anyway.
A Penny for Your Thoughts
2007-01-07
: Mechaton campaign: defeat in orbit
Last night the glorious cause of Tarkut prevailance suffered a setback so devastating that it will be difficult for me to put it to words.
Tragically, soon after the final reports came down from orbit, the Minister of Glorious Prevailance and his aide together suffered a fatal hacksaw, pistol, old tire and gasoline accident.
As of this morning we have a new Minister of Glorious Prevailance.
Don't get too attached.
edit: I've posted my full report.
1. On 2007-01-07, ScottM wrote:
|
It sounds like a tragic end for a glorious leader. What happened in the battle? |
2. On 2007-01-08, Vincent wrote:
|
Oog. I'll post a report and pictures later this week. Emily or Joshua might post one sooner, maybe. Meanwhile, final scores, ready? Emily 42, J 40, me 12. It was like... it was like if someone was grinding up a cheap steak with a meat grinder, and a mean dog was chewing on the other end. |
3. On 2007-01-08, James_Nostack wrote:
|
The people wail for the loss of the minister! And most especially the aide. There are rumormongers in the sukh, already telling many lies. Who is to be blamed for this defeat? The pilots? The strategists? The engineers? Or is it simply the will of the Almighty, testing the people? |
4. On 2007-01-08, Vincent wrote:
|
Nothing so mysterious. When the fierce, free, homeland-loving wolf gets caught in cowardly traps and murdered by cowardly hunters, do you blame the wolf? No! The hated Rasili and the treacherous "Paktalists" are to blame. Curse them! Curse their very names! |
5. On 2007-01-09, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
|
There is no word in Tarkut for "defeat." (Of course, there is no word in Tarkut for "painful genital itching" either, yet the phenomenon is distressingly common). The proper translation of this thread title "Mechaton campaign: defeat in orbit" would, in fact, be "Mechaton campaign: gloriously unexpected gift of an additional interim step towards glorious victory, in orbit." |
6. On 2007-01-09, NinJ wrote:
|
I really like the way scoring works in this game. On a strategic level, I can say, "I'm willing to lose the special objective here just to get Vincent trailing." Like, it pushes interesting decisions on you. I haven't had time for hyperbole. Tomorrow, maybe I'll write some. I gotta get pics from Em, though. |
7. On 2007-01-10, Larry Lade wrote:
|
No recon photos? We demand embedded journalists! |
8. On 2007-01-10, Vincent wrote:
|
I'm having weird internet probs with the photos. I'll post a full report once I sort 'em out! |
9. On 2007-01-10, NinJ wrote:
|
... and I'm wicked busy! Em, can you send me the pics you took? Maybe I'll be able to post on MDMS. |
10. On 2007-01-11, Vincent wrote:
|
My full report, here. It's a sad, sad report. |
11. On 2007-01-11, JamesNostack wrote:
|
Vincent, after this battle it looks like there's roughly a 100 point difference in some of the "social engineering" scores. Is a reversal possible at this stage? |
12. On 2007-01-11, Vincent wrote:
|
Yes! It's because of the multipliers. It'll take me holding my points and winning multipliers (or the less likely vice versa) but it's possible. For example, say that Em and I both win 30 points in the next battle, but I win a +1 to my security & law enforcement multiplier. Em's s&le score goes up to (96x2) 192, mine goes up to (70x3) 210. Or say that J and I both win 30 points but I win a +1 to my society & conscience. J's s&c score goes up to (98*3) 294, mine goes up to (70x4) 280. (So I'm going to have to win points on that battle too, but winning by as little as 32 to 28 would tie it.) It'll be hard for me to reverse jobs & economics. J's in a position to win that one from Emily, if he can, but I'm probably not. |
13. On 2007-01-11, Tom wrote:
|
Wait, I'm a bit confused: Did J essentially throw this game? Did he just say "screw it, I'd rather kick Vincent to the curb this round and come in second and I'll stomp Em in a later game" or was it just poor set-up/deployment/the fortunes of war? The pictures and description give the impression that whatever the objectives were, they were largely ignored in favor of making mecha-sausage out of Vincent. A little unsporting at the tactical level, but perfectly valid in the context of a longer game. |
14. On 2007-01-11, Vincent wrote:
|
Yes. J came in second in this battle, on purpose, for the sake of his position in the campaign. Probably he did it knowing that in the next battle, I still have to go after Emily instead of after him. Cunning bastard. It's totally legit. We were both prepared to let Em keep the society & conscience station - but starting out as the attacker meant that I had to pursue points, not stand on what I had like they could. J also concentrated his fire much more effectively than I did. Partly because I was split, but mostly because he just did. I'm not calling foul! It was a good game. |
15. On 2007-01-11, Vincent wrote:
|
Oh! This is an important point, and mitigates the "on purpose." If I had taken out even one of Em's mechs, J would have beaten her 40 to 35. His strategy was risky - depending on me to bring Emily down even while he ripped into me - but it might have worked out for him. He didn't just straight-out throw the game. |
16. On 2007-01-11, NinJ wrote:
|
Yeah, I thought you were going to take down one of her dudes. I saw that possibility fade when you left the defense you did - three guys to my five, leaving you in the same position regarding Em - but taking both of your objectives would have had a similar effect, so I kept on. You remember when I suddenly said, "Oh, crap, I might have just lost the game." That's when I lost plan B due to a mistake. That wasn't to happen. I had enough guys and one superlucky roll that I didn't lose, but I'd have needed another turn and even more luck to take it at that point. So, Tom, I wasn't throwing the game; it was weighing these facts: 1: Vincent wanted that objective 2: Vincent cared more about me not getting the objective away from Emily than he wanted it; he was willing to forego that just to stop me. 3: And he outnumbered me by 1 dude, or 20%. Those are poor odds. 4: If Emily wins the objective, she catches up to Vincent, leaving me in third. If Vincent wins, I'm still in third, but no one has a huge, insurmountable lead. 5: That means that they're still pointed at each other, next game. I'm doing OK, but my modifiers aren't up where theirs are; theirs both total 6 while mine is only 5. So I'm behind by one turn. So, I figured I wasn't going to win between Emily's dug-in defense and Vincent's outnumbering. My other option was to fight like hell, and I did. I came in second place by a measly two points. Next time, Emily's the common enemy though. I think the new Minister sees that fact and will be willing to make some deals. Expect hyperbole soon. |
17. On 2007-01-12, NinJ wrote:
|
Er, I just realized that #4 should read: If Emily wins the objective, she catches up to Vincent and no one has a huge, insurmountable lead. If Vincent wins it, he's got a huge, insurmountable lead. |
18. On 2007-01-12, Vincent wrote:
|
In fact, she hasn't caught up to either of us. We're tied at x3, she's at x2. She'll have to win another s&c battle to tie us. Letting Em keep the special station was both yours and my second-best choice. |
19. On 2007-01-12, NinJ wrote:
|
Yeah, it was. And I had an additional chance to win the battle, which I didn't do. But... wait, didn't I start at 311 and you had 212 and she had 122 or something? Like, she didn't start with fewer multipliers, right? It still totaled 5? |
20. On 2007-01-12, NinJ wrote:
|
... wait, I'm missing something. Are we not counting overall score anymore? Was that something we talked about and aren't doing? Like, the only scores that matter are the three strategic objectives? That makes sense to me. |
21. On 2007-01-12, Vincent wrote:
|
Oh! Yes, I was misreading you, I thought you were talking about the society & conscience multiplier only. You're right, if I'd won the special objective, I'd've taken a 2-multiplier lead over both of you, and that would've been really super awesome and too bad it didn't happen, huh? |
22. On 2007-01-12, Vincent wrote:
|
Ha ha! Consider my comment to be between yours. We've never really counted overall sum score, I don't think. Like, let's suppose that at the end of the campaign Em wins jobs & economy and security & law enforcement, and you win society & conscience, but your overall score's higher than hers. She's still won the campaign, 2 to 1 to 0. |
23. On 2007-01-20, Tobias wrote:
|
Just bought Mechaton. Do people have their LeoCad files up for dload somewhere? Tx! I hope to be posting some pix of my first mechs soon. Lego creator box 4917 is great for ideas, btw. |
This comment thread has an RSS feed:
link http://www.lumpley.com/anyway_comments_rss.php?entry=289