It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I'm trying to decide whether it's just my imagination or whether "The Big 40" scenario really is much, much harder than "Kill 'em All." If you play TB40, all the rival crime lords focus their attention solely on the player and ignore each other completely.

I only have some anecdotal evidence of this. The last time I played, I very quickly squashed a crime lord who started near me. He only had two sectors left. I let him alone after that because I couldn't afford the resources to finish him off. The other crime lords scooped up all the squares around him, so he never got another one the whole game. Yet, they ignored him instead of wiping him out and grabbing his HQ sector. The statistics at the end showed that he only had 6 gangs the entire game. Meanwhile hordes of gangs attacked me from all sides, even though I just had an average sized corner of the city. The rival crime lords will even send bunches of gangs through enemy territory across the whole map just to attack the player.

Anyway, The Big 40 is much harder than Kill 'em All. That's my experience, anyway.

I'm not complaining, just observing in case anyone else is interested.
avatar
UniversalWolf: I'm trying to decide whether it's just my imagination or whether "The Big 40" scenario really is much, much harder than "Kill 'em All." If you play TB40, all the rival crime lords focus their attention solely on the player and ignore each other completely.

I only have some anecdotal evidence of this. The last time I played, I very quickly squashed a crime lord who started near me. He only had two sectors left. I let him alone after that because I couldn't afford the resources to finish him off. The other crime lords scooped up all the squares around him, so he never got another one the whole game. Yet, they ignored him instead of wiping him out and grabbing his HQ sector. The statistics at the end showed that he only had 6 gangs the entire game. Meanwhile hordes of gangs attacked me from all sides, even though I just had an average sized corner of the city. The rival crime lords will even send bunches of gangs through enemy territory across the whole map just to attack the player.

Anyway, The Big 40 is much harder than Kill 'em All. That's my experience, anyway.

I'm not complaining, just observing in case anyone else is interested.
Maybe they focused their attention on you because you were leading the land grabbing race or expanding rapidly. Kill'em All is focused on survival. If two are killing each other a third grabs the spoils. It might pay to keep a low profile. See how snitching is a way of keeping something like a "cold war". It is a different level of hostility than attacking each other directly.

The Big 40 is all about controlling sectors of the city. If the other players see that one of them is leading the race, they will reckon that they will automatically lose, so they will do everything they can to stop that. Then, once hostilities develop and you are weakened, they will take all that you can in orther to grow themselves.

Every king of game makes for a different gameplay, too. Be it playing for getting the most cash or for eliminating the other players personally, via killing their Right Hands, or taking over their headquarters. Depending on the objectives, they will invest on lo-lite googles and gangs with high detection, or save all they can in order to make the biggest money stockpile, etcetera.

If you are in for a long game, I'd say Kill'em All is nice. The Big 40 allows for
Allows for what?