-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Must be, because if anyone sabotages, it's over anyhow. (If it succeeds, there's no point because everyone must have voted support. If it fails, I'd imagine gm reveals all mission votes-so I can't really see a purpose here. It would be better used on the next mission-where we can still get away with one and only one sabotage).
Last edited:
Since both Cliges and Xarkan have approved the Team and have posted since Cymsdale called for the Mission to proceed, I'll assume they don't use their No Confidence cards.
Too bad, that was their last chance...
Cymsdale sabotages the Mission and wins the game for the Spies!
The diplomatic party sent to the Battlestar Galactica players manages to enlist a Cylon infiltrator, but he turns out to be a double agent!
Upon his return, his fellow Spies AVN and esemesas heartily congratulate Cymsdale, while the Resistance is sent to the dungeons where they'll be forced to play Werewolf lite for the rest of their days.
Too bad, that was their last chance...
Cymsdale sabotages the Mission and wins the game for the Spies!
The diplomatic party sent to the Battlestar Galactica players manages to enlist a Cylon infiltrator, but he turns out to be a double agent!
Upon his return, his fellow Spies AVN and esemesas heartily congratulate Cymsdale, while the Resistance is sent to the dungeons where they'll be forced to play Werewolf lite for the rest of their days.
Well played, spies!
Can I ask, as someone who's followed the game but not too closely, who's not familiar with the theory but wants to learn: what were the main reasons the resistance lost? There seemed to be a wealth of fairly sound arguments from several good guys, but they didn't seem close to winning. I realise chance can play a large part, both in the first few teams selected and the distribution of the plot cards, and naturally the spies played very well, but aside from that, any specific mistakes the resistance made they could reasonably have avoided?
Can I ask, as someone who's followed the game but not too closely, who's not familiar with the theory but wants to learn: what were the main reasons the resistance lost? There seemed to be a wealth of fairly sound arguments from several good guys, but they didn't seem close to winning. I realise chance can play a large part, both in the first few teams selected and the distribution of the plot cards, and naturally the spies played very well, but aside from that, any specific mistakes the resistance made they could reasonably have avoided?
Eh, I had guessed AVN and was more sold than not about esemesas (60 ish % sure he was a spy) with no clue about #3.
I did trust cymsdale for reasons having nothing to do with the card business.
I did trust cymsdale for reasons having nothing to do with the card business.
Suuuuuuure you did...
Anyway, well played cyms, you really pulled this one off. And I find it funny how AVN used the card in the least incriminating way and everyone jumped on him and Kinge.
Heh. Esemesas and AVN were pretty logical candidates. Cliges and Xarkan I was fairly certain of as non-spies. Tamius sort of, but not 100%, really.
Cymsdale, however, played his game pretty well.
Congratulations, you deserved your win.
@Kingepyon - Xarkan looked pretty clear from my perspective. Not 100%, but close.
@Falc - care to elaborate on that logic of yours? Because whatever other argument you had that made you eliminate everyone but AVN and esemesas could be fairly useful in the future ;-)
I'd say it boils down to "Trusting Cymsdale too much"
Well, dóh. He had to play that card. As a spy, why would he not look at a non-spy's card? Looking at the spy's card would have been rather stupid
Or maybe not .. *shrug*
Anyway, I don't think this game was such a disaster for the resistance as it seems. We were able to build a fairly good picture of who the spies might be. We just weren't able to follow through ..
Cymsdale, however, played his game pretty well.
Congratulations, you deserved your win.
@Kingepyon - Xarkan looked pretty clear from my perspective. Not 100%, but close.
@Falc - care to elaborate on that logic of yours? Because whatever other argument you had that made you eliminate everyone but AVN and esemesas could be fairly useful in the future ;-)
I'd say it boils down to "Trusting Cymsdale too much"
Well, dóh. He had to play that card. As a spy, why would he not look at a non-spy's card? Looking at the spy's card would have been rather stupid
Or maybe not .. *shrug*
Anyway, I don't think this game was such a disaster for the resistance as it seems. We were able to build a fairly good picture of who the spies might be. We just weren't able to follow through ..
Last edited:
Even though I used analysis for evil, I think there is a lot of merit to my methods, so I hope in the future players don't get an attitude of "he's using logic, he must be a spy!" If that ends up being the case, the resistance is doomed to lose forever.
I think in future games we have to be very careful about post editing, and maybe even ban it all together. Kingepyon and Cliges effectively had a private communication, which is definitely not within the spirit of the game.
I think we also need to tweak the description of some of the plot cards in order to be clear about how they fit timing-wise within the game. For instance, the no-confidence card, if going strictly by the rules, has a very small window of opportunity for use. A player could have wanted to play the card during a period they are inactive, or might play it too late where information has already been given.
I think we have to allow it to be played at any time after a proposal all the way until the GM announces that voting is closed and the mission goes forward. It does add a bit of risk/reward finesse to its use, because the later you wait to use it during the voting, the more of a chance the opportunity will slip through your fingers.
Strong Leader is another card that has an issue. A player might wish to use it during a round, but once a leader has announced his proposal, the card is no longer playable. Holders of this card have to be responsible to announce ahead of time which round they will use the card.
There were a lot of people unwilling to believe in an AVN/Kingepyon combo because of this. They were right, but they were right for the wrong reasons.
It seems to me that looking at a spy's card makes a lot of sense. If a spy does something, and no one believes that a spy would ever do something, resistance analysis is compromised.
I think it boils down to the fact that I laid out a path to victory, and no one else really did. Real resistance members have to step up their game and be willing to back a real plan. If they just seem to reject everything because of a wishy-washy "well these 5 people might be spies..." they are not being very helpful, and can easily look like a spy just trying to create confusion.
For the resistance to have won this last game, Kingepyon needed to be a leader, not just with his card, but with his attitude. It wasn't enough for him to know I was leading the resistance to destruction, he needed to present a strong case for his side. I don't think Randakar, Xarkan and Cliges can be blamed for following me. I think they made the best decision they could have with the knowledge they had. Anything else was essentially leaving things up to random chance.
I think in future games we have to be very careful about post editing, and maybe even ban it all together. Kingepyon and Cliges effectively had a private communication, which is definitely not within the spirit of the game.
I think we also need to tweak the description of some of the plot cards in order to be clear about how they fit timing-wise within the game. For instance, the no-confidence card, if going strictly by the rules, has a very small window of opportunity for use. A player could have wanted to play the card during a period they are inactive, or might play it too late where information has already been given.
I think we have to allow it to be played at any time after a proposal all the way until the GM announces that voting is closed and the mission goes forward. It does add a bit of risk/reward finesse to its use, because the later you wait to use it during the voting, the more of a chance the opportunity will slip through your fingers.
Strong Leader is another card that has an issue. A player might wish to use it during a round, but once a leader has announced his proposal, the card is no longer playable. Holders of this card have to be responsible to announce ahead of time which round they will use the card.
There were a lot of people unwilling to believe in an AVN/Kingepyon combo because of this. They were right, but they were right for the wrong reasons.
It seems to me that looking at a spy's card makes a lot of sense. If a spy does something, and no one believes that a spy would ever do something, resistance analysis is compromised.
I think it boils down to the fact that I laid out a path to victory, and no one else really did. Real resistance members have to step up their game and be willing to back a real plan. If they just seem to reject everything because of a wishy-washy "well these 5 people might be spies..." they are not being very helpful, and can easily look like a spy just trying to create confusion.
For the resistance to have won this last game, Kingepyon needed to be a leader, not just with his card, but with his attitude. It wasn't enough for him to know I was leading the resistance to destruction, he needed to present a strong case for his side. I don't think Randakar, Xarkan and Cliges can be blamed for following me. I think they made the best decision they could have with the knowledge they had. Anything else was essentially leaving things up to random chance.
If I may suggest a strategy nugget for people to consider in future games.
The early missions are not about picking all resistance members so they pass (if they do, that's great, but you have no information to go on). I think your time is better spent picking the teams that provide you the most information for the future, so when things come down to the wire, you can make a decision based on the most information possible.
In that light, I'd consider proposing a first mission team without me on it. Why? Because I don't need information on myself, I'm trying to identify spies. Putting multiple spies onto a mission puts them in an uncomfortable position of choosing to support or sabotage (I believe that if you are the only spy on a mission, sabotage is always the right choice. You advance the spy cause with the least amount of information possible given to the resistance).
A team with all spies is in a terrible position. If you were on that mission, would you want to sabotage it? Everyone sabotaging the mission is effectively losing the game immediately. Everyone supporting the mission gives a lot of information to the resistance.
Anyways, just some food for thought. I know if I brought this up in the middle of the game you'd all just say I was a spy for suggesting it.
The early missions are not about picking all resistance members so they pass (if they do, that's great, but you have no information to go on). I think your time is better spent picking the teams that provide you the most information for the future, so when things come down to the wire, you can make a decision based on the most information possible.
In that light, I'd consider proposing a first mission team without me on it. Why? Because I don't need information on myself, I'm trying to identify spies. Putting multiple spies onto a mission puts them in an uncomfortable position of choosing to support or sabotage (I believe that if you are the only spy on a mission, sabotage is always the right choice. You advance the spy cause with the least amount of information possible given to the resistance).
A team with all spies is in a terrible position. If you were on that mission, would you want to sabotage it? Everyone sabotaging the mission is effectively losing the game immediately. Everyone supporting the mission gives a lot of information to the resistance.
Anyways, just some food for thought. I know if I brought this up in the middle of the game you'd all just say I was a spy for suggesting it.
I was going to elaborate more. I only knew once esemesas made his vote who the spies were, and I was in class at the time, so I was only able to give a 1 line response.
Then the deadline for votes was called and the game was over by the time I was out of my class, thus preventing the time to explain myself.
Then the deadline for votes was called and the game was over by the time I was out of my class, thus preventing the time to explain myself.
The analysis was based on two assumptions. I knew these were right, but I also feel they're pretty solid ones to make:
1) Since we only had one sabotage per failed Mission, we can assume only one Spy participated in each.
2) Spy Leaders will not propose a Team with more than one Spy (usually themselves).
We know randakar was the only one participating in both failed Missions.This then leads us to two possibilities:
A) R is a Spy. Because of 1, the 5 others who participated in missions are Resistance and both A and X are left as Spies. However, X proposed himself and A, so that breaks 2. This line of thought is FALSE and R is Resistance.
B) R is Resistance. Thus, there is one Spy in the set E/T, there's another in the C/Y/K set and a last one in A/X. Both C and K proposed a team including themselves, A and X. Beacuse of 2, we conclude that neither C nor K is a Spy, meaning Y must be. Y proposed a team including himself and X, thus X is not a Spy and A is.
Results:
RCKX are Resistance
AY are Spies
E/T remain unknown
The annoying part is that because of the cards and because of the unfortunate fact that all 3 Spies came one after another in the Leader order, I'm not actually certain that there was a way to win left after Cymsdale made his proposal (which we needed in order to know that Xarkan wasn't a Spy).
1) Since we only had one sabotage per failed Mission, we can assume only one Spy participated in each.
2) Spy Leaders will not propose a Team with more than one Spy (usually themselves).
We know randakar was the only one participating in both failed Missions.This then leads us to two possibilities:
A) R is a Spy. Because of 1, the 5 others who participated in missions are Resistance and both A and X are left as Spies. However, X proposed himself and A, so that breaks 2. This line of thought is FALSE and R is Resistance.
B) R is Resistance. Thus, there is one Spy in the set E/T, there's another in the C/Y/K set and a last one in A/X. Both C and K proposed a team including themselves, A and X. Beacuse of 2, we conclude that neither C nor K is a Spy, meaning Y must be. Y proposed a team including himself and X, thus X is not a Spy and A is.
Results:
RCKX are Resistance
AY are Spies
E/T remain unknown
The annoying part is that because of the cards and because of the unfortunate fact that all 3 Spies came one after another in the Leader order, I'm not actually certain that there was a way to win left after Cymsdale made his proposal (which we needed in order to know that Xarkan wasn't a Spy).
That's an assumption I did not dare to make, though. Because that particular line of reasoning can get yourself shot in the foot, big time. Especially since in theory all spies can easily propose 2-spy teams and leave the resistance none the wiser.
That being said, I like it
And yeah, well. Xarkan's team also had a spy in there, so ..
All in all it does go to show that you can actually get a surprising amount of mileage out of simple logic in this game ;-)
That being said, I like it
And yeah, well. Xarkan's team also had a spy in there, so ..
All in all it does go to show that you can actually get a surprising amount of mileage out of simple logic in this game ;-)
I'm surprised we have won.
After the 2nd mission I made my (neutral) analysis and at that moment my conclusion was that ese (is that abbreviation of your nick allowed ?) and I were the most likely spies.
Of course I wasn't happy with that result and I puzzled for several hours how to set up an analysis which at least gave some other possibilities, so that at least some confusion would be created.
I guess I succeeded somehow with that and together with the trust Cymsdale was able to create for himself (very good job here) we were in the end able to win.
Especially with a proposal which in my eyes had no chance at all.
But that didn't matter too much because the 4th and 5th proposal would have been made by the spies anyway. (unless some player had played his "Strong Leader" card, but somehow most players in this game seem to be reluctant to play their cards (probably similar to not using their traits in WW)).
Anyway I'm happy we won and I really like to thank ese and Cym for playing so well
And Falc : Thanks for GM-ing
After the 2nd mission I made my (neutral) analysis and at that moment my conclusion was that ese (is that abbreviation of your nick allowed ?
) and I were the most likely spies.Of course I wasn't happy with that result and I puzzled for several hours how to set up an analysis which at least gave some other possibilities, so that at least some confusion would be created.
I guess I succeeded somehow with that and together with the trust Cymsdale was able to create for himself (very good job here
) we were in the end able to win.Especially with a proposal which in my eyes had no chance at all.
But that didn't matter too much because the 4th and 5th proposal would have been made by the spies anyway. (unless some player had played his "Strong Leader" card, but somehow most players in this game seem to be reluctant to play their cards (probably similar to not using their traits in WW)).
Anyway I'm happy we won and I really like to thank ese and Cym for playing so well
And Falc : Thanks for GM-ing
Not exactly. I do agree that extensive edits, apart from additions, are possibly a bad idea, but it was nothing not on the level or unfair in this case. (But that could be ironed out later, maybe that sort of thing would add to the game-quickly made and edited posts would be interesting in a way. The trick would be how to arrange/signal such a rendezvous so the wrong people don't see them-and the possibility and risk that the other side WOULD makes it all the more intriguing {no pun intended}.)
The original post was merely a somewhat detailed analysis including how if Xarc and I were spies, we could force a win through team rejections. When he realized that the latest failed mission reset the score on rejected teams, he erased the whole thing as he realized his entire analysis was contingent on there having been X rejects in the current round. I just ascertained that he wouldn't have bothered to make such a post only to edit it out if he were a spy.
After you rejected my team, I became slightly suspicious of you, but only very, very little. Obviously, had it been more, I would have voted reject on your team or else vetoed it.
Esemesas was on my fishy-players list from the start merely for passing the card to me, and later things tended to confirm it.
And thanks Falc.
To be honest, that card was sent to you completely at random.
And Falc, thanks for bringing this game here.