Thanks! Yes, it takes quite a bit of time off camera to fully convince myself of the move that the bots will make. So, these videos are very time consuming to make.

Thanks for keeping me straight as always! Yes, indeed, I'll take away that extra resource at the start of the next session.

@nullitaire wouldn't bother if i didn't love this channel :)

Interesting point, but the rules for Quarters for the Arverni bot (8.7.7) say (after the bit about moving away from devastation), "They then (or thereby) move their Leader and/or one group of Warbands, so as to join *the Leader* with the largest group of Arverni Warbands able (if any) and, within that, to get or keep *the Leader* within one Region of the most Regions with Arverni Forces able" (emphasis added). So, even if you are right that Quarters could still be activated without the Leader, it doesn't seem like it would do anything because, if there is no leader, then it is impossible to tell exactly *what* the Arverni are supposed to be trying to "keep close" to. They can't move closer to something that isn't there.

You're welcome. I'm glad to hear that my strange little hobby has some benefits for others! 😀

will the bots ever bluff? maybe by not keeping into consideration the info on the card that they are holding themself for a guard or something like that?

No. The player aids for the bots come in the box.

Interesting! I'll look into it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Give it a try!

True.

You are totally right. I messed that up. That's a bummer! That means that instead of taking Agriculture, which is worth 5 VP, they should have taken Archipelago, which is worth only 1 VP (because of the progress token on it). Since the game was so close, this mistake may very well have been enough to make the Celts win when they should have lost. I will have to think about what to do about this. I may have to play a rematch.

@@nullitaire with so much going on and playing alone its so easy to have things slip through. I cant imagine resetting to that specific moment would be easy either.

Right. Good point. I wish the instructions for the Journey card were a little more explicit.

@@nullitaire agreed

You'll have to keep watching to find out! Or just skip to the end. :)

Yeah, I think the British-bot is the worst of the bots in this game. It just doesn't play as well as the other bots. I think it could use some serious tweaking.

@nullitaire Purchased the game on the strength of your excellent series and am enjoying it though I feel the casualty dynamic favours the existence of large stacks which appears contrary to the periods logistics. Hope you will do Fire in the Lake in the near future.

That is because of the instructions for Muster on the British Commands / Special Activities player aid. Under Muster, it says, "Place up to 6 regulars in 1 city or an adjacent colony or in the West Indies." Basically, the British can only select one space to place regulars. The "Max 4" restriction is for how many more spaces they can select to place Tories: Muster does not have any restrictions on how many spaces can be selected for placing Tories.

Thanks! Welcome to the wonderful world of COIN!

Great! Thanks for pointing that out. In any case, it does not count as a "Map Space."

Thank you! I'm glad you are enjoying them.

No. According to the Bonifacio rules, the bots never consider doing that.

I get where you are coming from, but I disagree. I don't think it shares much in common with worker placement games at all (other than the wooden bits).

No. I just shuffle them all together and then just deal out the number of cards that are required for each deck.

@@nullitaire Have you happened to try out the new rules of horizons?

@@nullitaire I'm going to start a campaign again, with the latest rules, and mix cards like you! Seems very cool to me.!

@@rudolfvandijk1739 No, I have not tried the rules for Horizon yet. I haven't even read the rule book fully yet.

@@rudolfvandijk1739 Great! Best of luck!

I hope to get to all the COIN games eventually. But it will take some time!

Thanks. I'm glad you are enjoying the content.

Thanks. COIN is my first nullitaire love, so it's nice to be playing a new installment to the series. I didn't mention it in the video, but the Govbot didn't flip any guerillas because Sweep requires 2 troops to do that. Still, I think I made a mistake with Sweep because Govbot could have moved another troop from Cebu and left behind one of the police instead. I'll fix this in the next video.

That would be cool! Not in my skill set, however. 😀

Thanks. I am glad you are enjoying the series. I think you are probably right about removal priorities. In this case, it didn't matter, but please let me know if you notice any place in the rest of the series where this mistake made a difference. Also, there is another COIN playthrough coming soon. So, stay tuned for that. Which one do you think it will it be?!

@@nullitaire My best guess is Pendragon, as it is pinging several lists I have seen as one of the best yet also somewhat complex. Fire in the Lake is also popular though, although in that case there are multiple bot versions that are official!

Agreed. Bots will do silly things sometimes!

Interesting idea. Thanks for the feedback.

Good point, Nigel. Since these nations play so differently, any tie-breaker scheme will inevitably be unfair.

Thanks for the ideas, Luke. I'm glad you are enjoying the series.

The Celts are playing in the net game. Stay tuned for that one!

Great! Thanks for the feedback. I am really looking forward to seeing how this tournament works out. I expect that there will be more games that end in collapse, but I don't think that they all will end that way. I guess we will have to wait and see. :)

Thanks for the feedback. I am a bit worried that collapse will be very common in the tournament. However, I played a few test rounds with different factions before I started the tournament, and none of those games ended in collapse. So, I'm hoping that collapse will not be very common. I'm okay with some of the games ending in collapse, but it would be a real bummer if most of them end that way. I guess we will just have to see how the tournament shapes up.

...and thanks for the terrific design of this game, Nigel. I'm really enjoying it!

not that it changes anything substantial. Cats would have scored 1 point then and 2 points the turn after?

You are right. Tokens do not count toward rule. So, the Marquise should have built in that clearing. Thanks for pointing out the error.

Thanks. I'm having fun with it. Filming a board game play-through is not as easy as it looks! :)

@@nullitaire It's appreciated.

Thanks! I'm glad to see that there is at least one person out there who watched the whole thing through to the end. See you in the next one, which should be coming along next week.

I totally agree with you. These bots do not react to the size of the remaining deck. They could certainly be made better in that regard. Thanks for watching. Who do you think will win the final battle for the hand of the Princess(-bot)?

@@nullitaire My heart wants to say Dove-bot so that my risk adverse nature can be validated but my head says that Hawk-bot will win once again.

@@cheaney1000 Ah yes, the heart or the mind! Classic conundrum.

I agree. If these nullitaire games have proven anything, they have shown that Raven-style play is good for higher player counts, but not good for lower player counts. Right now, it looks like Dove-style play is best for the two-player game, but time will tell...