I joined a 64 game after several months of abstaining. I haven’t been fond of the format, since they always seem to turn into a tech race, with one team of players running over all others. I was curious to see what impact the newest map, trade scan enabled, and the upgraded AI would have on gameplay.
The result: one team of players ran over all the others:
Of the top 8 players, 7 were in the alliance (or, in one case, a hanger-on).
My impression is that the AI performed as expected, in that they were harder to clear, diminishing the advantage somewhat of being a neighbor. In addition, the victorious alliance by and large has never played together before, so at least we had to struggle to build trust and work together. Our group all started in the south, and marched north. From my point of view the north had enough seasoned players that they too could have formed a mega alliance, but for some reason never did. So at the end of the day we just rolled north aided by big ads in weps and shipcount.
Jay also changed the game from 25 % to 33 % of stars required for victory.
That is perhaps because of the psychology of how the players perceive what is important. Sometimes, they follow a crowd, because someone or a small group goes there, and seems successful.
Other strategies are possible. What other outcomes do you think are possible ? What other changes do you think could be implemented ?
A motion to end the game in place was soundly defeated. So the leading player attacked his neighbor (orange cross) in a bold attempt to lock down the win. The other allies by and large attacked the leader to prevent the win.
An so an end game is underway!
Yes, great point, I forgot that. The leader would have won had the victory condition not been changed.
I think the elements are in place for more competitive games in that format. One huge issue in early and mid game is to stress the importance of organizing as a team. I think you need 6-8 players, one for every tech essentially. Which means you should be looking for allies among your neighbors, not picking fights. I doubt that most who join that format understand that.
I wonder if a default game option might be a team-oriented 64 map. All entrants are randomly assigned one of 8 8-man teams. Probably with trade scan disabled. And a team-oriented victory condition. That would have the added benefit removing the pressure to shank your ally, which is off-putting to a lot of players.
Tied for 3rd, you seem to be having fun ! Is there an allied plan to backstab # 2 ?
EDIT : I suppose not ? Your scan ranges are so far, that he would see you coming from a long ways away.
Veterans who join the game are randomly scattered on the map. They can take leadership roles, recruit neighbors into loyal alliances, to fight the other alliances.
IMHO, I think the game can be won with an alliance of less than 8 members.
I really should try a 64 player game one day.
I’m put off because for the last 2 years I’ve strictly only played turn based. I guess the odds of winning are so faint that you just have to care less?
I’ll not be sharing my inclinations about stabbing another player on a public board, thank you very much 
I do think you need a solid core of 2-3 players that you think you can live with for the duration of the game. In our case, we also enjoyed an unusual fluidity among our mega alliance We ejected a few early on who were failing and invited others who were stronger and who existing members preferred not to fight. I actually defeated an early member and they invited me in rather than retaliate. Perhaps a little cold-blooded, but effective
LOL !!
Well you were talking about the alliance attacked # 1 after the fact, so naturally, I asked about the next plan.
Loose lips sink ships. Keeping silent is a good policy !
My two cents to regarding team size is that 6-8 is far too many. You are limiting expansion options significantly for every member. You are virtually guaranteeing at least one betrayal. Trust - if the herculean task of building it among 8 players is complete - will die immediately with the first betrayal.
Moreover, its not even an ideal number for tech. Because of hampered expansion, such a large alliance will inevitably lose the tech race to a small alliance with higher individual research points.
In short: no, no, no. Winning a 64-man comes down to just three things:
I’m going to end this thread because the discussion devolved.
I feel strongly that the game needs good guys, and bad guys, and people with all kinds of personalities to make the game interesting and exciting.
I don’t want our established community calling out or vilifying one particular playstyle and driving them away from the game, otherwise we’ll all be the same and the game will be boring. A little bit of backstabbing, betrayal and drama is a good thing.
It’s also not cool to carry a grudge from one game to the next. In an ideal world every game would be a fresh start.
