所有案件
石器時代 的案件
#17548: "not feeding the meeples at all gives an unfair advantage"
這是關於哪方面的案件？
發生什麼事? 請從下方選擇
建議：依我所見，有些調整將大幅增進遊戲完成度
細節描述
-
• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議，以便讓人一目了然。
Hi, I just had a game of Stone Age where one player did not feed his people at all. So, he got 10 points minus per round. but SO WHAT, these 10 points would have been gone anyway for 5 meeples (2 points per food point). With more people, he even had an advantage over the people feeind their meeples. That´s a BIIIG hole in the rules and should be mended!
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Mozilla v5
案件沿革
2020年May18日 21:56 • JurisFiction • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
It happened again today, this time at table #88410883
2020年May31日 12:22 • Inaofr • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
The game is licensed, I can not add custom rules, they must be approved by Hans im Glück, the game publisher.
I already have rejected similar request in the past, it seems that people are not looking to rejected request before creating a new one, so I leave this one opened. But it won't be done.
I already have rejected similar request in the past, it seems that people are not looking to rejected request before creating a new one, so I leave this one opened. But it won't be done.
2020年Jun11日 17:46 • ludique • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
That's called the starvation strategy, read about it on BGG.
It's not so easy to do : you lose 10 points every round, you refuse to win points by agriculture level, and you let other players have agriculture very easily.
It's not so easy to do : you lose 10 points every round, you refuse to win points by agriculture level, and you let other players have agriculture very easily.
2020年Jun11日 21:07 • RonaldMelodie • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
I don't like it either, but this is according to the rulebook of the board game. I suggest we don't make a difference on BGA unless the original game rules are changed by the publishers.
2020年Jun11日 22:53 • sfoozy • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
There is some things you can do to counter a starvation strategy. Also, there is nothing stopping you from starving your workers if you wanted (if you think that's the best strategy).
2020年Jul11日 06:28 • admitted • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
Starvation strategy is a valid strategy. As a top elo player, I can attest that starvation is a very weak strategy in 2p play (I have a much higher win rate against starvation, top elo players never use starvation) and it doesn't give much advantage even in 4p play. All you need to do is learn how to beat it :).
2020年Aug8日 20:57 • DarthTiberius • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
I tried this strategy for the first time earlier this week. I won, but as mentioned above, it's a rule, not a bug in the game. It mostly works if you can get babies on your first few turns, so if the opponents don't let you, then it won't work as well. Just beat it, or stop complaining.
2021年Feb9日 02:01 • Supergravity • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
Actually, the starvation strategy is quite effective in 3 or 4 player games, and you really can't do things to beat it by depriving the player of the opportunity to get babies, because then you are playing the same strategy but he has a 1 turn head start. The real problem with just saying "yes, the rules make this a strong strategy" is that it also takes one dimension (food choices) out of the game.
As mentioned by admitted, in 2-player, is usually suicide in high-level games; I've seen instances where a temporary 10-pt sacrifice was useful, but the pure "get babies and to heck with food" philosophy does not work well enough to beat 400's and up.
As mentioned by admitted, in 2-player, is usually suicide in high-level games; I've seen instances where a temporary 10-pt sacrifice was useful, but the pure "get babies and to heck with food" philosophy does not work well enough to beat 400's and up.
2021年May9日 14:46 • Jazzy111 • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
It is a strategy not a bug. It can be countered. Block the huts. They can’t regain the points if they can’t buy.
為本案件添加內容
任何可能重現這項錯誤或了解你的建議之相關資訊，都請在此填寫:
- 其他同樣狀況的桌號／步數
- 按 F5 是否解決了這個問題？
- 問題是否發生了好幾次？每次都發生？時好時壞？
- 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
