Game 34566: xeno, petermock, SteveSmith, paasque in 'SNAFU: The Assassins 2'
You are here: Stellar Forces > Your Games > Game 34566: xeno, petermock, SteveSmith, paasque in 'SNAFU: The Assassins 2'
- how could I win, Xeno side 1 still have one unit left.
Posted by
paasque 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- I am confused! I was meant to kill Paasque and I guessed that Steve was after my men. Or was I mistaken? I get the principles of this type of mission but in practice we get very odd results.
Posted by
petermock 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- Just wrote that it worked out fine but on closer inspection it didn't. Paasque's scoring was correct. He killed 5 of my men and received 20 points each. His fercious attack on my men was compounded by the fact I though it was coming from the top and not the bottom, doh!
But Steve received 80 points yet didn't kill anyone. I received 80 points yet only killed one of Steve's men so should have got just 20. And Pete killed 3 of Paasque's men, which he was suppose to, so would have got 60 points for that. However he killed one of my men wrongly so minus 40 for that, which leaves plus 20. Yet his final score was minus 20. So there is a fault with the scoring that needs fixing. Posted by
xeno 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- This is the fun bit that takes place after a lot of Snafu missions where I have to decode what happened and check the VPs are correct, and so far it's always been correct. :)
I received 80 points since 4 of Petermocks men (my targets) were killed. It doesn't matter who killed them when calculating VPs. Xeno got 80 for the same reason. Regarding Pete, it looks like on his last turn, he killed two of Paasque's units as well, which would explain the -20 VP total (20+20+20-40-40).
- "It doesn't matter who killed them when calculating VPs."
Right, didn't know that, so that explains the perceived discrepancy. I thought it was only those killed by your own hand.
Btw, Pete was supposed to kill Paasque's men and he killed 3 which gave him 60. He killed one of mine which meant minus 40. So until I just looked a second time I was going to say it should be plus 20 still. But on second inspection I saw that he had killed one of his own men. Didn't think you could lose points for that but clearly that was the other minus 40. So yep, all accounted for. Sorry, my bad Steve, as the saying seems to be these days. Posted by
xeno 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- It looks like the scoring is ok after all. Though I share Xeno's difficulty with the results. In one turn I thought I was doing well, the next turn it was game over. I'm going to need more experience at these type of missions. I think having a named player game was still much better. And including Steve to explain was a bonus. Plus it was fun having him in the game anyhow.
Posted by
petermock 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- aha, I also missed the part, that other players can make kills/points for you. thanks for the game.
Posted by
paasque 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- Glad to be of service. I've no problem with people asking the questions, it's the only way to find the bugs since I do precious little testing myself! There's probably a good argument either way as to whether a player loses points for killing their own men. And Snafu missions always seem to end very suddenly. I think we only had two turns each. Any suggestions for changing it are welcome.
- Personally I would only like to see a team given points for killing their assigned targets themselves. That way it's in your own control and you can gauge how many points you have. With you getting points for others doing so you never know what is going on and you really don't deserve to win just because of someone else indirectly helping you out because of their clumsiness or desire for random killing.
Posted by
xeno 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- I agree with Xeno's idea on only points counting for your own kills. I guess you can still have minus penalty points for wrong kill that only you incur? I also thought the game was over very quickly. Still I enjoyed it.
Posted by
petermock 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- The drawback with that suggestion is that if an enemy kills your units, it prevents you from being able to win. It turns the mission into a kill frenzy.
- But if you still kept the minus points which is integral to stopping it from being a kill frenzy.
Posted by
xeno 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- I think that if a player didn't get VPs if their targets were killed by another, it would still leave the game wide option to "sabotage", i.e. if one player killed a unit that was a target for another player, the player who's target it was would now be at a disadvantage: instead of them having more chance of winning due to another players clumsiness, they would now be less likely to win, which would be quite frustrating.
- I see your point Steve. I am happy to carry on with current set up and see if I can get used to it. To be fair to the mission concept I have only played it a few times. Might need you as a player though to help decipher the results!
Posted by
petermock 8 years ago [Login to reply]
- I could ban explosives from this mission, that would make it more "targetted" and reduce the risk of collateral damage.
This topic has now been closed.