|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 9, 2017 10:43:00 GMT
I won on scenario with Rhyas1 in one of my first SR2017 games. Just saying. We'll post the whole report! Love to hear about it and see what your tactics are! Step 1: Kill everything. Step 2: Understand that I'll never catch Issyria and win on scenario instead. Save
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 9, 2017 12:23:12 GMT
I'm just going to add a notch for greytemplar and continue like this. Most of his arguments sounds like someone who hasn't played much SR 2017. In my 10 or so games, the depth of strategy has dramatically increased. No longer am I forced to run into the maw of my opponent's army because I will lose on scenario if I don't. My opponent can score a few points and I can still claw back a win by attrition. The games often involve multiple flanks that each require tactical thought to work on. At the very least the depth is equal between 16 and 17, but in my opinion it is greater. It is absolutely not as simple as mashing things together in the middle. I am hearing lots of people on podcasts with similar negative feelings (just finished the last chain attack, for example) but then go on to say they've played 0-2 games. I know what it looks like on face, and I have had the same thoughts. But I got out there and played games, and it turns out scenario is much more live than it seems. It isn't always, but it certainly matters more than many people make it out to matter. I have played around 30 games with SR17, so I'm not coming from a position of nativity about how SR17 actually plays out. It may have the illusion of being live because you are actively scoring. But unless those points are actually contributing towards a scenario victory(IE: ending the game due to points scored) then its meaningless. Unless its possible to consistently score scenario victories when both players are competent then the scenario is actually dead. As it is, scoring points is just pointless busywork because its far too hard to gain a lead that actually will result in a victory before the game ends. So yes, you are just mashing stuff together in the middle to little actual effect. PP has just fooled lots of people into thinking there is stuff going on because you are scoring 1-2 points a turn. But because both players are doing that and the scoring system is what it is, it ends up being nothing of import. Just going back and forth till either one person gets assassinated or the turn limit ends. There is no decisive scenario victory unless one player just gets totally wiped out. Which is bad because that is a complete loss of a victory path that existed before, but doesn't anymore. I don't necessarily have a problem with them wanting to make combat in the middle of the table or assassination a bigger part of the game than it was previously. But totally destroying how the game was played before is not the answer. They've completely overreacted, in typical PP fashion. Instead of finding a nice compromise where maybe you would raise the points necessary to win the game from 5 to maybe 6 or 7, which was the format the game was most balanced around, they've decided to reinvent the wheel and throw out everything they and we worked hard on the last 10 years with Steamroller. There were many choices they could make to improve Steamroller. They choose the worst option. First, that's good to know. Maybe my experience will match yours when I get more games in. Second, I don't agree that scoring points is pointless unless you actually win by them - in 2016 this is true, it's actually not in 2017 because there will be a scenario end if no one is assassinated or clocked. This means that people must pay some attention to points scored throughout the game, and is a new path to victory that replaces the race to five. As the game goes on thescore.becomes more.and.more.important, and can force people into moves the same way the current set of scenarios does on turn 2 or 3, and that is relevant even if no one wins on scenario. Third, I disagree with your generalization that if you aren't playing for scenario because it is dead you are just mashing things in the middle. This is a serious reduction and completely ignores all the tactical depth of out playing your opponent in the attrition battle. Sure you might not find that part particularly fun for you, but you can't just dismiss the tactics that play out on the board during the attrition battle. Target prioritization, positioning, and containing what you can't kill are all things you have to do as part of the attrition side, and all require you to think tactically. Again, just because it's not the fun part for you doesn't mean it doesn't have tactical depth. Fourth, I don't quite agree that everything will be a version of Khador, but I don't fully disagree either. New tactics are needed in an environment where a big scoring turn is less valuable, and Khador has innate strength in the durability department. As the 2017 meta shakes out, we will see what rises to the top. Khador will certainly have a place, I just don't think it will be as dominant as you do.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on May 9, 2017 15:53:22 GMT
No, being ahead at the end of the game is not a scenario victory. its a victory by tiebreaker. I personally like attrition games, but I want there to be a point to the attrition. I want to attrition my enemy down and then decisively win on scenario. I don't want a lame conclusion like coming to the 7 turn limit and then winning on tie breakers. That's not really a win. As for Khador not being dominant. The problem is that even if I am only half right, the game will be in a seriously bad position. No, I disagree. But the question is of course what remains a factions core Identity. So many factions just lost their identity in the MKIII transition. I find that a dubious remark. What were these identities and what did they lose? Protectorate players keep whining about their denial, while ignoring that their denial is still there and awesome. Keep saying that Protectorate still has denial. It doesn't make it true. We lost almost of our important and useful denial in mk2. Which is sad, because giving our denial back would actually make us competitive in this new crappy Steamroller.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on May 9, 2017 16:12:42 GMT
We'll post the whole report! Love to hear about it and see what your tactics are! Step 1: Kill everything. Step 2: Understand that I'll never catch Issyria and win on scenario instead. SaveSo you won on attrition.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 9, 2017 17:35:43 GMT
Step 1: Kill everything. Step 2: Understand that I'll never catch Issyria and win on scenario instead. SaveSo you won on attrition. There is no condition called "win by attrition". Also there was no attrition. I killed the whole army by turn 4.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 9, 2017 18:41:28 GMT
There is no condition called "win by attrition". Also there was no attrition. I killed the whole army by turn 4. Snarkiness doesn't help make your point validated "Attrition: : the act of weakening or exhausting by constant harassment, abuse, or attack a war of attrition" straight from Websters it took you multiple turns of harassment/attacking therefore you won the battle of attrition by English definition
|
|
|
Post by gnoxic on May 9, 2017 19:12:19 GMT
If behavior changes in a competitive game due to the scenario, the scenario is relevant. If it becomes a popular strategy to rush forward to grab a CP, then try to deny until turn 7, I would call that a "scenario-focused" strategy, not a "tie-breaker" strategy. If it's not a strategy PP should be encouraging/ not enjoyable, that's another story, but to me the point of having a scenario is just to encourage engagement with the board and not allow a player to stand back with a gunline and do nothing. If gunlines are still too strong, maybe there's something else that should be done to fix that.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 9, 2017 21:33:00 GMT
No, being ahead at the end of the game is not a scenario victory. its a victory by tiebreaker. I personally like attrition games, but I want there to be a point to the attrition. I want to attrition my enemy down and then decisively win on scenario. I don't want a lame conclusion like coming to the 7 turn limit and then winning on tie breakers. That's not really a win. As for Khador not being dominant. The problem is that even if I am only half right, the game will be in a seriously bad position. I find that a dubious remark. What were these identities and what did they lose? Protectorate players keep whining about their denial, while ignoring that their denial is still there and awesome. Keep saying that Protectorate still has denial. It doesn't make it true. We lost almost of our important and useful denial in mk2. Which is sad, because giving our denial back would actually make us competitive in this new crappy Steamroller. Yeah, the dumb parts of your denial was dialled back, but when oracular vision is a field marshal, you still have passage and warding, you still have enliven on a cheap support model and a lot of your casters have defensive tempo feats you really can't say that you lost your denial. You are in denial about your denial.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on May 9, 2017 21:35:24 GMT
Not on topic guys, please don't start fighting about menoth
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on May 9, 2017 21:50:15 GMT
Not on topic guys, please don't start fighting about menoth Yeah calm down. Saltiness about the protectorate goes in the Protectorate forums where it can mined and exported for profit. Stop undercutting our market.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on May 9, 2017 22:26:14 GMT
First, that's good to know. Maybe my experience will match yours when I get more games in. Second, I don't agree that scoring points is pointless unless you actually win by them - in 2016 this is true, it's actually not in 2017 because there will be a scenario end if no one is assassinated or clocked. This means that people must pay some attention to points scored throughout the game, and is a new path to victory that replaces the race to five. As the game goes on thescore.becomes more.and.more.important, and can force people into moves the same way the current set of scenarios does on turn 2 or 3, and that is relevant even if no one wins on scenario. Third, I disagree with your generalization that if you aren't playing for scenario because it is dead you are just mashing things in the middle. This is a serious reduction and completely ignores all the tactical depth of out playing your opponent in the attrition battle. Sure you might not find that part particularly fun for you, but you can't just dismiss the tactics that play out on the board during the attrition battle. Target prioritization, positioning, and containing what you can't kill are all things you have to do as part of the attrition side, and all require you to think tactically. Again, just because it's not the fun part for you doesn't mean it doesn't have tactical depth. 1: IME, I've never felt under pressure to get control points to the point where I was changing my plans or passing up opportunities to grind, and neither has any opponent I've talked to on the matter. There was one time like the supposed "scenario win" described above when I'd pretty much won on attrition, but their caster was hard to get to, so hey, better move over here on this mostly-empty board and get some CP in case this drags all the way out. Very much an afterthought. 2: Thing was, we could have attrition lists and attrition battles just fine in SR16. Target prioritization, positioning, and containing, all were there before and they could win you games just fine. Claiming the SR16 scenarios encouraged non-interactive scenario wins is revisionist history, it was a handful of control casters who did that, who have since been reined in.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 10, 2017 0:13:47 GMT
First, that's good to know. Maybe my experience will match yours when I get more games in. Second, I don't agree that scoring points is pointless unless you actually win by them - in 2016 this is true, it's actually not in 2017 because there will be a scenario end if no one is assassinated or clocked. This means that people must pay some attention to points scored throughout the game, and is a new path to victory that replaces the race to five. As the game goes on thescore.becomes more.and.more.important, and can force people into moves the same way the current set of scenarios does on turn 2 or 3, and that is relevant even if no one wins on scenario. Third, I disagree with your generalization that if you aren't playing for scenario because it is dead you are just mashing things in the middle. This is a serious reduction and completely ignores all the tactical depth of out playing your opponent in the attrition battle. Sure you might not find that part particularly fun for you, but you can't just dismiss the tactics that play out on the board during the attrition battle. Target prioritization, positioning, and containing what you can't kill are all things you have to do as part of the attrition side, and all require you to think tactically. Again, just because it's not the fun part for you doesn't mean it doesn't have tactical depth. 1: IME, I've never felt under pressure to get control points to the point where I was changing my plans or passing up opportunities to grind, and neither has any opponent I've talked to on the matter. There was one time like the supposed "scenario win" described above when I'd pretty much won on attrition, but their caster was hard to get to, so hey, better move over here on this mostly-empty board and get some CP in case this drags all the way out. Very much an afterthought. 2: Thing was, we could have attrition lists and attrition battles just fine in SR16. Target prioritization, positioning, and containing, all were there before and they could win you games just fine. Claiming the SR16 scenarios encouraged non-interactive scenario wins is revisionist history, it was a handful of control casters who did that, who have since been reined in. Re:2 You're right, that would be revisionist history, which is why I am not arguing that. I'm saying that SR 2017 has it as well, and to claim otherwise is incorrect. In fact, that part is more emphasized now because you can't win quickly on scenario. You need to use more attrition based strategies to eventually score a scenario victory.
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on May 10, 2017 7:34:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on May 11, 2017 11:31:40 GMT
Re:2 You're right, that would be revisionist history, which is why I am not arguing that. I'm saying that SR 2017 has it as well, and to claim otherwise is incorrect. In fact, that part is more emphasized now because you can't win quickly on scenario. You need to use more attrition based strategies to eventually score a scenario victory. Nobody's arguing that scenario wins aren't possible. But IME, scenario as an alternative to attrition (or even scenario as a way to force your opponent to commit or make unfavourable trades) seems to have largely gone away. It seems that in nearly every case, CP wins happen after the grind has been more-or-less decided. Including most of the supposed "scenario wins" people have posted here. And everyone being forced to grind would be 100% fine if all factions had Khador levels of ARM-and-boxes-per-point. They don't.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on May 11, 2017 11:35:52 GMT
Seems to be typical sr 2016 game. tl;dr sr 2017 can't come soon enough. I like my wargame being about two armies beating each other to death, things dying and stuffs actually happening. Even if it will be broken unbalanced stuff, at least they would be more exciting. Oh, and just quoting this to show that some people are claiming funny things about SR16.
|
|