by Shirtripper
CapNClassic wrote:
Shirtripper wrote:
Since this is the only thing you pulled from my last post I am going to assume that you either agree, or at the very least comprehend everything else I wrote.
No, my basis is the rules of the game, since it says you cannot do that. I am just expanding on the reasons I would want to uphold the rules.
CapNClassic wrote:
Shirtripper wrote:
Your basis for supporting "playing by the rules," is that if it removes any chances of mistakes, in your next point you argue that it makes you more likely to make mistakes to your advantage. So, which is it? I am sure even you can see that holding both of these points to be true is logically inconsistent.
No, it is logically consistent if you keep in mind how the game is played. Your turn is broken up into different phases, and maybe not really keeping that in mind is part of the reason you cannot seem to grips why some of us would be against breaking the rules of the game to do so.
Eliminating the errors in expansion by breaking the rules and expanding before you place recruitment eliminates errors, in a way the game never intended. This is because you are in your recruitment phase, and you are already expanding by placing troops on the board( I will get to your pennies/pebbles in a min). It is circumventing what Stu called the tough decisions. Maybe I should actually write out an example of what I am talking about so you have a clearer understand. Anywho, the elimination of errors would happen during this part of your turn.
Then comes your placement/expansion phase. Well if you've already put X number of troops on the board and just start filling in your expansions this could cause mistakes to your favor, like everyone forgetting one of those spaces had a minor city and you didn't lose a troop to that pop, or what have you.
Now as for your pennies and pebbles, the second point which I hate to break to you is logical and consistent would be less problematic, and I have said that before. I do feel it still decreases the chances of mistakes in general which if the game where just played correctly and by the rules, wouldn't happen.
CapNClassic wrote:
Shirtripper wrote:
Second, this makes for a much stronger chance of mistakes that will benefit the player. For example he puts a place holder in a territory with a city, but once he actually does his expansion he forgets to lose a troop to that city pop. Things like that would happen much more frequently than if they played properly.
I don't think it is superior, the fact that it is not is why it gives the player using place holers and unbalance advantage. It is harder to just count, hence the "dumbing down" comment. Though I would imagine it would make the game faster if you just counted instead of putting stuff on the board and then took stuff off the board and all that silliness.
CapNClassic wrote:
Shirtripper wrote:
The rules don't mention going to the bathroom, or answering texts, or getting a beer. Are these people incapable of paying attention to the game, thereby giving the active player an advantage when he makes mistakes? (What precludes them from asking when they return their attention to the game, "Did you remember to lose 2 troops to that major city?" You argue that there are no chances for mistakes, but simultaneously dismiss all those players taking actions outside the rules of the game that give advantage to other players by not paying attention.)
Again the as you put it no chances for mistakes would be in a different part of the players turn. And speaking of the rules while it doesn't mention any of the above, it also doesn't mention allowing players to put place holders of any kind on the board to help you plan out your next turn. Sounds like you are cherry picking what you want from the rules and what you care to ignore. Now that I would consider being logically inconsistent but I am not the type of person to lower myself to such levels:)
And what precludes them from asking is the same thing, that makes playing the game out of order a bad idea, humans aren't perfect. They forget, things slip their mind, they may be enjoying that beer more than counting if the guy lost those two troops to that major city. But if that player expanded normally the chances of that going unnoticed would be greatly reduced.
CapNClassic wrote:
Shirtripper wrote:
It just doesn't make any sense. Stu Holttm's comments don't make it any more reasonable.How exactly are you skipping the decisions about where to expand to, by placing troops/pebbles in territories that you plan on expanding into? It would seem to me, that if you are formulating a plan on the board, or in your head, it would require making decisions about where to place troops. How does placing the troops on the board, magically remove the decision making process?
I fundamentally disagree with your whole "argument." I would prefer to beat other players by superior play, than by capitalizing on their mistakes, just because they used a different method of planning their strategy. You are of course free to allow or not allow whatever you want in your own games, just as you are free to hold multiple contradictory explanations for why you don't allow it.
Stu Holttum wrote:
Ummmm.....tricky.
On balance, I'd probably say not. You have to be careful with expansions as to how many troops you push along each front (Saharans less so!), so I'd be against it more because he would be "skipping" those decisions.
Like you said - expanding while reinforcing "helps him keep track of his plans". I think that's the point - when you move armies along a route, at each territory you have to think "how many do I move"? Playing the way he did takes that tough decision away.
On balance, I'd probably say not. You have to be careful with expansions as to how many troops you push along each front (Saharans less so!), so I'd be against it more because he would be "skipping" those decisions.
Like you said - expanding while reinforcing "helps him keep track of his plans". I think that's the point - when you move armies along a route, at each territory you have to think "how many do I move"? Playing the way he did takes that tough decision away.
I fundamentally disagree with your whole "argument." I would prefer to beat other players by superior play, than by capitalizing on their mistakes, just because they used a different method of planning their strategy. You are of course free to allow or not allow whatever you want in your own games, just as you are free to hold multiple contradictory explanations for why you don't allow it.
*Shakes head* So you are saying you are in agreement that a player shouldn't put place holders on the board? I mean, that is what I take away from this statement,"I would prefer to beat other players by superior play, than by capitalizing on their mistakes, just because they used a different method of planning their strategy."
Well if you want to beat them by superior play, and not capitalizing on their mistakes because they are playing the game the way the rules say, then you will play the game correctly and not give yourself an advantage while giving them a disadvantage when they play as intended.
mistereaston wrote:
You sir, are admireably reasonable considering the direction the discussion was going. I'm not saying - per say - that I would react the same to a player deploying units in unoccopied territories while reinforcing, but your calmness and self-criticism are to be commended. Not much to give, but have some geek gold for that!
I respectfully disagree. Anyone who writes something like this,
CapNClassic wrote:
1)Huh? It is game breaking to eliminate the chance if error. "Mommy, Billy is cheating again. He is counting on his fingers again while touching the board. He has an advantage too, because of his six fingers on his left hand."