Dan Rosewater
Switzerland
Zürich
-
There are already some hardcore gamers who pretend to have "solved" Stone Age. The superior strategy is starvation. Yes, you lose 10 VP if you don't feed your workers, but then those players claim that using all workers for getting resources instead some of them for food will get you much more VP than other players that do feed their workers. It really seems that at the end of the game, players that use a starvation strategy will get between 170 and 240 VP (depending on dice rolls and of course available spaces for resource collecting, assuming that other players try to feed their workers and do not block resources). This seems more than with a mixed strategy. Kind of sad, that the rules (at least the German ones) allow this and don't force players to use also resources to get food units (this only optional due to German rules).
-
Ubergeek
United States
Camas
Washington
-
So what would happen if 4 experienced players all adopted the starvation strategy?
-
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
That guy
-
170-240 is hardly a guaranteed winning score. I've not seen a starvation strategy attempted yet, however the games I've played have seen winning scores mostly in the 200s and even into the 300s.
Perhaps it is a viable strategy to try, but if the scores are topping out in the mid 200s I don't see it being dominant.
-MMM
-
Dan Rosewater
Switzerland
Zürich
-
In my first game I had about 120 VP. Therefore I thought 240 VP must be a great score... so I didn't try this strategy on my own either.
Just wanted to know your opinion (from already experienced players) if this seems a viable strategy. Not talking about the fact that meeples that are not feeded would be condemned starving to death and not losing any VP 
walt mulder wrote: So what would happen if 4 experienced players all adopted the starvation strategy?
In normal play the single spaces on farming, tools and the huts (2 spaces) are taken first, as they are important.
In a 4 player "starvation" game theese wouldn't be taken that often (however tool ans mor workers are still useful) but the resource spaces (7 each). So being the first player will become very important, so that you get the place you want.
Saying that, it would have been nice, if there was a place on the board, where players could place a meeple to be first player (as known from Caylus or similar). Well, if 4 players go for this strategy there will be a shortage of recource spaces as well as the resources itself. If this is still any fun has to be proven. I am sceptical about it.
I agree that this strategy ruins a bit the game as it was not intended by the author.
-
Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
For the second time in five years, the G-Men are Super Bowl champs! Woo hoo!!!!!
-
Dan, I think those players you describe are yet another set of victims of the dreaded "Gathering Rules Syndrome". The rules in the box for Stone Age say that if a player lacks food counters to feed his people, he must lose a resource counter for each food he is short (and eating wood is surely less efficient than eating food). If the player has insufficient resources to lose, he then loses 10 VPs per unfed worker. That, my friend, is not a winning strategy to this game. However, this is certainly not the first, and won't be the last, group to have screwed up the rules to a new game at the Gathering.
-
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
That guy
-
Discussing the idea some, there is at least some merit to the strategy from a purely mathematical standpoint. I'll paraphrase (most of it coming from fellow BGGer LemonyFresh)
Food is essentially converted to 10 points per turn if you spend n per round, n being the number of people in your tribe.
If you convert this into pips you see that with a tribe of 5, 10 pips becomes 10 points, or one point per pip - same rate as any other resource. As n increases, the ratio becomes less favorable.
The counter argument is that you can have a higher unused remainder, and thus more unused pips, on the other resources. Resources also require an additional worker placement to be converted into points, either via a card or building, to realize their full value.
So the question is whether or not the other players can hinder a starvation player enough so that he isn't able to convert the extra workers into enough points to make up for the 10 lost per turn.
-MMM
-
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
That guy
-
Larry Levy wrote: Dan, I think those players you describe are yet another set of victims of the dreaded "Gathering Rules Syndrome". The rules in the box for Stone Age say that if a player lacks food counters to feed his people, he must lose a resource counter for each food he is short (and eating wood is surely less efficient than eating food). If the player has insufficient resources to lose, he then loses 10 VPs per unfed worker. That, my friend, is not a winning strategy to this game. However, this is certainly not the first, and won't be the last, group to have screwed up the rules to a new game at the Gathering.
Larry, the rules in the Rio Grande version explicitly say a player may, if he wants to, discard resources to make up for the missing food, and further say that the penalty is a flat 10VP if the player cannot or does not want to to feed his tribe.
I learned the same rules you quote above, but it seems that those are the victims of GRS.
-MMM
-
Dan Rosewater
Switzerland
Zürich
-
Larry Levy wrote: The rules in the box for Stone Age say that if a player lacks food counters to feed his people, he must lose a resource counter for each food he is short. If the player has insufficient resources to lose, he then loses 10 VPs per unfed worker.
(bold added by me to emphasize)
Larry I am under the strong impression that you talk about American rules (RGG), as the German rules do firstly not force you to use resources as substitute for food (it's optional) and secondly the 10 VP lost are per turn not per worker.
IF RGG changed to rules as you described them, then of course a starving strategy wouldn't be possible anymore. As I learned from BGN Jay from RGG wants also to start the game with only 12 food units instead of 15 as the German edition does. This would be a more realistic rules approach than the German edition, I agree. But then, digging for gold in Stone age is not realistic (historical correct) either.
-
Anthony Rubbo
United States
Philadelphia
PA
-
Goodsound wrote: As I learned from BGN Jay from RGG wants also to start the game with only 12 food units instead of 15 as the German edition does.
The German rules as posted here list 12 food to start:
http://www.schmidtspiele.de/fileadmin/thumbnails/Stone_Age48...
-
Dan Rosewater
Switzerland
Zürich
-
LemonyFresh wrote:
That's correct. 15 units was only in the pre-release rules (the ones I played with). It seems that this was downgraded to 12 food also in the final German edition. So please ignore my above statement about this change.
-
Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
For the second time in five years, the G-Men are Super Bowl champs! Woo hoo!!!!!
-
Goodsound wrote: Larry I am under the strong impression that you talk about American rules (RGG), as the German rules do firstly not force you to use resources as substitute for food (it's optional) and secondly the 10 VP lost are per turn not per worker.
Actually, I think it's the opposite, Dan. The rules I quoted come from Ekted's translation of the German rules. I just looked at the rules posted on the RGG site and they do indeed state that the penalty is 10 VPs per turn.
So we have several possibilities:
1) Ekted mistranslated the rules;
2) Jay mistranslated the rules;
3) Jay changed the rules, to make the game friendlier, not realizing that he was promoting a starvation strategy;
4) Jay changed the rules, because he wants to include the possibility of a starvation strategy.
I have no idea which is true. Until this is resolved, I'll probably play with Ekted's translation, since it seems to make for a better and less perverse game.
By the way, my first reaction to this post was the same as Walt's: what if several players are trying this? Won't the resource spaces, particularly the cheap ones, get awfully crowded? Hunting for food and avoiding the 10 VP penalty might be the proper play in those instances. But I still think the game plays better if the players are kicked in the head when they're short of food, instead of getting slapped on the wrist.
-
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
-
Larry Levy wrote: 1) Ekted mistranslated the rules;
Very possible. I don't speak German. I use Babelfish/Google/dict.cc, common sense, and sometimes I poke melissa for a phrase or two. If anyone can confirm either 1) that I mistranslated the original German, or that 2) the English rules are supposed to be different from the German ones, then I can make a correction.
I just rechecked the Babelfish/Google translation of the text for feeding your people. I'm certain that the use of other resources is optional, and that it's a flat 10VP if you are underfed, in the German text. Perhaps Jay changed some things since the GoF?
-
Anthony Rubbo
United States
Philadelphia
PA
-
The Online English, Paper English, and Online German versions are all precisely consistent in their handling of this issue.
As Matthew noted above, it is a flat 10 point penalty, and you are not required to pay resources.
Whether pre-publication was different, I have no knowledge, but it seems pretty clear that this was the intended publication release in German and English.
As for whose decision it was to have this be the rule, whether it was intended as a possible strategy, or if it's a problem as-is - I cannot speak to those at this time. But it does seem thematically odd to me to include starvation as a viable strategy!
-
-
I think that what'd be more likely seen is a casualness to feeding that would lead most players to forego feeding the tribe for a few rounds each game.
And while it doesn't directly address the viability of a stavation strategy, I think that a small tweak would introduce a more thematic and more costly penalty to neglecting your tribe.
Quote: If a player does not have sufficient food to feed his people, then:
He must place all food that he has back into the supply. Then, he may, if he wants to (and can), pay
the remainder in the form of any resources into the supply. Each resource replaces 1 food. Thus, his
people are also content as they were able exchange the resources for food). If the player cannot or
does not want to do this, he places one member of his tribe to the side of his board for every food
or resource he is short. He may return any or all of them to his availible supply by feeding them
during the end of any subsequent round.
Now let's see someone not feed thier tribe. 
-
Curt Carpenter
United States
Washington
-
It's mathematically a wash if you have 5 people to feed (10 pips=10 points). If you have more than 5 people, you're better off not feeding. However, this is precisely why farming is superior, because it can reduce your food bill to net under 5 people. Of course the cost of going to the farm is avg 3.5 pips, so doing so to save two is rarely worth it on the last turn or two of the game.
-
Anthony Rubbo
United States
Philadelphia
PA
-
'Just finished a 3-player. I did the no food strategy. I tied with the player who went 8 farms, and lost on tiebreak.
-
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
That guy
-
LemonyFresh wrote: 'Just finished a 3-player. I did the no food strategy. I tied with the player who went 8 farms, and lost on tiebreak.
So there is at least evidence that it is competitive. The question remains on whether it is dominant.
What were the perspectives at the table about the effectiveness of the strategy? Did you tell them ahead of time that you were going to try it?
-MMM
-
Chaddyboy
United States
Olathe
Kansas
Bloooooop.
Bluuuuuurp.
-
Octavian wrote: I've not seen a starvation strategy attempted yet, however the games I've played have seen winning scores mostly in the 200s and even into the 300s.
Holy crap! In the games I played/observed, a winning score was upper 100's.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
Does it matter that food is supposed to go negative, and doesn't stop at zero?
Richard Breese wrote:
I had exactly the same query and referred this to HiG, they confirmed:
Also, you can go negative if you suffer a food shortage. You don't stop a zero.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/300491
-
Curt Carpenter
United States
Washington
-
That sounds like points can go negative, not food.
-
Anthony Rubbo
United States
Philadelphia
PA
-
Octavian wrote: LemonyFresh wrote: 'Just finished a 3-player. I did the no food strategy. I tied with the player who went 8 farms, and lost on tiebreak. So there is at least evidence that it is competitive. The question remains on whether it is dominant. What were the perspectives at the table about the effectiveness of the strategy? Did you tell them ahead of time that you were going to try it? -MMM
It became apparent very quickly that's was what I was going for.
I didn't track all the luck swings through the game, but, at the end of the game there were 6 cards left in the civ deck, 5 of which were points-for-tools, and I had 8 tools at the end of the game, so that may have factored a little in holding me back. But I did get all 8 techs.
Dominance is a very good question. The catch is that food and farms are worthless to you, so you're giving free farms to others, which are essentially free, instantly convertible VPs each turn.
Seems extremely viable, tho.
-
Lucas Hedgren
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
-
A note about the point totals: Comparing absolute values across games is fairly meaningless, as the number of turns in the game is variable, and variable by quite a bit depending on the players actions. Wins or points per turn are much more valuable metrics for determining this, or any, strategy's efficacy.
-
Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
For the second time in five years, the G-Men are Super Bowl champs! Woo hoo!!!!!
-
boomtron wrote: A note about the point totals: Comparing absolute values across games is fairly meaningless, as the number of turns in the game is variable, and variable by quite a bit depending on the players actions. Wins or points per turn are much more valuable metrics for determining this, or any, strategy's efficacy.
I completely agree, Lucas. The final scores depend a great deal on the table's groupthink and playing style; for example, whether players go for cards or tiles. The object is to score one more point than anyone else. A game score is not really an effective way of judging the worth of a strategy, at least not in this game.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
curtc wrote: That sounds like points can go negative, not food.
Ah, yes. That's rather likely.
[emily]
Never mind.
[/emily]
-
-
In the Czech version of the game the rules were modified in advance, due to this possible weakness of the game.
1. You must give up all the remaining food
2. You may change resources for food 1:1
3. All remaining missing food must be paid by VPs in ratio 4VPs per missing food (you can also go into minus values).
I think this rule change can really prevent the starvation strategy mentioned above.
-
|
|
