Game 1328: Retro, wonderhero, SteveSmith, Deadlime in 'Kill Frenzy 4-Player'

You are here: Stellar Forces > Your Games > Game 1328: Retro, wonderhero, SteveSmith, Deadlime in 'Kill Frenzy 4-Player'

• I couldn't believe it when I used my last APs to walk into the room with your man in there. It was too much to hope you wouldn't see him. :(
  Posted by SteveSmith 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• I'm not sure if I would have spotted him if it wasn't for the fact I heard him behind me. :)
  Posted by Deadlime 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• I forgot about that feature!
  Posted by SteveSmith 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• 30 vps for a victim ?
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• 15.
  Posted by SteveSmith 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• What happens with friendly fire on this mission? How does that affect the scores?
  Posted by Retro 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Good question. Did you kill one of your own guys, Retro? I think I have 15 more points than I had before without killing anyone. Did the same happen to you too Wonderhero? If so then I guess that explains itself.
  Posted by Deadlime 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• No. I took down 2 units: 2x15 = 30
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Sorry, actually I just re-checked and Im pretty sure my points are correct. I think I did kill 4 units. Has Retro lost 15 points? I think that's what confused me because I thought our points were the same (I could be wrong about that too, lol).
  Posted by Deadlime 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• No, I've not lost any points. I was just thinking about a potential exploit to prevent another player from winning by killing off enough of your own men so there isn't enough point left in the game for your opponent to win.
  Posted by Retro 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• I hasten to add... I'm not suggesting anyone should do this. Just raising it as a potential problem.
  Posted by Retro 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• So to be clear on this, I'll give an example of what i mean:
  
  There is a game of kill frenzy 4 player. Steve kills off Wonderhero with no losses and I kill off Deadlime with no losses. We both have 60 points each and a full compliment of men.
  
  I then manage to kill two of steve's men and decide to suicide 3 of my own men in a grenade explosion leaving just one survivor. Because I had gained another 30 points taking me to 90 points by killing 2 of steve's men. I can now no longer lose as I have also eliminated 45 point from the game by killing three of my own. Steve wouldn't be able to get enough points to now win.
  
  This is all assuming there are no point deductions for friendly fire.
  Posted by Retro 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• I agree with you.
  I like this type of mission. Another one ?
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Count me in. :)
  Posted by SteveSmith 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Steve, I still have 2 units alive and opponent. SO I should win, no matter how many vps we have, right ?
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• pardon "...and no opponent"
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• No, I'm afraid not. If it was Last Man Standing you would have won, but the winner of Kill Frenzy is the player who kills the most opponents. It's to encourage players to attack and not hide in the corners waiting for the other players to wipe each other out.
  Posted by SteveSmith 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• I'm not agree. If you attack and have luck to take a strong lead than you can suicide your units. BTW in this game I moved all my units and looking for target every turn.
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• I think is not funny to attack using suicide units to take a strong lead.
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Should be "the winner of Kill Frenzy is the player who kills the most opponents and has at least one survive unit".
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• I agree with Steve, I think the winner should be the player who kills the most opponents, whether they live or die. It encourages frenzied attacking, which makes a nice change from the other missions. It would be too similar to Last Man Standing how you describe it.
  Posted by Deadlime 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• In this way will always be a target to achieve, otherwise "not enough units to kill" will ruin the game. Trust me :)
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Deadlime, tell me where I wrong in this game ? I lost because I had bad luck finding no target in my way ?
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• No will not be similar to Last Man Standing, because you must gain points and in the same time you must survive.
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• I don't know why people are against my proposal from the start and after a while they give me right. Maybe I don't explain well. In Frozen Synapse I made many posts about game's improvements and after 3 months the creator give me right and did almost I wrote. Why is necessary 3 months for this ? I'm tired to do this.
  Retro he could run and hide and there was so few turns left for me to find him. But at least I had a chance, right ? After he killed your units, Deadlime, I asked myself "where I wrong that I had not enough units to kill".
  Nobody will stay and waiting for the other players to wipe each other out, because he needs victory points and he can not rely on the idea of killing all survivors.
  I'm right and you know that.
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• But if the winner of the game is the last player remaining, like you were here, then it will still encourage hiding and hoping that all of your enemies wipe each other out. Then all you have to do is hunt out the last surviver to win the game, just like you did to Retro in this game. The points won't even matter then.
  
  I know you weren't intentionally hiding in this game, but the fact remains that if you had been it would have been the best tactic here.
  
  I think the only thing this mission needs to improve it is to increase the units to 8 men per team (I think Steve has already done this), and to change the walls to being destructible will make it more interesting.
  Posted by Deadlime 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Wrong, I didn't hunt the last survivor because he didn't run. He stayed because Retro knows that I had no chance to get more points that he had. If he had fled and would be hidden I wouldn't have had enough time to find him. But at least I would have a chance.
  Same thing would have happened if I would be hidden from the beginning. Nobody will hid and wait because of the time pressure. Trust me.
  Sorry but in this conditions I don't like to lost my time hunting nothing and when I reach to an opponent I find out that there are not enough units to kill. I prefer 2 vs 2 teams.
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• If I can add my thoughts on this. I hope you won't think i'm taking a biased stand point considering the outcome of the game.
  
  My strategy from the word go was to get away from my deployment zone as fast as possible as I suspected that someone would attack immediately from either my North or south. I haven't seen the replay yet but I suspect Deadlime did this to Steve and Wonderhero attempted to do this to me.
  
  I decided to puch through the middle and always keep moving (a risky strategy, but it paid off) It only really faltered when I tried to pincer Deadlime instead of keeping with the original plan of punching through the centre. The whole theory was I had to be in the fight to have any chance of winning.
  
  Moving down the flanks to catch out the opponent next to you is also a risky strategy as you may end up with nothing to fight (Wonderhero?) But can also payoff. It's just a case of luck if you committ to either of those strategies.
  
  As it happened I ended up being the lucky one. I think the rules are fair and clear enough to for everyone to have a fair chance at winning. The only thing is maybe the suicide aspect, but surely that can be remedied by having a substantial points penalty for anyone suiciding or Friendly firing any of their own units. I also think more men would be good, but it was kind of fun having limited units too.
  
  Anyway I really enjoyed that game whatever the outcome would have been :-)
  Posted by Retro 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• No Retro, spliting your units is not a good strategy. Your #1 was a easy target for me. An isolated unit is a dead unit, except a well placed sniper.
  Also, is not a good tactic to rush your units pushing forward without inspecting the terain first.
  So as you saw in replay, I had very few chances to engage my units because the the fighting scene was far away from my starting squad. So for me it was just bad luck. I felt a chance when I realised I could eliminat the survivors. Anyway I never saw a game when the player with no survivor can be the winner. Neither in reality is not possible to win a battle with no survivor. It's a bizzar idea.
  But maybe with 8 units will be different. I will play 2 more times and if will be the same thing I will never play this mission.
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Indeed, but you could also apply the bad luck with my number 1. You arrived behind me at the exact moment that I split them up. A few turns later and they would have been back together. It was the wrong choice on my part, combined with some bad luck.
  
  As for moving quickly into the centre, it turned out to be a good choice, not a bad one at all. With regard to the mission requirements, the units involved are supposed to be crazy/frenzied. Hence it's not about surviving, but more about causing as much damage to the opposing sides as possible.
  
  Anyway, it looked very much like Deadlimes game for quite a while there. Had he won (only due to bad luck that he didn't) I would have still enjoyed it very much.
  Posted by Retro 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• "...but more about causing as much damage to the opposing sides as possible."
  Interesting! This reminds me of something :)
  I started another game, same mission, please join :)
  Posted by wonderhero 14 years ago [Login to reply]



• Will do, I'll accept when I get home. I'll be watching out for you on this one though Wonderhero, I get the feeling you won't be taking any prisoners on this one :-)
  Posted by Retro 14 years ago [Login to reply]

This topic has now been closed.

Email Address:

Password:

Forgotten your password?

Register using the Android or PC app