> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:40:27PM +0000, Samuel Penn wrote:
> What's your definition of balanced? In Monopoloy everyone starts the
A fairly substantial advantage, actually. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_strategy for some of the details.
But I think that what Oerjan's addressing is not so much the initial imbalance
as the problem that, once one starts to win, one tends to
continue to win - whoever gets the early advantage tends to retain it.
This is very common in resource-management games: the more stuff you
have, the more you can build, and the more easily you can bash the other
players.
R
***
This is very common in resource-management games: the more stuff you
have, the more you can build, and the more easily you can bash the other
players.
***
Which is especially true in Monopoly where the only thing you control is which
properties you'll buy and upgrade, assuming you can land on them. Somewhat
true in, say, most multiplayer Axis and Allies where the multiple players are
still parts of two 'sides'.
However, in games where the players are really free agents, if 'other players'
are smart enough to see the writing on the wall, alliances are created to keep
one or another prince from becoming a king, too easily.
I recall from long ago and far away, a person that loved playing England in
Diplomacy, a relatively weak power, because it's sooo good at manipulating
others. 'Let's you and him fight'.
The_Beast