Re: ME-PBM Review

From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM>

Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0000

In article <3qic1m$m4d@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>,
Dennis DeYoung <dcd@nasa.kodak.com> wrote:
>I just finished reading B.E.Wright's review of ME-PBM.
>Thanks for posting it Rich (ricmal@delphi.com).
>
... I missed B.E.Wright's review, but that's ok as I'm really more
interesting in following some of the discussion it triggered than
in the original ...

On initial positions - because of information sharing, and the tremendous
advantage of the shared info, I wish GSI would give all players a list
of all initial popcenters (except 'hidden' ones), not just the ones
on a player's map.  That would help the newbie's a lot.  The rest of us
already have this info.

>
>B.E. also complained that the game isn't balanced and he stated the
>41/15 ratio of Dark Servant wins to Free People wins.  I think this
>ratio has even out a lot since B.E. played.  Most vets now agree that
>the FP have a distinct advantage over the DS.  I agree- I have yet to
>play a DS but have only lost once as a FP.  It just took time for
>everyone to figure out how to use the strengths of the FP, while the
>strengths of the DS are readily apparent thus leading to many early
>DS wins.
>
For the 1650 game, I believe current results indicate a fair balance between
the DS and FP.  The critical change came somewhat over a year ago when agent
orders became harder, reducing the DS agent advantage.

I'm not convinced that the FP 'advantage' is that large.  Strongly
coordinated character play by the DS and aggressive use of raiding armies
can defeat the FPs (or at least we did in my last 1650 game).
The way the neutrals go can easily swing any imbalance in initial starting
advantages.  I also have seen playing skill frequently overcome an supposed
disadvantage.

I will admit that I have no experience in an individual game, so that may be
different.  But I would argue that in that game, the variation in teammate
playing skill is even greater and more likely to affect the final outcome.

Although it is too early to have many results for the 2950 game, I believe
the same to hold true for that game as well.

On the degree of cut-throat play, that depends strongly on which teammates
you end up with.  The game has the potential to be cut-throat, but it is not
required to be that way.

While I have never been savaged by a team member, I have heard stories about
all sorts of double-crosses.  The game design does encourage intra-team
hostilities, and if you are playing with "individual win over team win"-type
players, you will see some double crosses, especially when it appears your
team is winning.  This action can even happen in a grudge game.  Double
crosses can allow the other side to go from a losing situation to winning
the game.  On the other hand, the more experienced players tend to realize
the negative effects of attacking a teammate.  I even know of a cas where
Players A,B,C, and D are on the same team, and A takes hostile action
against B during the middle game.  Following that, C and D agree to
eliminate A, simply because he cannot be trusted to be a team player, even
though they are not close allies with B.  Then they get back to fighting the
other side.  Neutrals on the other hand have a much tougher position to
play.  If you are not interested in personal diplomacy and negotiating with
the two sides, I would not recommend playing a neutral.

Other opinions are welcome.  My experience has been limited to a couple of
games, plus reading all the issues of the Mouth of Sauron, and hearing about
several other games that friends have played.

- Patrick McGehearty
patrick@convex.com

References

Re: ME-PBM Review
dcd@nasa.kodak.com (Dennis DeYoung)
Wed, 31 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: ME-PBM Review
dcd@nasa.kodak.com (Dennis DeYoung)
Wed, 31 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000