Starvation strategy abusers

[Flemingr2002]

Well I was one of the anti starvation people, but over time i learned how to beat it - not always but often enough where it does not bother me so much anymore. I think my problem is with the game design itself. these games are supposed to be simulations and that is why i like them. Therefore, the penalty for not beiing able to feed your tribe is should be the loss of one meeple. To the contrary, i've also been seeing the mega tribe where a player max's out meeples and food until they have a super power. I've seen many good player use this strategy and this seems to make sense in the simulation --

[eoc]

these games are supposed to be simulations

And here I thought they were supposed to be games!

(Another point for my argument on how a different framing of the same mechanics could have avoided lots and lots of player complaints, as detailed here)

[danielSVK]

That's entirely an issue with flaws in the original game design, not BGA's implementation. They are playing legally.

it is totally not with the flaws in the original game, as in the original game you get -4points for each unfed person, so for 10 person you get -40 points, not -10 points, which is a huge difference

[Jest Phulin]

That's entirely an issue with flaws in the original game design, not BGA's implementation. They are playing legally.

it is totally not with the flaws in the original game, as in the original game you get -4points for each unfed person, so for 10 person you get -40 points, not -10 points, which is a huge difference

We may be splitting hairs on the definition of "original game." The English rules at the time BGA released the game (and, current English rules https://images.zmangames.com/filer_publ ... _rules.pdf page 7) state that 10 points are lost. 4 points is from a different translation, if I recall correctly.

[Inaofr]

I read the german rules book (which is the game editor language), the english one and the french one. All are granting just a minus ten points penalty for not feeding, whatever the number of workers not fed. I didn't found any rule books with a rule of four points per workers not fed.
BGA can not change rules, the game is licensed, the publisher rules must be respected.

[Sonodio73]

It's easy stop starvation strategy. When the player decide not pay the resources for feed, lose 10 points AND ONE WORKER.

I propose this rule was an option for this game and everyone could choose it in the options of the game.

[Jest Phulin]

It's easy stop starvation strategy. When the player decide not pay the resources for feed, lose 10 points AND ONE WORKER.

I propose this rule was an option for this game and everyone could choose it in the options of the game.

If this is an official variant endorsed by the publisher, please provide a link. Otherwise, it is a house rule and BGA cannot do that with the licensing agreement.

[campusclimber]

I may be a little late here, but oh well...
I only recently rediscovered Stone Age on this site. I think I started playing a couple months ago on here. I used to play on the IOS app that ran somewhat well and somewhat not so well on/off until a couple years ago maybe (I don't remember specifically). I honestly didn't even know this site existed until recently otherwise I wouldn't have taken so much time away from playing Stone Age!!!

Anyway, my thoughts about starvation strategy have gone back and forth. I consider myself a pretty solid player. I never would have considered using it as a strategy if I hadn't encountered it in play. My first thoughts were definitely that it FELT against the spirit of the game. While I still somewhat feel this way, I also have a deep respect for rules of games and while I may FEEL like it goes against the spirit of the game, the rules are very clear about the penalties. While I would love for the publishers of the game to have made harsher penalties for starving, the fact is, they didn't. The game still works in 2, 3 or 4 player games regardless of who is using a starvation strategy. While it may make my skin crawl every time I encounter a starver, I no longer feel justified in thinking that their valid strategy goes against the spirit of the game. Instead, I just double down on the math and efficiency of the game and try to beat them and prove to them that starvation strategy is not usually optimal.

I believe the optimal strategy is to constantly adapt to other players and what is available at any given time. Do the math and figure out how to add the most value to your tribe while being as efficient as you can with your people placement. Cheap cards are almost always worth it. Other cards are automatic buys when they pop up. A good starvation strategy is going to ignore certain cards and therefore make you more predictable and more beatable. People need to stop starving because it's just bad strategy...

[admitted]

Starvation gets a bad name because of ethics and people don't know the proper way to beat it due to change in card valuations. It's honestly not overpowered as many people think. It's the inferior strategy in 2p (that's why you never see top elo players use starvation), and more neutral in 4p.

[Mariana Gama]

Wishing we have a like button , hate this tatic but is like everyone been talking .. you can beat the player that use this strategy .