

MacTele — 2008-09-01T13:36:46+00:00

The game is great. We've plaid it few days ago and it is a hit.
For me there is no chaos but hard fight. The game is ultra thematic, maybe most thematic euro i have plaid. The mechanics are great. The game has everything: area control, planning, voting, tactics, aging pieces, negotiations and more. It is very underrated.
i think it would be one of most often plaid games with my friends.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

clearclaw — 2008-08-31T01:15:41+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
I would say that if one of the tied players happens to get elected Emperor at the end, that would be a likely tie-breaker. Otherwise, if neither of them are Emperor, then let the emperor break the tie like he always does.

I really don't like tie breakers. With rare exception (eg King of Siam), I'd prefer it if games didn't have tie breakers at all. I find that lack of tie breakers makes for more interesting decisions, more interesting games and more delightful outcomes.

A brief survey of the area: Tie a yellow ribbon around the winner’s post

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

clearclaw — 2008-08-31T01:07:54+00:00

andylatto wrote:
Assuming you mean that few games are in the category "not able to track the hidden information"...

Actually I meant ...the game plays better if there is some uncertainty about it..., assuming an HTI game. I'm aware of very few games in that plays better with HTI category.

I do not consider HTI analagous to HTI. HTI is knowable. The results of dice rolls (etc) are not.

I think that whether the uncertainty makes a game more interesting is independent of the source of the uncertainty.

I find a great difference between uncertainty in something I could know perfectly had I merely bothered to pay attention, and uncertainty that is actually unknowable. The first merely suggests that I should pay attention. The second that the game is opaque.

As long as the hidden trackable information is sufficiently complex that it cannot be tracked reliably by any of the players involved, why is this intrinsically worse than uncertainty that comes from randomness?

In short, because I could track and could know. It might take a little effort and training, but it is possible and potentially useful. Knowing what cards a player holds after a random deal is not possible. Knowing what cards are in their hand after a half-dozen tricks is a process of card counting and deduction.

Do you keep a record in such games?

I've not played Titan and so won't comment there. It is quite possible and not very difficult to keep perfect track of player's resources in Settlers of Catan, modulo the thief. Additionally, typically the thief's card is revealed within a a turn or two. As a result I prefer Settlers of Catan with open resources. The only change effective change in terms of information exposure is the increased certainty of what thief took, which I find acceptable.

I can't imagine configuring Mabiweb to obscure the scores, and not also agreeing not to reconstruct them from the game logs; what would be the point?

Pickup games rarely go through an entrance protocol setting such constraints. Additionally there is no possibility of detecting when/if someone does a history-scan or otherwise keeps mechanical track.

My favourite answer to a hidden scoring game would be to simply announce the current score/resource totals on the chat after every move. No paper and pencil, no history etc needed, just a recall of the last statement made, just a running public tally. (Accepted: this is effectively using the chat history or my cut buffer as a mechanical record)

Having them open has its advantages. Having them secret and agreeing not to reconstruct them has different advantages, for some people with some games.

I'm not aware of any advantages for me. I'm well aware that some greatly prefer HTI to remain hidden for various games. That's fine. We just don't play those games together.

But having them secret and allowing reconstruction seems to combine the worst features of both.

It is unpreventable and undetectable. In short, it should be assumed.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

Drew1365 — 2008-08-31T01:07:08+00:00

photocurio wrote:
to return to the original post..

If you don't like king-making, In the Shadow of the Emperor is not for you. For most games, king making is an annoying flaw. Shadow of the Emperor specifically looks to king making as a mechanic, and does so in an interesting way. In your game (it looks like it was a pretty good game) this ended up as tie making. An exceptional game.

Tom and I have tied for the win before, too. I think these guys are great opponents. Every game we play is typically down to the wire. It's always a good challenge.

I'm not convinced that most money would be a good tie breaker. Money is simply action points. It would change the whole dynamic in the last round. But I'd happily try it out.

I would say that if one of the tied players happens to get elected Emperor at the end, that would be a likely tie-breaker. Otherwise, if neither of them are Emperor, then let the emperor break the tie like he always does.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

cannoneer — 2008-08-30T23:53:30+00:00

andylatto wrote:

I can't imagine configuring Mabiweb to obscure the scores, and not also agreeing not to reconstruct them from the game logs; what would be the point? Having them open has its advantages. Having them secret and agreeing not to reconstruct them has different advantages, for some people with some games. But having them secret and allowing reconstruction seems to combine the worst features of both.

Right but on Mabiweb you're playing a bunch of people you may or may not know and in any case you can't check up on them, so you can't know what they're doing. I would never assume my opponents were NOT reconstructing scores, money in hand (Amun-Re) or whatever. Even if they promised not to. I don't know these people from Adam, and competition does funny things to people's ethics, especially when they know they won't be caught.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

andylatto — 2008-08-30T23:33:37+00:00

andylatto wrote:
But if there's information that as a practical matter, none of the players are actually able to track, and the game plays better if there is some uncertainty about it...

I find few games in that category.

Assuming you mean that few games are in the category "not able to track the hidden information", you have a far better memory than I do. Can you actually track how much money everyone has in Power Grid, or High Society, for example, without it interfering with your ability to play the game well? I certainly can't.

I don't find such uncertainty interesting, just irritatingly distracting.
I think that whether the uncertainty makes a game more interesting is independent of the source of the uncertainty. Certainly there are games (bridge, for example) where the uncertainty about opponents' holdings is an intrinsic part of the game, which would be radically changed for the worse if this information were made public. As long as the hidden trackable information is sufficiently complex that it cannot be tracked reliably by any of the players involved, why is this intrinsically worse than uncertainty that comes from randomness?

There are games where hidden information is combined with intrinsically secret information, such as Titan and Settlers. Unless you have a perfect memory, you will have a better idea of opponents' holdings in such games if you write them down. Do you keep a record in such games? If not, why is the increased uncertainty in this case any less irritating than hidden trackable information?

The original context was a PBW game on Mabiweb. Mabiweb games can be configured to publish scores openly or to obscure them (they are reconstructable via logs). While I don't play online, my impression is that many/most games are informal pickup games. Unless there's a social protocol I'm unaware of, setting that option does not also say Don't look at the game logs and Don't keep mechanical track. It merely controls whether Mabiweb publicly reports the score summaries.

I can't imagine configuring Mabiweb to obscure the scores, and not also agreeing not to reconstruct them from the game logs; what would be the point? Having them open has its advantages. Having them secret and agreeing not to reconstruct them has different advantages, for some people with some games. But having them secret and allowing reconstruction seems to combine the worst features of both.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

photocurio — 2008-08-30T16:37:20+00:00

to return to the original post..

If you don't like king-making, In the Shadow of the Emperor is not for you. For most games, king making is an annoying flaw. Shadow of the Emperor specifically looks to king making as a mechanic, and does so in an interesting way. In your game (it looks like it was a pretty good game) this ended up as tie making. An exceptional game.

I'm not convinced that most money would be a good tie breaker. Money is simply action points. It would change the whole dynamic in the last round. But I'd happily try it out.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

clearclaw — 2008-08-30T15:45:44+00:00

andylatto wrote:
But if there's information that as a practical matter, none of the players are actually able to track, and the game plays better if there is some uncertainty about it...

I find few games in that category.

...why not introduce the uncertainty?

I don't find such uncertainty interesting, just irritatingly distracting.

My main point was that the response "If you keep the scores hidden, I'll just track them on paper" is silly; anyone who agrees to keep scores hidden will of course also agree to prohibit the keeping of paper records.

The original context was a PBW game on Mabiweb. Mabiweb games can be configured to publish scores openly or to obscure them (they are reconstructable via logs). While I don't play online, my impression is that many/most games are informal pickup games. Unless there's a social protocol I'm unaware of, setting that option does not also say Don't look at the game logs and Don't keep mechanical track. It merely controls whether Mabiweb publicly reports the score summaries.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

andylatto — 2008-08-30T14:51:40+00:00

Question: in tournament bridge, would you be permitted to arrange the unplayed cards in your own hand in such a way as to help you remember things? If I have 6 cards yet to play, there are 720 different ways to arrange them in order, so presumably I could store quite a bit of information.

I don't know. An expert-level bridge player of my acquaintance says that he has at times used the arrangements of the unplayed cards, not as a memory aid, but as a calculation aid. That is, when considering a line of play, to facilitate visualisation of the situation 8 tricks later, he has rearranged the cards in his hand to see what he would have left if he undertook that line. He is a scrupulous observer of both the letter and the spirit of the bridge rules, so he at least feels that this is legal. I don't know whether he would consider rearranging the cards as a memory aid to be legal; I'll ask him. As a practical matter, any bridge player serious enough about the game to devise such a memoy system would quickly reach the stage where memorization of what has been played was easy; the information to be memorized in bridge has so much structure that once one becomes good at the game, the memory challenges become much less significant.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

CortexBomb — 2008-08-30T14:30:26+00:00

I'm with Andy in terms of etiquette for games with hidden information. There is no way I would ever allow someone to keep paper records on a game in progress where the information was being concealed. Doing that would be breaking the social contract of the table. I think the reality is that J C would simply not play games with hidden but trackable information with people who wanted the information to stay hidden, that's fine. I simply can't imagine a group tolerating note-taking in a game where people had agreed to play with hidden information though, I, for one, would opt out of the game if the group was tolerating it despite the pre-game agreement to play with hidden information. This would extend to people taking notes on E&T scores, Power Grid money, or any of a number of other situations that this could apply to. This game, and those ones, specifically are meant to be played with hidden but trackable information closed. Unless the group explicitly agrees to change the way the game is being played, the requirement for mental only note taking should be respected.

In specific terms, I think many people are perfectly capable of tracking the information in ISdK, but that doesn't mean that most will, because it takes up valuable space that could be better used on other moves. If someone wants to spend the time tracking everything in their head, no problem, feel free, it definitely will give you an edge in the end game in terms of knowing who is where exactly. The score spread in this game is very tight though, and even being off by a single point in your mental calculation can completely change what you want to do. This is, I presume, exactly why the scores are meant to be hidden. The one time I played this online, I disliked the open score / no way to stop someone from tracking on paper even if it WAS hidden aspect of the game.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

Eric Brosius — 2008-08-30T14:25:17+00:00

andylatto wrote:
The rules of tournament bridge and tournament backgammon, for example, explicitly prohibit such record-keeping.

Question: in tournament bridge, would you be permitted to arrange the unplayed cards in your own hand in such a way as to help you remember things? If I have 6 cards yet to play, there are 720 different ways to arrange them in order, so presumably I could store quite a bit of information.

My guess is the answer should be no, but I haven't heard the issue discussed.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

Eric Brosius — 2008-08-30T14:22:56+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
andylatto wrote:
I've seen comments like this before, and I don't really understand them. You can play a game with hidden scoring, or you can play it with public scoring. If you choose to play it with hidden scoring, you would of course also make the rule that recording the scores with pencil and paper or other recording device is against the rules.

My general policy is to refuse to play games with hidden trackable information.

JC, I don't think Andy was disputing this. I think he was saying that if you're going to record the score, you may as well just play with the scoring cards face up so everyone can see them.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

andylatto — 2008-08-30T13:26:08+00:00

(I'm not clear on where hidden trackable information enters backgammon)

My error. While tournament backgammon does prohibit the use of pencil and paper other than to record the score, the result is not to limit memory to one's mental capabilities, but to limit calculation to one's ability at mental calculation.

They prohibit mechanical assistance. More specifically the rules of tournament bridge do not prohibit card counting or other memory devices, just mechanical assistance and interplayer-communication.

Absolutely. They prohibit keeping external records, not the use of one's memory.

Keeping track of 3 simple values across ~10 turns isn't that hard, it is merely (unnecessarily) laborious.

I agree that if keeping track of hidden trackable information is something the players are capable of, but find laborious, I'd prefer to play it open (though I'm more flexible than you, and willing to play it hidden if that's what my opponents prefer). For example, I prefer to play with the Castillo open in El Grande. But if there's information that as a practical matter, none of the players are actually able to track, and the game plays better if there is some uncertainty about it, I prefer to keep it hidden. As a matter of game design, it would be better if there was a mechanism other than memory to introduce the uncertainty, since if the only uncertainty is due to faulty memory, then the game can only be played under uncertainty among those with faulty memories. But while I consider this a flaw in a game, it's not necessarily a fatal flaw. If the game works better with the uncertainty, and there is in fact some uncertainty for all players, why not introduce the uncertainty?

Of course, memories differ, so the same game can fall into different categories for different people. I could not track the scores in In the Shadow of the Emperor without losing track of strategy and tactics in the game, so when playing with people like myself, I prefer to play with hidden scores (and a prohibition on keeping score records, of course). But if I were to play with someone who could mentally track all the scores, I would rather play with open scores; even if the game is better with some uncertainty about the scores, I think it would be worse to have such uncertainty for some players and not all.

My main point was that the response "If you keep the scores hidden, I'll just track them on paper" is silly; anyone who agrees to keep scores hidden will of course also agree to prohibit the keeping of paper records. You may prefer to keep the information open, and you may refuse to play with players with different preferences, or only agree to play if they abide by your personal preferences in the matter. But I assume that if you agreed to play in a game where the players had agreed on a "no paper records" rule, you wouldn't cheat and keep paper records anyway.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

Drew1365 — 2008-08-30T02:12:03+00:00

Man, Tom sure is taking his time. I hope he doesn't see this or I'll feel bad about having given it all away.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

clearclaw — 2008-08-30T01:37:07+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
I find your response completely and intentionally bogus. There is no way to specifically plan a close/tying endgame from the beginning move in ItSotE. You'd have a better chance predicting the trajectory of snot after a terrifying sneeze.

Nahh, you're looking for specifics. I don't think or plan in terms of specifics. Each player has a pattern of investments, minor and major. Those investments establish trade patterns in which one player trades control of one region for another and then that one back again or to another in future. The details can and will vary, but the domino pattern is quite clear. There's a domino pattern of time-skewed transitions. I look at that pattern and plan out how to be involved in it, setting up the dominoes so that they are always balanced during the course of the game but emerge to fall my way at the end. I don't bother with the individual areas, just the relationships among areas and investments, pushing the pattern of leaning dominoes to the pattern I want at just the last minute. That means that for most of the game I'm not playing to get a great score or great position or even directly to win, but rather to keep the other players ever so balanced until the end when they imbalance in my favour. Effectively the plan is not to win by my own direct actions, but to win because the other players make me win -- and that systemic view can be planned for and worked on from the first turn of the game.

A meta-pattern.

This is the same deal as managing the emegergent alliances in a game like Wabash Cannonball. There's no planning out the specifics, too much of the game rides on the single dollar differences of bids and dividends. Instead there's a pattern of investment, incentive and thus implied alliance -- and that can largely be planned and predicted and managed, not in detail but in broad swathe, and doing that well is the most wonderous heart of the game.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

Drew1365 — 2008-08-30T00:15:30+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
. . . I often specifically plan for them starting with the first move of the game.

Oh, you do not.

I absolutely do. Knowing that the game commonly ends in such close quarters of course I start planning as early as I can how to arrange that the other players will fall to my advantage when it comes to that point. I find that the most interesting aspect of the game.

I find your response completely and intentionally bogus. There is no way to specifically plan a close/tying endgame from the beginning move in ItSotE. You'd have a better chance predicting the trajectory of snot after a terrifying sneeze.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

clearclaw — 2008-08-30T00:05:51+00:00

andylatto wrote:
I've seen comments like this before, and I don't really understand them. You can play a game with hidden scoring, or you can play it with public scoring. If you choose to play it with hidden scoring, you would of course also make the rule that recording the scores with pencil and paper or other recording device is against the rules.

My general policy is to refuse to play games with hidden trackable information.

There would be no point in keeping the scoring hidden, but allowing record-keeping, since it would increase the tedium without achieving the goal of having some uncertainty about the scoring.

Nothing can prevent someone from tracking that wishes to. If they don't use paper and pencil or some other mechanical analogue (I've known players who track other player's resources in Settlers of Catan using the positional arrangements of the unbuilt roads, settlements and cities), they can use their own trained memories. Keeping track of 3 simple values across ~10 turns isn't that hard, it is merely (unnecessarily) laborious.

The rules of tournament bridge and tournament backgammon, for example, explicitly prohibit such record-keeping.

(I'm not clear on where hidden trackable information enters backgammon)

They prohibit mechanical assistance. More specifically the rules of tournament bridge do not prohibit card counting or other memory devices, just mechanical assistance and interplayer-communication.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

clearclaw — 2008-08-29T23:59:02+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
. . . I often specifically plan for them starting with the first move of the game.

Oh, you do not.

I absolutely do. Knowing that the game commonly ends in such close quarters of course I start planning as early as I can how to arrange that the other players will fall to my advantage when it comes to that point. I find that the most interesting aspect of the game.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

andylatto — 2008-08-29T23:56:32+00:00

Like many, I have a pencil and paper. There is no hidden scoring, and certainly in a case like this I'm certainly going to broadly publish the scores I've recorded if they are hidden.

I've seen comments like this before, and I don't really understand them. You can play a game with hidden scoring, or you can play it with public scoring. If you choose to play it with hidden scoring, you would of course also make the rule that recording the scores with pencil and paper or other recording device is against the rules. There would be no point in keeping the scoring hidden, but allowing record-keeping, since it would increase the tedium without achieving the goal of having some uncertainty about the scoring.

The rules of tournament bridge and tournament backgammon, for example, explicitly prohibit such record-keeping.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

Drew1365 — 2008-08-29T23:44:25+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
. . . I often specifically plan for them starting with the first move of the game.

Oh, you do not.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

The Barefoot Killer — 2008-08-29T23:38:03+00:00

vialiy wrote:
I don't mind about the lack of tiebreaking, but I agree with your comment on MaBiWeb, there should be a way to hide scoring, perhaps as an option.
There is that option.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

Drew1365 — 2008-08-29T23:37:30+00:00

vialiy wrote:
I don't see it.
Scott has a dominant choice: vote for Emperor.
Given that, Tom has to vote for Emperor too.
So Scott and Tom tie.
How is this someone "out of the running" choosing the winner?

In this particular game it's not the case, but I've been in situations like that, and I don't like having to choose who wins.

I don't mind about the lack of tiebreaking, but I agree with your comment on MaBiWeb, there should be a way to hide scoring, perhaps as an option.

And an agreement that no one would look back at the log.

Although I must admit to enjoying mathing these things out, too.

Thread: Re: The one weak spot in a fantastic game

clearclaw — 2008-08-29T23:19:05+00:00

vialiy wrote:
I don't mind about the lack of tiebreaking, but I agree with your comment on MaBiWeb, there should be a way to hide scoring, perhaps as an option.

Like many, I have a pencil and paper. There is no hidden scoring, and certainly in a case like this I'm certainly going to broadly publish the scores I've recorded if they are hidden.

Image

valar12 — 2008-08-10T23:22:36+00:00

Components to Power!

Image

valar12 — 2008-08-10T23:20:14+00:00

Bid Cards

Image

valar12 — 2008-08-10T23:17:57+00:00

Player Aids

Image

Oblivion — 2008-05-06T15:20:13+00:00

Shadow of the Emperor - Unpunched tokens

Image

cobalto — 2008-02-08T09:37:01+00:00

Playing in Germany

Image

Ladislaus — 2007-11-04T13:32:42+00:00

In the Shadow of the Emperor components (close-up of green and yellow pieces)

Image

Ladislaus — 2007-11-04T13:31:08+00:00

In the Shadow of the Emperor components

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-10-22T19:06:55+00:00

The Promotion card. Because the knight is in an aristocrat space, the red player could use the card to promote the knight to a baron.