Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[vfb]

Congratulations, and you'll need to PM Annette about becoming DrDrP.

[rdonj]

Congratulations Dr. DrP :D

[Baalz]

See, there ya go showing me up. All I've got is a hangover!

[LupusFatalis]

Congrats, and moreover your the first Dr. DrP I know.

[namad]

for the record that delay did me no good as i was gone the entire time it was in effect... however my partially done turn was perfectly fine and the battles i scripted and wanted more time to script more carefully.... the enemy didn't even engage me so there was literally no ill effect due to me running out of time at all


thanks for the delay though regardless

[rdonj]

Well, I guess that's good news :D

[Lingchih]

Ermor has become a problem. He holds too many provs, and caps, and is assaulting an overlord. Ashdod hereby declares war on Ermor. Only overlords should take other overlords, Ermor... you have overstepped your bounds.

Let it be known that our other vassal nations should not fear us. We are merely moving to keep an unbridled Ermor in check.

-Lingchih of Ashdod

[LumenPlacidum]

Well, that was a less-than-optimal turn. Oh well, there are always more longdead! Nice demonstration of good battle magic, Dr. P!

[namad]

wtb stone sphere for fair price (i have earth and/or astral gems as well as other types)

[Baalz]

2 questions about the game rules, to which the answer is no according to the literal rules but maybe not in the spirit of the rules

1) Can provinces which a random indie attack took from an overlord be taken back without consideration of dominion restrictions? Most overlords can pretty much keep their dominion covering their territories, but I'm pretty spread out and with (almost?) everyone pushing a strong dominion it's pretty much impossible for me to keep my dominion in skinny water along most of the edges, and at this point it's asking a lot for my pretender to be relegated to indie squishing.

2) Can voluntary province trades be done without consideration of dominion restrictions?

On a side note, I'm guessing I'm not gonna get much sympathy WRT a R'yleh nerf, but no bloodstones is a pretty nasty for a nation with E1 mages and no feet. :(

[Lingchih]

As a general rule, I think. An Overlord cannot attack a prov without dom in it, without the pretender present in the attack. That should cover both questions.

Life is hard for an Overlord.

[rdonj]

1) No.
2) Voluntary province trades, huh? I would be inclined to say yes, but if any of your fellow overlords object to this lets go with no for this game.

Life is indeed hard for overlords. I am taking suggestions to make the game more fair (and winnable) if I set up another overlords-themed game in the future. If you have any suggestions that you think would be helpful for making the game run more smoothly, feel free to drop me a line. Once this game is winding down I'll put up a list of suggested changes I've been given and see what people like and don't like.

[chrispedersen]

I suggest allowing any regular player that takes over an overlords capital, becomes an overlord, and the previous player is relegated to normal.

[LupusFatalis]

I'd second some sort of advancement to overlord status criteria. Though I think taking an overlord cap is fairly light. And since anyone who is killing an overlord to do so will likely be taking everything else first under those rules--to minimize retaliation--the rule might be more in line with take all of the original starting forts (cap included).

And I'll agree that the mid-late game can be difficult for an overlord. But lets not forget its not without its perks. Two players seem to have capitalized on that head start and really pushed the advantage, the rest I dunno. And with the gate-stones in play a single overlord could quite simply put a halt on a would-be victorious normal. Sure they can only attack one province, but there are only so many provinces satisfying those victory conditions.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I'd be interested to see how the game resolves before picking it apart.

[namad]

right now today or tomorrow someone should post a list of every vp



they are ALL WRONG on the map... it's not fair to have victory conditions no one is sure of... someone should compile a list of every capital and every noncapital yet "special" fort

many vp's have no forts and many capitals have no vps


a list like this would certainly make it easier for an overlord to take advantage of the whole stopping a victory by someone else with a gatestone perk...


there should be no punishment for killing an overlord i don't think.... killing an overlord isn't a gift to be balanced with a punishment it's a chore that should be rewarded with all those special gem sites? (plus other overlords know about those gem sites?)


I think that perhaps overlords should be able to use their prophet OR their god... (2 isn't much more than 1 and would help them out a lot especially if their god dies? i think the overlords doing badly are doing so because of a god death???)


I don't really think that overlords should be able to accept provinces in trade and breach the rules... however maybe the rules should be more lax so that it is easier for them to make attacks?? perhaps god, or prophet, or gatestone (that's 3attacks per turn max all with unique irreplaceable risks?) or maybe just god or gatestone? or maybe just god OR gatestone equipped to prophet....


or maybe baalz and atul are doing so well that the overlords should just not have picked tein chi or machaka because tein chi and machaka are awful nations? (machaka is awful tein chi is mediocre....)


wasn't pythium supposed to be the overlord instead of tein chi? what happened there? also DRP admitted to everyone he was picking a bad overlord nation to challenge himself intentionally

[rdonj]

right now today or tomorrow someone should post a list of every vp



they are ALL WRONG on the map... it's not fair to have victory conditions no one is sure of... someone should compile a list of every capital and every noncapital yet "special" for

many vp's have no forts and many capitals have no vps

Yeah, I don't understand that. I fairly meticulously set all the VPs by hand, checking and double checking as I went that they belonged where I wanted them. Here is the list of where I put them in the map commands:

--VPs
#victorypoints 284 1
#victorypoints 182 1
#victorypoints 38 1
#victorypoints 69 1
#victorypoints 173 1
#victorypoints 192 1
#victorypoints 263 1
#victorypoints 311 1
#victorypoints 222 1
#victorypoints 133 1
#victorypoints 199 1
#victorypoints 88 1
#victorypoints 21 1
#victorypoints 47 1
#victorypoints 316 1
#victorypoints 256 1
#victorypoints 241 1
#victorypoints 113 1
#victorypoints 262 1
#victorypoints 102 1
#victorypoints 10 1
#victorypoints 258 1
#victorypoints 244 1
#victorypoints 122 1
#victorypoints 76 1
#victorypoints 245 1
#victorypoints 232 1
#victorypoints 140 1
#victorypoints 200 1
#victorypoints 23 1
#victorypoints 39 1

I have no idea why there would be VPs anywhere else. If someone could explain to me why, and how to prevent this in the future, I promise if there's another overlords game to stamp out this silliness.




I don't really think that overlords should be able to accept provinces in trade and breach the rules... however maybe the rules should be more lax so that it is easier for them to make attacks?? perhaps god, or prophet, or gatestone (that's 3attacks per turn max all with unique irreplaceable risks?) or maybe just god or gatestone? or maybe just god OR gatestone equipped to prophet....

I'm not going to comment on all of people's suggestions right now. This will wait until the game is close to completion. But if there is an Overlords 2, I'm definitely going to look into ways to relax rules on how hard it is for overlords to attack people. Right now it's more than a bit excessive, and forces them to work a lot harder than they should have to.


or maybe baalz and atul are doing so well that the overlords should just not have picked tein chi or machaka because tein chi and machaka are awful nations? (machaka is awful tein chi is mediocre....)

I'm reasonably aware of squirrel's problems, as of a few turns ago. I don't think being TC was necessarily a deal breaker in and of itself, though possibly it caused other nations not to take him quite as seriously as some of the others. But he was really hamstrung by a few of the rules, among other things. If he wants to talk more about this he can, but I don't want to get even close to giving away state secrets. As for machaka, I have no idea what dr p is doing.

Baalz has convinced me that it was a bad, bad, stupid idea to have water overlords :P. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to allow water nations period if we do overlords part 2, but I could maybe be convinced to take a water nation that wasn't an overlord. It is just too hard to balance them for this format, and early on the other water nations are fairly easy prey.

wasn't pythium supposed to be the overlord instead of tein chi? what happened there? also DRP admitted to everyone he was picking a bad overlord nation to challenge himself intentionally

The player for pythium bowed out, iirc, and I don't remember the exact sequence of events but I think squirrel had already picked tc and just took them into the overlord slot when I asked if someone would move up. This was after I decided that it didn't really matter what nations I thought should be overlords, because whoever ended up playing one could probably make a decent run of it as just about any nation (since I was picking mainly from the most experienced players).

[namad]

squirrelloid just moved to the overlord position... to be fair though he should've been given the right to steal any nation he wanted from any normal player... now squirrelloid never would have done this because he is too nice of a guy but....


machaka and tein chi suck.... and all the other overlords are doing fine... so maybe overlords just need to be nations that are good nations to be overlords?

the reason i don't like the concept of trading provinces being okay is because that COMPLICATES the rule because a player with scouts there will think someone cheated when they really didn't.... if you want it to be easier to attack as an overlord a) less dominion strictness b) more attacks per turn...


i gave a lot of suggestions for b) already some for a) are.... make it so overlords can attack ANY indie (but not indies caused by spells as that's too exploitable?) or make it so overlords can attack any province with enemy dominion ONE or lower (instead of having to have positive dominion?)

[namad]

WTB antimagic amulets in bulk at a reasonable price (i have all types of gems to pay or etc)

[rdonj]

make it so overlords can attack ANY indie (but not indies caused by spells as that's too exploitable?) or make it so overlords can attack any province with enemy dominion ONE or lower (instead of having to have positive dominion?)

I have gotten multiple suggestions of this nature so something along those lines is a possibility.

[Baalz]

Baalz has convinced me that it was a bad, bad, stupid idea to have water overlords :P. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to allow water nations period if we do overlords part 2, but I could maybe be convinced to take a water nation that wasn't an overlord. It is just too hard to balance them for this format, and early on the other water nations are fairly easy prey.


Haha, to be fair though, MA R'yleh is a serious powerhouse under almost any circumstances if played by an expert player. I don't think I'd be in too much of a different position at this point if I had started as a non-overlord (attacking more than one province per turn would make up for the slower start), and would be in a vastly stronger position at this point if I didn't have the overlord restrictions. As I mentioned, the advantage I gained leveraging the gatestone to gain easy territory was balanced by the fact that my territory is quite spread out. I've got temples in about half my territories (probably the most temples of any nation, with a dom score of 10)...and that's roughly how many have friendly dominion. Hopefully not to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but if a non-overlord were to get it together enough to push a decent raid underwater I could conceivably lose half my territories with no recourse at all to reclaim them. This would be rapidly compounded if said raids also destroyed several of my temples. Given the defined restrictions there are some serious drawbacks to being a water overlord just due to how dominion interacts with general water layouts.

[Squirrelloid]

TC was selected as the overlord nation by the player who was supposed to be playing them, and was already locked in on the map when i stepped up to replace that player. As such, it was just easier to be TC than to make Rdonj rejigger the map, reupload the map to Llamaserver, and hope that didn't break anything. That said, I think TC is a fine Overlord nation, and I don't know why they're getting no respect. I imagine even Ashdod would have had problems if virtually all of his neighbors had turned on him, and I'm still alive and kicking here. (If I hadn't gotten jumped on I'd still be leading the research race)

I was originally to be Jotunheim.

[Lingchih]

TC is not bad. Not bad at all. I don't see any problem with them being an Overlord nation. True, it does not inspire the fear that Ashdod does, and that was probably why it was attacked. But it's a good, strong nation.

[LupusFatalis]

If you think about it Overlords may have started with a 3:1 lead in every thinkable way. But Machaka and Ashdod started with a potential battle on potentially 5 fronts. T'ien Ch'i on 6. Marignon only had 4 fronts to deal with, and logistically it wasn't a matter of running cross country to do it. R'lyeh may have had 6 fronts (before he gave himself more), but if I have to gear up to make an enemy of a nation I'm not well suited to dealing with, thanks but no thanks. I don't mean to downplay Baalz' or Atul's abilities, but they did have less to deal with. And Ashdod seems to have successfully made some allies where TC and Machaka have not.

So I guess what I'm saying is, while any one normal might have to step lightly around an Overlord. An Overlord would do well to go with the name of the game and actually be an Overlord in the spirit of the word. Were I to play one, it'd be well worth the gems, money, tactical assistance, etc... to convert those potential enemies into allies. Even though I might not "get" anything standard from them.

And in response to whomever wanted to see the start locations. Start an overlords game on the map with all the starting players involved. Not hard. If your fooled by a VP symbol over an empty province you've got bigger fish to fry. *teases*

-- At the moment only definitive suggestion for "Overlords 2" should there be one is to have a very well balanced map prepped in advance.

[rdonj]

Haha, to be fair though, MA R'yleh is a serious powerhouse under almost any circumstances if played by an expert player. I don't think I'd be in too much of a different position at this point if I had started as a non-overlord (attacking more than one province per turn would make up for the slower start), and would be in a vastly stronger position at this point if I didn't have the overlord restrictions. As I mentioned, the advantage I gained leveraging the gatestone to gain easy territory was balanced by the fact that my territory is quite spread out. I've got temples in about half my territories (probably the most temples of any nation, with a dom score of 10)...and that's roughly how many have friendly dominion. Hopefully not to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but if a non-overlord were to get it together enough to push a decent raid underwater I could conceivably lose half my territories with no recourse at all to reclaim them. This would be rapidly compounded if said raids also destroyed several of my temples. Given the defined restrictions there are some serious drawbacks to being a water overlord just due to how dominion interacts with general water layouts.

You do make some good points. But I think in general R'lyeh makes for a particularly powerful overlord nation, and if some of the restrictions were lifted from them in regards to when and where you can attack, I think you'd be completely insane right now. So maybe underwater overlords being disallowed completely is overly-harsh, especially with the typical underwater dominion issues. But with some of the ideas floating around, I can't even imagine how much better you'd have done if you had had more free reign.

With regards to the map, yeah, the map definitely needs more work than it got this time around. It was a really last-minute deal, I generated something like 4 random maps and that was the best of the lot of them. I didn't think it was too completely horrible, so I used it and spent all my free time the next few days whipping it into shape. I still don't know what happened with thedemon, heh. Anyway, map suggestions are certainly requested as well. What worked this time? What didn't work? What would you like to see in a map for this sort of game?

[Squirrelloid]

There was nothing I could have offered Man to make them my ally (given their position, I have to kill them or they have to kill me). Any future map needs to wrap because the corner effect is especially egregious in this game.

And Pangaea wouldn't even talk to me. Pythium's only messages to me were taunts. And Abysia was planning to attack me before the game began. Nothing I offered would have made *any difference whatsoever* in getting allies. Indeed, in such a diplomatic climate, offering handouts would have been perceived as a sign of weakness. So most of my neighbors were going to war with me regardless of what I did, there isn't much you can do about that.

[Baalz]

As far as the map goes, this map and my placement is very favorable to R'yleh in general. To be sure, balancing a map well is a serious headache and its my policy not to complain to the admins who donate their time, but you asked so I'll point it out: I started in a totally secluded water area with the two other water nations at each other's throats, a lot of water territory available and even more secluded islands I can easily hold. Wasn't really boasting when I said being an overlord didn't make too much of a difference - this is just a very favorable setup for R'yleh, who is arguably the strongest nation in the game. Even if I hadn't had the gatestone, teleport/gateway would have been a very early research target...almost all of my expansion was due to my unsupported pretender jumping around and he could have done nearly as well with teleport/cloud trapeze. The real trick was that I can leisurely pick whatever fights I want, bullying whoever I want into ceding easy territory as I'm comfortable that it's totally infeasible for anyone else in the game to attack me. Even at this point of the game I'm pretty sure that there is no nation whatsoever who could in any way pose a real threat to my homelands where I have strong dominion. Basically it's the reverse of what
Squirrelloid faced...

[rdonj]

I really wasn't sure if it would be better to have you seperated from the other water nations, or grouped with them. I figured, if you were apart from them they might be able to grow a little before coming into contact with you, which might give them a better chance to survive. If you were together, you'd be able to hit them harder, but they'd be able to group up against you. Or all of you could group together into some sort of underwater supernation, the others blocking for you while you used your gatestone army to take out the strongest individual armies. In retrospect, I probably should have had all of you in one pond with you more or less surrounded by land and the others on the outside of you with some sort of land connection.

Well, one of the other underwater nations is alive still anyway. Anyway, thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. :)

[namad]

what does controlling for 3turns mean? does that mean... get inside the fort... then have 5... then get gateston-ned on top of you... but since they can't break the walls fast enough you win?


or do sieged forts not count towards victory?


also does vanheim win with 2normal capitals+his own+an overlord capital+THE SAME overlord's fort?

[Baalz]

I think only capitals count, each overlord only has one capital.

[Squirrelloid]

A non-capital starting overlord fort counts for non-overlords. I can only imagine also possessing the capital should count a second time by a strict reading of the rules.

[rdonj]

You must have successfully stormed a fort. Non-cap starting overlord forts also count as per what squirrel said. Capitols only count once, unlike what he said ;)

[Squirrelloid]

I don't believe i said they counted twice. What I meant was if you held an OLs capital *and* one of their *other* starting forts, both those forts count (if you're a normal only).

[DrPraetorious]

So Lupus has won?

[Baalz]

Nah, he's 2 forts away, including capturing an overlord's capital. So long as the overlords are not all asleep that's still a long way off.

[LupusFatalis]

Yeeeesh, everyone is so suspicious of the newbiest newb here! I'm sure Caelum, Man, and TC would agree: I've just been leveraging the power behind those wonderful little shifters--How long can that possibly be effective?

[Squirrelloid]

Well, your chances would be worse if i still cared. ;)

[namad]

as far as i can tell if everyone else but vanheim stales everyturn for the rest of the game it will take 3-4turns for him to achieve victory conditions and another 3turns for the victory to become official

every other game i've ever played ended via concession... so he's closer to any victory condition than i've ever seen any player in any game i've ever played.....



of course i doubt we'll all stale 7times in a row (that is still a solid measurement of the status as an unbiased metric)

[LupusFatalis]

I do not think my victory is guaranteed and I would like to play to completion. If for some reason that is not the view of everyone else and you are all not enjoying yourselves as much as I am. Then I would have no option but to accept such a concession. As I stated though, I am much further from victory than my current number of castles would imply.

And sure, if everyone from now until the end of the game were to stale, I'd have to beat pd and computer scripted mages after besieging and storming two 1000+ defense forts. Last I checked that's take something on the magnitude of 10+ gate cleavers, or 20+ wall shakers--to my great chagrin, I cannot seem to find these alleged sieging supplies. Or were those also being sent my way by my opponents under this nonsensical hypothetical situation? Hell, over such an 'unbiased metric' we might as well call all the games after the first turn--no one else's actions matter.

Dare I say Eriu is simply trying to draw attention away from the fact his own success long enough to bring his plans to fruition?

[Lingchih]

Nah, he's 2 forts away, including capturing an overlord's capital. So long as the overlords are not all asleep that's still a long way off.

Ashdod is far from alseep, and we watch with interest the gathering of capitols. Should we need to, we can intervene in any overlord cap in danger with unholy might.

[namad]

200defense on one fort 1000defense on the other :)


I have 2scouts viewing your area.... but even if my guesses about your troop formations are wrong you could still win in 8-9stales of every other player...


you aren't winning by that much, or doing that well... it's just that this game has the lowest victory conditions of any game I've ever played by about 300% thats why you're so close...


I think that even if EVERYOTHER player except me and you were to stale for 10turns I'd at least have a chance of stopping your victory and even if I failed I'd like to try.... (I really like this concept of ultra low victory conditions and forcing people to teleport to stop a victory makes dom3 less boring)



The point of this discussion is the victory conditions are very odd and I'm not sure everyone is clear on what they are! To illustrate my point... I am still not sure of the victory conditions!!!! rdonj has not cleared stated if you would even win under the circumstances.... it's possible that taking an overlords capital disqualifies you from getting credit from that overlords noncapital fort... or vica versa....


that point of unclarity is the entire reason I bring this up... no one is intending to quit... but the victory conditions are odd, and the victory points are incorrectly appearing on the map... I just want myself and everyone else to know for sure what the victory conditions are... because if no one knew what they were... then the victory IF it ever happens might come as a surprise...


If you truly are a new player as you claim... I would bet on you failing...

Also yes I do appear to be doing fairly well, although I am confident that baalz, atul, or ling could easily defeat me should they concentrate their mental prowess on doing so... I've been telling everyone I talk to I'm sure I'll lose not because I'm trying to "distract" anyone but... because it's common knowledge that eriu is a house early on but totally crap in the lategame


still turns to victory against all opponents staling is the fairest metric of closeness to victory i can imagine feel free to suggest a better one :)

[LupusFatalis]

The victory conditions are stated clearly, or maybe I'm mistaken:
Normal: Must hold 5 Castles (4 of them must be capitals, 1 must be an overlord fort) at the same time for 3 consecutive turns.
Overlord (Option A): Given all other overlords are dead, he must hold 5 Capitals at the same time for 3 consecutive turns.
Overlord (Option B): Must hold 10 Capitals at the same time for 3 consecutive turns.

Consider this "metric" of yours is: Lets say a minimum of 7 turns with 0 resistance. That is to say if I played by myself 7/(33+7) or 17.5% of the game. Or perhaps we should look at it as 40/33, i.e. if I had ~21% more turns than everyone else. That's a pretty significant handicap.

[rdonj]

I did start with the intention of making victory conditions pretty obtainable. I have the feeling if I do start another overlords game I'm going to have to make them even lower. I'm starting to think they may be just a little bit too high. Maybe not, it depends on how much the rules do or do not change.

I guess my wording in the OP may be a little imprecise. All the victory conditions lupus pointed out are correct. For a normal, taking one of the overlord starting forts counts as a capitol (you're right, this really was not clear). Yes, this means that you can take an overlord's capitol and one of his starting forts and it will count as two capitols as far as victory conditions are concerned. However, for an overlord the starting forts of other overlords do not count (aside from the capitol). Does that answer your questions?

Hopefully this is early enough in that, now that it's clarified, there won't be some sort of scandal someone wins with two forts from the same overlord.

[LumenPlacidum]

Every one of an overlord's forts counts as a capitol?! Holy crap, victory is pretty close for a number of people then.

If you do continue in this line of games, there needs to be more of an incentive for normal players to not just team up against an overlord. Starting with some extra territory is valuable, but the restrictions on attacking prevent overlords from being able to fight on multiple fronts. As it is, overlords are pretty powerful, but they can't address the problem of alliances of enemies. Perhaps if overlords had something that they could give to normals at no cost to themselves, that would help the normals. It would encourage people to work to become the overlord's "favored" minion, and betrayal would strip that benefit.

[rdonj]

LupusFatalis Pmed me with this.

An overlord's capital counts as either an overlord starting fort or a capital, but not both at the same time. Non-capital overlord forts do not count toward the capital count. That is to say the most possible castle quantity (toward victory) that can be obtained from a single overlord is 2.

That is that correct, no? If so post it so we don't have to hear any more nonsense on victory conditions, hehe.

Okay, here we go.

IF YOU ARE AN OVERLORD: Those extra starting forts you had do not mean anything to you, they are just a perk of being an overlord. They contribute nothing to YOUR victory conditions.

IF YOU ARE NOT AN OVERLORD: The extra forts that overlords STARTED with count as capitols as far as your victory conditions are concerned. Forts they built after the start mean nothing to you and have no more value than any other fort. A fort only counts ONCE, whether it is a capitol or a non-cap starting fort, it is never worth more than one victory point. And finally, all forts that an overlord started with are worth one vp to any normal who captures them. That is to say, if you own an overlord's capitol and both forts he started with, combined they are worth 3 VPs.


Lumen: I think I've already said this before, but if I start another overlords-themed game in the future I am almost certainly lifting restrictions on how overlords are permitted to attack, because at present I think they are too vulnerable to certain situations and they can be put into positions where they can be stuck fighting someone for an incredibly long period of time when they could just roll over and crush them in their sleep. I'd like to change that.

[LupusFatalis]

Sure, then there are a bunch of people close to victory. And it also does make stopping people a bit more difficult. That is to say in my position I'd need to take any two of three rather than a specific one plus either of the others. Which adds some options. Suffice to say, I've no intention to actually start a siege of partake in any action gaining me a victory point within the next 8 turns, stale or otherwise. The Vanir have other plans, your childish races toward capital control do not concern us.

[namad]

wait? so province 100 does not count as an overlord fort?

then everything i've said so far has been totally false, heh...

[rdonj]

It counts if it has one of those big, huge defense forts on it. My notes imply that 100 DOES count.

Edit: However, that VP province list I gave you earlier says that it does not count. I would have to check the map to be sure.

Having done so, I can now confirm that 100 does indeed count and that I somehow missed it when adding in the VPs. Does this mean I'm at fault for all the wrong and misplaced VP markers? I sure hope not....

[namad]

so... anyone wanna make me some antimagic amulets or stone spheres at a reasonable price? anyone who already talked about it with me i'm still willing to deal with... it's just that they stopped replying to me before I got any of either :)

[LupusFatalis]

for tc, province 100, 102, and 140 count.

I'm not going to list everyone in the game, but if you start a game of overlords with all human players you'll easily find out on your own.

[Hoplosternum]

If there is another such game (and I hope there is) I think the map needs to be a wrap around. And personally I would ban Water nations too. They are too seperate and make balancing difficult.

I am not critical of how this was set up however. No one really knew how it would all turn out - or at least they didn't say ;) And anyone who goes to all the effort of thinking up the rules, designing and making the map placements and running the game deserves respect. So well done Rdonj :)

But the initial plan was to have a sort of grid of Overlords and Normals surrounding them and I think in hindsight this would have been best. i.e. so while each Overlord is surrounded by normals and could be ganged up on each normal was to have two Overlord neighbours meaning going all 'one way' would be tough. That requires a wrap around map.

Instead we had most of the normals with only one overlord neighbour. And in TCs case this was extreme as most of the normals other neighbour was the natural barrier the sea. Baalz could have come out early and normals could have gone in after him. But early on the sea was basically acting as a map edge. So TC faced 6 normals - only one of which had a real border with another Overlord (Pan) and most had few even normal neighbours.

After seeing his terrible strategic position I changed my plan from toadying up to one or more Overlords to trying to organise a gang up on him. Not very successfully I might add :p I suspect that had all 6 of us attacked reasonably early then TC would have not been strong enough to resist. I don't think any of the other Overlords were in such a perilous starting position.

But had the map been a wrap around with all of us having a second (none water) Overlord the diplomatic position would have been very different.

Re the problem of the Overlords in the mid/late game. Please remember it is a problem now not early on. The Overlords could easily crush a normal without the restrictions on normals capitals early on and no dominion attacks.

So any fix should address the mid/late game issue not boost Overlord attack options earlier. So I don't like the prophet idea as it hardly solves Baalz's troubles now but would make an Overlord much tougher to resist earlier on.

You could for example allow an attack outside of dominion per Capital held by an Overlord. So he starts with one but can get more. Or simply add an extra attack every year or 18 turns. If you are worried about cheating you could have each Overlord post which areas he had attacked beyond his dominion without his Pretender - after the turn has progressed - so players can check if they were attacked legally or not. It gives all players some intelligence on where each Overlord is focusing but I don't see that as a big problem.

A restriction could have been placed on normals dominion (max 6? 7? 8?) so that the Overlords could have dom pushed more easily and made defence against that harder for the normals. That would help give Overlords more legal attack options.

I think packing the bonus gem sites in the Overlords forts would have been better than spreading them out as was done. It does make the Overlords core lands very inviting if they are looking in any way vulnerable. The actual forts are hard to take out - you can't just grab one, put up your dominion and enjoy the gem income - as you can with this set up.

Although the Overlords picked their own nations I think some are possibly more Capital focused than others. You could possibly get around this by making all an Overlords starting forts Capitals - i.e. give them the special sites of the Capital so they can build the capital only units/commanders. For variety you could have given other capital sites. e.g given TC his own Capital and the EA Capital in one fort and the LA Capital in another. Giving a wider variety of units/leaders and keeping them 'special' longer. As it has turned out there seems to have been little Overlord v Overlord fighting (that I can see anyway) after Dr P failed to decapitate Atul early on. But with the Gatestones an early take out of an Overlord Capital was very possible. A sieged capital can produce no units or mages which is very serious for some nations even if they have secondary forts. It was certainly my plan to get one of us to besiege TCs capital and stop his flow of good mages if we had been able to attack him early enough.

[rdonj]

I wasn't the only one who had a hand in designing the game. Remember I put out that game concept thread for advice, and I got a lot of help from QM, namad, and I think atul and some others on IRC. My initial version was much more complicated and problematic than the one you guys are playing.

My initial map concept was indeed a grid with overlords lined up and normals on all sides. Unfortunately I couldn't do that with the map you guys are playing on in any way shape or form, as it was hard even finding proper space to put overlords in. TC did have a pretty bad position, I feel bad about man's though, that island above TC could not have been an exciting place to live. In retrospect I should have at least given that island another land connection, hopefully one that did not head straight to TC territories.

Thanks for all your suggestions, I will keep these for later.


I think packing the bonus gem sites in the Overlords forts would have been better than spreading them out as was done. It does make the Overlords core lands very inviting if they are looking in any way vulnerable. The actual forts are hard to take out - you can't just grab one, put up your dominion and enjoy the gem income - as you can with this set up.

I actually like having the Overlords gem incomes vulnerable, although not quite that vulnerable. If there's no reason to take an overlord's lands unless you're taking a fort, that really lowers a lot of the incentive of attacking one. I may consider adding some sort of rule to allow overlords to protect their starting territories more easily, but I don't think I'll be hiding gem incomes from raiding.

[LumenPlacidum]

The pretender god, Lingchih has been punished by the great and powerful Emperor Maximillion of Ermor and cast down. Let this be a message to all ye neighbors of Ashdod's lands--strike now and claim what you wish from the giants, for the giants can retaliate but weakly with their god displaced. Know you this, Ashdod, once Machaka's forces have been removed from the Empire, so too shall yours which so wrongfully attacked our outskirts known by the locals as "Bandar Log".

[LupusFatalis]

Then the prophecy has begun, Ashdod has tripped over their own overconfidence. Now their neighbors need but to lay aside their quibbles and strike out against the tyrant! For destiny sees fit to unleash its wrathful vengeance on those who strive to rise beyond their worth.

[Lingchih]

Lingchih is only temporarily inconvenienced. He will return shortly, and woe be to anyone that has tried to displace us in his absence. And Ashdod is not without defense without our God in mortal form. Perhaps you have seen our Adons, and their mighty Ahimen guards? If not, just come onto Ashdod lands, and you will meet them first hand.

[Lingchih]

Question, after the Overlord pretender has initiated a war and attacked a lesser nation's provs personally, can the Overlord then attack that nation indiscriminately, regardless of dom in it's provs?

Maybe I interpreted the rules too closely, but right now I am only attacking Ermor provs where I have dom, and it is becoming extremely limiting. Like fighting with both hands tied behind my back.

[rdonj]

No, you are interpreting the rules correctly. It's one of the reasons I think they need changed.

[Squirrelloid]

Question, after the Overlord pretender has initiated a war and attacked a lesser nation's provs personally, can the Overlord then attack that nation indiscriminately, regardless of dom in it's provs?

Maybe I interpreted the rules too closely, but right now I am only attacking Ermor provs where I have dom, and it is becoming extremely limiting. Like fighting with both hands tied behind my back.

Welcome to my world.

[Baalz]

Hehe, and don't forget you can't actually capture Ermor's capital or even siege it. The way the rules are set up it doesn't really make any sense for an overlord to attack anybody but an overlord or a normal who is about to win.

[Lingchih]

Yeah, the rules for this game need to be changed. Let's just get it over with.

[LupusFatalis]

Sure, the rules need to be changed--they are prohibitive. But it is far from impossible for an overlord to win.

[namad]

want to trade fire gems for nonfire gems of any type...

willing to also trade astral gems for nonfire gems (I'll trade as many astral gems to a player as fire gems as he also requests... 2:2 ratio)

[LumenPlacidum]

So wait, Machaka's sieging my capital. As an overlord, isn't that prohibited?

[DrPraetorious]

D'oh! So it is!

My bad, I misunderstood that rule :(. For some reason I just read that I was not allowed to actually storm his capital, and I've kinda been playing on autopilot since I was killed.

What can be done here? I'm really sorry I haven't been paying close attention for some time. Do we know what the machine will do if I just go AI?

---

Well, I could just send him a bunch of gems and stuff and then call it even? Would that satisfy everyone?

Although I'm still not sure what we'd do if I went CPU and the CPU marches back onto his cap.

[rdonj]

Just leave the cap and don't worry about what the AI does. If that's your gatestone army teleporting a few provinces away is probably good enough.

[DrPraetorious]

Okay, army is walking away. I will set myself to AI next turn.

Really, though, Overlords should be able to siege the capital of any normal who is sieging their capital :).

[rdonj]

Yeah, that capitol rule is too stupid to be allowed to live.

[Squirrelloid]

wish a normal was sieging my capital...

[Lingchih]

The Overlord rules about cap sieging are just incredibly bad. This game was an experiment, and the experiment has been done, and found lacking. It's probably about time to end it now, and try again with some modified rules. Any winner of this game could not be proud of their win.

[rdonj]

Making a completely new game (and map) will definitely take a lot of work. It could be several weeks before a new game started. If everyone agrees that the overlord capitol attacking restrictions are too stupid to be playable (and I agree that it is), you could always play assuming that rule doesn't exist for the rest of the game. The main reason it was implemented anyway was to prevent overlords from killing normals off really quickly at the start of the game. I'm pretty sure that's been accomplished at this point.

If you all would rather just play a new game and try to get the rules right this time, we can end the game and start working on a new map and the revisions now.

By the way, is there anyone reading this that could make a map? I don't have any mapmaking programs right now (unless you count rpgmaker 2000), which would make it difficult for me to come up with a map that would meet the demands that seem to be needed. I can handle all the map commands, I just can't create a usable image. Maybe I should post this in the maps&mods section.

[Lingchih]

Hmm, I could support a rule change at this point in the game, so that Overlords could now siege normal caps. I think it would keep the game viable and playable, without having to start a whole new game.

[Squirrelloid]

Already too late to make a difference to me

[Baalz]

I second that.

[rdonj]

What exactly are you seconding? :P

[Baalz]

Heh, Squirreloid hadn't posted when I started typing. I say we give it a run by relaxing the no-cap rule, particularly if the other option is to shut the game down.

[LupusFatalis]

That makes three? ;)

[rdonj]

Adding a 48 hour extension to the turn for you guys to discuss this amongst yourselves.

[LupusFatalis]

The main area in which I find the rules lacking is province control, but to some extent this can be rectified by different play style. I mean allowing overlords to retake their home provinces (where they could have had strong dominion) isn't necessary--it requires them to actively maintain their dominion. Whats more disturbing is that I don't feel threatened by any lone overlord--I can outpace a 1/turn province loss pretty readily. Sure, 1/turn can be castestrophic if they somehow choose all my best provinces, but that'd just be uncanny.

The main advantage with overlords is the early start, what I mean to say is any overlord not capitalizing on this advantage is probably going to flounder and die. As is, its a little difficult to capitalize on this. Your an overlord, you selected Dom10. But now all your provinces spend the first x turns filling with candles before you aggressively push them outward. Realizing this fatal flaw, you start sacrificing your military might to get some temples, that's ok though, you chose order right? So its a few turns later and your finally pushing dominion outward into all those indie provinces, time to leverage that 3:1 advantage! Oh wait, those normals are starting to butt up against you, carrying their dominion with them. Hmm. Not much left to that advantage of yours now is there?

I think simply allowing them to attack independent provinces regardless of dominion is a huge and necessary change in their favor, perhaps oppressively so depending on how much they can press that advantage. Regardless, I think that simple rule change would be a good start in what is likely to be a pendulum of rules changes until something resembling a balanced set of rules and victory criterion is reached.

I can't say much from the normal perspective, I mean I'd have to worry about people popping in to stop victory conditions. But that's pretty minor in comparison and quite possibly something that shouldn't be corrected.

[LumenPlacidum]

I think it would be a remiss change to suddenly alter the rules that people may have been using for defense without some warning period to allow them to alter their decisions. It's always valuable to include in one's strategies contingencies for possible eventualities that are not necessarily foreseen, but I don't think the eventuality of the rules changing is one that is necessarily fair as a quick change. At the minimum, I think there should be a grace period of some turns before the rule is changed. I'd actually prefer the new game option over changing the rules mid-game, though.

The overlords not being able to siege capitals seemed to have two purposes from the start of the game, only one of which was the protection offered to normals in the early game. The second important concept there was that the overlords needed to work WITH normal nations to fully remove threats. We already noticed a partial lack of friendly diplomacy between normals and overlords (what with normals ganging up on a couple of them) even with this possible incentive to work together. Won't the problem be worse without it?

[Squirrelloid]

Except without it the Overlords can actually swat problematic normals, removing an enemy. Being forced to fight on the defensive sucks, a lot.

I mean, in the unlikely event where an overlord manages to take and hold all of a normal's non-capital provinces (likely at 1/trn with their Overlord, which is really painful), they still have to just sit there and try to preach the normal to death, all the while the normal can make suicide attacks at random adjoining provinces to remove temples, with full knowledge that nothing it does will make the capital a weak point to attack.

Once involved in a war with a normal, the overlord has to tie up significant forces (enough to defeat all their provinces plus then defend all provinces adjoining the normal's capital until they can achieve domkill) or be forced to continually defend that border (because Overlords have no advantage in dom-pushing), which means they can't end one threat quickly, no matter how trivial. So then a second front might open up. And a third, and pretty soon whatever advantage you think Overlords have is gone because they can't fight n wars effectively, especially when they only get 1 attack per turn assuming their pretender is positioned somewhere useful or doesn't have anything better to be doing.

I mean, I had to do exactly that. And there was basically a continuous stream of longbows from Man's capital to our border - a situation made worse because I could rarely capitalize on a victory by advancing.

Now, as wars rarely involve starting the siege of the capital absolutely last, obviously cutting off the capital's production and revenues from the normal would permit a war to end (effectively) much faster, and also require a smaller commitment of forces to keep them contained (only have to defend the one province).

An overlord should be able to defeat multiple normals at the same time. This should be what makes them overlords.

Some rules proposals for the next game:
1) Overlords can attack independents regardless of dominion.

2) Create a magic item called Battle Standard. It doesn't have to do much, or even anything, but one must be present in the army for an Overlord to attack a normal outside his dominion.
2a) Make it require 15 gems, and possibly make 7 different ones (one for each magic path other than blood) so that no overlord has problems forging them. This is a significant enough gem expenditure that there are opportunity costs with outfitting another army with a standard. It should probably be a misc item or a hand item.
2b) An Overlord's pretender and prophet automatically count as having a standard without needing to carry one.

3) Normal capitals don't count for Overlord victory conditions, but all starting overlord forts do. (Rethink victory conditions)

4) Normals cannot win on their own. Instead, normals share in a victory by an Overlord. Basically, the Overlord is assembling a team that will win the game.

5) In addition to standard cooperative play, Overlords can take on Vassals. A Vassal is a Normal nation which binds itself closely to the Overlord, but allows the Vassal to win if the Overlord he is a vassal of wins.
5a) To enter vassalage requires agreement of both the normal and the overlord, and probably informing the (non-playing) game admin.
5b) An overlord can only have so many vassals, probably 5.
5c) (i) A Vassal which wants to break its vassalage to a particular Overlord is required to pay an indemnity to the Overlord. (specific amount to be determined, but I'm thinking at least 2000 gold or 1/20 that in gems or any combination thereof - it should not be convenient). (ii) No attacks by one against the other are permitted in the turn in which vassalage is recognized as broken (funds received by Overlord), but thereafter anything is fair game. (iii) An Overlord can never initiate dissolution of a vassalage agreement, once formed.
5d) A Vassal who dies still counts against the Overlord's total allowed vassals.
5e) A Normal may not become a Vassal of more than one Overlord simultaneously.
5f) Overlords should be encouraged to have vassals - possibly by making victory conditions easier for Overlords with 4+ Vassals by 1 fort or so?
5g) The identities of an Overlord's vassals are not required to be publicly disclosed, although we possibly would want to force Overlords to publicly disclose how many vassals they have. An Overlord or a Vassal may choose to disclose the status of any such agreements they may be in, of course. Nations are also permitted to lie about the state of their vassalage agreements.

Ok, that covers:
(1) difficulties in attacking normals
(2) incentives for normals and overlords to work together. In fact, it virtually mandates it

[namad]

I'm pretty much fine with any rule change at all... this is my only game and i don't want it to have to be quitted.

relaxing one or even two of the rules holding the overlords back should be fine.

[Lingchih]

Those rule changes are really well thought out Squirrel, and I like them for the next game. If we want to finish this one though, I think we should look at just making a few changes to the rules in this game. Specifically, allowing the attacking of normal caps at any time (though Pretender has to be present in the attack), and allowing Overlords to take indies at any time, regardless of Dominion in the indie prov.

[rdonj]

Okay, so all those in favor of continuing this game with, say, 4 turns before restrictions on attacking normal nation capitols are lifted say aye.

[Lingchih]

Aye

[LupusFatalis]

Aye: the Rule change to continue this game sounds good.

-- I like the vassal concept to drag this more toward co-op, but think it was ill posed. (i.e. the penalizing bit I dislike, I think a free trade of provinces between vassal and overlord is good, and the vassalage should be for life--so as not to allow ninja-victories). Similarly I don't think all normals should be able to be vassals, i.e. a cap of 2 vassals per overlord or something, further when your vassal dies you cannot replace him.
-- You already have my thoughts on the indie idea
-- I think the other modifications far too much.

[LupusFatalis]

I'd be interested to hear atul's thoughts.

[Squirrelloid]

Aye: the Rule change to continue this game sounds good.

-- I like the vassal concept to drag this more toward co-op, but think it was ill posed. (i.e. the penalizing bit I dislike, I think a free trade of provinces between vassal and overlord is good, and the vassalage should be for life--so as not to allow ninja-victories). Similarly I don't think all normals should be able to be vassals, i.e. a cap of 2 vassals per overlord or something, further when your vassal dies you cannot replace him.
-- You already have my thoughts on the indie idea
-- I think the other modifications far too much.

That vassals can actually back out while Overlords cannot eject vassals means its actually more power for the vassal. A vassal should be able to look for a new lord if they're willing to sever their ties. They have to pay for the privilege to make it inconvenient, but that they even have the option is a power for them.

Vassals and Overlords can freely trade provinces - no limitations were laid between the interactions of allies. There's merely a restriction on attacks when a Vassal severs ties with an overlord.

I'd rather give Overlords enough Vassal slots to make some vassals early, and still have slots left for later use. Its a more interesting diplomatic game if the Overlords have more latitude to reward allies. Why do you think 2 is superior to 5?

Why do you think the other changes went to far? Its hard to respond to 'gone too far'. Why are the rules as proposed a bad idea?

[LupusFatalis]

To me I see (0+2)/5 dead&dying overlords and (4+4)/16 dead&dying normals... either way your looking at about half the people are dead or dying and there is no statistical difference between those groups.

Overlords have a unique set of restrictions that requires unique workarounds. Throwing out that concept because it was too difficult for 2 people (who had other factors going against them as well) is kind of absurd.

So yeah, I'm all for tweaking the victory conditions and some screwy restrictions like the capital bit (which I too for some reason read as no storming). I'm definitely for making dom nuetral/indie provinces always viable targets--and this is a huge boon, probably more than they need. I'm not for essentially what would amount to a complete change in concept, i.e those suggested items.

Anyhow, that's why I'm interested to hear from the more successful people in this game and see what the deal was. i.e. did they actually overcome it, was it a gimmick or based on the map, maybe it was the result of some fancy bartering? I don't know.

[rdonj]

No changes are set in stone yet. I do like some of squirrel's ideas, though not necessarily all of them. I am pretty much planning on putting everything up to a vote (when the game is over or nearly there). I am against certain core changes to the concept myself but I will present all suggestions for review.

[LumenPlacidum]

I'm fine with relaxing the overlords' restrictions after 4 turns. Gives us some time to consider how to counter what might happen then.

The vassal concept is, I think a fine idea for a similar-but-different style of game. Personally, I think it would be fun to have a way to force your way into vassalage as a normal nation (such as by defeating and consuming a vassal someone already has). Of course, this opens the door to a liege lord conspiring with an extra party to remove one of his vassals in favor of a new one, which could be a problem. However, since the new vassal doesn't have to (and *can't*) be declared until the previous one is dead, there's always the possibility that they are going to declare for someone ELSE after having destroyed that nation.

Basically, each overlord is able to have 2 vassals. They cannot take on a new vassal if a previous one is killed off. Except, that the player who kills off a previous vassal has the option to declare HIMSELF the new vassal of the overlord, or to allow that vassal slot to close permanently on the overlord. Of course, there would have to be some way of determining who it was who actually killed the vassal state, in cases where it's not obvious or there were multiple attackers.

Seems like it would open the door for a variety of political maneuvers and decision-making.

[Squirrelloid]

The politicking i was more interested in was the Normal-Overlord interactions. Your system basically can essentially remove the Overlord from the politics of the game, because it removes virtually all interesting political choices the Overlord can choose as an initiator.

[LumenPlacidum]

What are the interesting choices that have been lost? Seems like all I proposed was a way for a normal to have some say in the matter of who's going to be a vassal.

Actually, what incentive is there for vassals to be chosen at all? Since each side of the 'deal' only has restricted options once the deal is made, and there are no rules against working together WITHOUT the vassalage (nor should there be), wouldn't it be in the best interest of everyone involved to simply wait until victory conditions can be met and then to pick them at the end, avoiding the punishments and restrictions of the system entirely?

[LupusFatalis]

5 Vassals allows for more vassals than we have normals. It also allows for ~1/4 of the players to win simultaneously? It gives no incentive for an overlord to keep all of his vassals alive, he has a spare slot even. Making it a permanent choice locks in those incentives and removes the ambiguity that they'll have with normal allies. And as I stated, if they have to fulfill win conditions together, being able to opt-out allows for a normal to fulfill normal win conditions as a vassal, opt out and win.

The swallowing a vassal to become a vassal idea is interesting, but not sure I like it--need to consider it more.

[Squirrelloid]

There are no normal win conditions...

The incentives for a normal to become a vassal are so that it can win the game. A normal without a master may be perceived as particularly dangerous because he is ronin.

The incentive for the Overlords is maintaining a large set of vassals allows them to win easier (ie, I suggested reduce number of fortresses needed).

The incentives for both sides to enter a vassalage agreement are guaranteed peace - they become your ally.

And vassal agreements are permanent, even beyond death of the vassal, unless the vassal chooses to end it. (Obviously, a dead vassal can pay no indemnity, and can make no choices). That was included in my first post on the matter.

As to more total vassal slots than normals.
(1) I imagine we'll run with 5 overlords instead of 6 for next time.
(2) We want Overlords to compete for the normal's favor, so we want Overlords to have enough Vassal slots that *vassals* and not slots are in short supply.

Finally, normals should not be able to force themselves into a vassalage position by fiat. Vassal slots are something given to Overlords as a way of having something to give to normals, and an important part of their diplomacy and interaction with normals. The choosing of vassals is not something normals should be able to arrogate for themselves. The choice of vassal is the Overlords, and assuming the intended target accepts, they have to live with that choice.

[namad]

so are we making a rule change and continuing? if we don't decide soon people might lose interest and we'll lose the chance to decide for ourselves (time will decide for us)...

[rdonj]

Rule change and continuing, it looks like. Only one person has stated that they dislike the change, but they were also willing to play with it. I think it would be better for the sake of the game to just continue at this point.

[namad]

so this turn will have no more delays and will host on saturday? can you rdonj post the rule changes specifically?



also i have an idea for rule changes for future games... how about we keep the overlords dom restricted and just make some insane rule like normals can't take dom score higher than 5-6?

[rdonj]

I have no intention of adding any more delays to the current turn. Next turn (37)is the first of the 4 turns until overlords can attack capitols at will. That will be the only change. I can put this in the OP if you like.

That is one of the suggestions I liked, as it would be simple and would do a lot to enhance the offensive capabilites of overlords. So it is a definite possibility for the next game.

[Hoplosternum]

I am glad we are lifting the Capital attack (I didn't even realise it was a rule after the first 10 turns!) so we can continue and play this one out.

I agree that changes should be made for the next game. I am not sure of the Vassal idea, it would be a massive change. Especially if there was no way for a normal to win without it. Surely it would mean that the Overlord would cut a deal with a couple of normals and kill off the remainder? This game has suffered from gang ups vs some of the Overlords (but I think the map was partially responsible for that, a wrap around would have made that far less desireable) but at least they were defensively strong. A normal being ganged up on by an Overlord and a couple of neighbouring normals hardly seems a recipe for fun. I like allied victory condition options though. But there is a danger that they spark brief early diplomacy - then we just have fixed adhoc teams for the rest of the game (and those who are not 'in' the teams are simply picked off).

I like the idea that the Overlords get more attack options, especially as the game progresses. Being able to attack neutrals without dominion seems a good change for a start. But the attack standard idea seems too cheap to me. Something else is needed to help the Overlords but I am not sure that is quite it. If the next game restricted the normals Dom strength then it allows a lot more fruitful dom pushing by the Overlords. Coupled with the ability to actually attack capitals and take indies without their dom there would make a big difference.

I think even with the existing rules the next game would play out very differently. I know I have changed my ideas on what I should have done. I certainly saw the Overlords as more of a threat than an opportunity but that was before I saw how the game played out. I don't think we should use these rules again as they are too restrictive on the Overlords. But I don't think the game format needs to be completely changed. Players would adapt their play a lot in a second game.

[LupusFatalis]

@Hoplo -- Well put! If only your diplomatic messages to me were so well formed, I might have taken them seriously. Though it did provide me with a great deal of amusement, so either way, thanks!

[Squirrelloid]

If Overlord attack options are not expandable by use of resources, I will not play an Overlord again. Lategame wars involve attacking many provinces simultaneously. Making the Overlord pay for the privilege against a normal is fine. Making it so the Overlord cannot even accomplish such a feat is not ok.

There's a reason i proposed giving so many vassal slots to Overlords, so that normals were the thing in short supply, not vassal slots.

[LupusFatalis]

If we don't have enough overlords next game I'd be happy to give an it a whirl if the independent/neutral dominion change is put into place (whether or not any further benefits are given do them). Though, I admit, I do not meet the qualifications for "experienced" it seems like it would be both a challenge and a blast.

[rdonj]

The independent/neutral change is almost definitely going to be in. I favor it, everyone who's commented has favored it. It's probably in.

I like the idea of expanding attack options, personally. How exactly this is going to be handled is what I am not sure of yet. I like squirrel's banner idea, but if I used it I would put a limit as to how many banner armies you can have.

[Squirrelloid]

The independent/neutral change is almost definitely going to be in. I favor it, everyone who's commented has favored it. It's probably in.

I like the idea of expanding attack options, personally. How exactly this is going to be handled is what I am not sure of yet. I like squirrel's banner idea, but if I used it I would put a limit as to how many banner armies you can have.

The whole point to the banners is they aren't limited. But you do have diminishing returns - the more you have, the lower the marginal value of the *next* one. So there's some logical point at which you stop making them. And every one is some number of gems you aren't spending on other uses. I don't see a need for a hard limit.

[namad]

how about every 10turns of the game you get +1max attack armies per turn?


that way early on when you are three times as big as your neighbors you are severely limited but in the end game when things boil down equally between finalists the limit is high?


also if the overlords have no restrictions on attacking indies early in the game and start with so many starting provinces i fear that they might just kill all the normals by turn 20 if not turn 12? what would be done to prevent this? perhaps if the overlords have no restriction on attacks against indies they should also not get so many starting provinces? maybe they should get 3forts with labs and temples in them and 0extra provinces between?


just rambling... i think also maybe we need a new thread? discuss ideas about overlords2 in another thread so people can still come to this thread for clear and concise and easy to find information about the current actual game?

[LupusFatalis]

@namad, agreed. The indie thing allows them to leverage the start. That's why I don't support any changes on attack rate.

[Hoplosternum]

@namad, agreed. The indie thing allows them to leverage the start. That's why I don't support any changes on attack rate.

Yes it will and on it's own it would radically change the next game compared to this one. The Overlords will be able to expand much quicker. In this game only the overlords R'lyeh and Marignon got any reasonable expansion in the first year. So I think being able to attack neutrals sorts out the slow Overlord expansion at the beginning but still protects the Normals from an Overlord rush fuelled by his extra early game castles and income.

But there is also the problem overlords face now - that they cannot run a proper war at this stage. A Normal is now far more dangerous than an Overlord who can only really hit one territory a turn.

So I think some relaxation of the attack rules needs to happen in the mid/late game. I think Namads/my idea of allowing an extra attacks based on the game turn would work well as it slowly makes the Overlords more dangerous.

The problem I have with Squirrel's Standards idea is that it is too cheap rather than the idea itself. 15 gems is very little and means that the Overlords could buy several in the first year. There is little else that would be as vital to use with those early gems. That allows early game Overlord rushes very easily. And those will neither demonstrate Overlord skill or be any fun for the Normal who is rushed due to the inbuilt inbalance in their starting positions. If you made them cost say 50 per banner (make it a summonable creature and one needs to be in each attacking army) then it would work better.

Also please remember this map has really affected the game. Many Normals had effectively only one Overlord neighbour. The water too has acted early on as a map edge. I am not sure this was really the original intention. Making sure everyone has several neighbours including (for Normals) two Overlords would make the diplomacy far better.

[rdonj]

The independent/neutral change is almost definitely going to be in. I favor it, everyone who's commented has favored it. It's probably in.

I like the idea of expanding attack options, personally. How exactly this is going to be handled is what I am not sure of yet. I like squirrel's banner idea, but if I used it I would put a limit as to how many banner armies you can have.

The whole point to the banners is they aren't limited. But you do have diminishing returns - the more you have, the lower the marginal value of the *next* one. So there's some logical point at which you stop making them. And every one is some number of gems you aren't spending on other uses. I don't see a need for a hard limit.

The main thing is I don't want overlords to be able to field too many armies early in the game, because I'm pretty sure that would just lead to them crushing everyone. Currently I can think of two ways to deal with this. 1) You can build one banner for each x time that has passed, or 2) Make these banners construction 4 or 6 so you can't make them right away.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm doing this yet to begin with.

[Squirrelloid]

Hoplo: its a sites 20 game. 15 gems is maybe an overlord's per turn gem income at the start. That's a significant expenditure of resources.

50 gems is just obscene. Its unplayably obscene. For 50 gems you can get a RoW (with hammer) or your choice of 2 good artifacts (like the chalice and the scepter of dark regency, both with a hammer).

Consider that overlords got something on the order of +10gems/turn advantage. Now, without considering the disadvantages of that gem income being spread around, you're basically saying that for each extra attack they get to make they have to spend 1/2 a year's 'bonus' gem income. Now consider that Eriu or Vanheim or Jotunheim can produce multiple thugs each turn by year 2, and probably forge sufficient gear for all of them in the same time frame by year 3. Basically, severely limited attacks means the overlord loses any raiding war instantly.

Really, 25 gems is probably too much, but anything higher than that is certainly out of the question.

It absolutely has to be an item, so teleport/cloud trapeze raiding is possible.

Making them require Constr 4 is certainly reasonable - Overlords wouldn't need them early.

Namad's proposal doesn't increase attacks fast enough unless its on an exponential scale (+1 year 2, +2 more year 3, +4 more year 4, etc...), and even then it might need to be every 6 months by year 4.

Basically, there's a fundamental disconnect between how the game is actually played and how people seem to imagine its played. How the game is actually played involves potentially dozens of attacks by year 5 or 6 in a single turn.

Consider VC3, which is on turn 52 (mid year 5). The game leaders have ~40+ provinces each. If I can't make at least 20 attacks on turn 1 of the war against one of them, its not worth starting the war, and a more reasonable estimate is 25-30. Why? Because if I don't I will not inflict sufficient damage to make victory likely, and will probably be facing a similar size retaliation.

Now imagine I was an Overlord attacking a normal in that situation. I can make an anemic 6 attacks based on Namad's theory, or *maybe* that many based on Hoplosternum's gem cost (VC3 has a normal sites setting, and I maybe could have bought 4 standards at 50 gems and have been reasonable under those settings. Sites 20 would involve fewer gems...). Then my target retaliates with 25 attacks, my empire is halved in size, and the war more or less continues in that vein until I inevitably lose.

[Baalz]

Yeah, I don't think the people playing normals really understand how handicapped overlords are. Just consider the fact that as the nominal leading overlord I would not be at that much of an advantage in a no holds barred fight with Vanheim right now other than the natural water defense advantage R'yleh always has. There is effectively no way for me to do anything to him whatsoever (good luck pushing my dominion into that blood sacrifice) - other than loom ominously ready to squish an army that goes for TC's cap. Same thing Ashdod just realized against Ermor. The way the game is set up it only makes sense for overlords to attack other overlords, and couterintuitively be at the mercy of a normal ally. The way the restrictions are work fine for the early game, but as Squirloid illustrates they're utterly crippling for late game fights.

[namad]

the idea I was having is that if the overlords are allowed to attack any indies any time they'll expand 2or3 as fast as they did in this game which was already fairly fast....


if you can only attack 6provinces a turn when you want to attack 18-24in one turn maybe that isn't so bad if you are 300% as strong as your enemy... i mean if we end up saying overlords can attack up to 24provinces per turn on turn 50 then they basically have totally unrestricted abilities to attack, and as such why did they bother being called an overlord and why did they get any advantages at all?

I guess you are saying you'd rather pay a high price for each additional army so that in theory you have the option to attack more per turn even if in practice it works out to the same or less than a fixed per year increase?

maybe overlords could get 1extra attack per year and one extra attack per vassal? encouraging them to get vassals and representing the vassal's logistical advantage to the overlord? i dunno.... we could just play a game without overlords :-p

[rdonj]

Btw, I have gone ahead and made an overlords 2 discussion thread, so for the future please try to keep such comments to the other thread.

Thread is located here (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=721565#post721565).

[Squirrelloid]

Oh, i see, Vanheim isn't killing me because you're being ominous. Does anyone mind if I set AI? I mean, I can still be annoying, but my effective income is *30*/trn, my gem income is a trickle, and there's no way those mages are getting me out of this mess on their own.

[Baalz]

Nah, I'm gonna roll onto your cap very shortly and put you out of your misery (or at least try to), so you won't have an indefinite wait for a last ditch fight. Probably better to script something nasty in the castle and stale than switch AI and let me pick apart the last of the defenders as the AI attacks out.

[LumenPlacidum]

Oh, i see, Vanheim isn't killing me because you're being ominous. Does anyone mind if I set AI? I mean, I can still be annoying, but my effective income is *30*/trn, my gem income is a trickle, and there's no way those mages are getting me out of this mess on their own.

Don't see why not... Machaka's now AI

[Lingchih]

I don't see any way an Overlord is winning this game now. Hell, I'm doing great, but I can't bust out anywhere. I'll continue to play though. It would be cheesy of me to bow out, while I have such stupendous forces.

[namad]

anyone want to trade me gems? I have F/S in abundance and I need all other types in various quantities...

[LupusFatalis]

Was the restriction on normals casting global's lifted or something? Thought that was pretty much their only restriction? Doesn't matter much to me that its up, just want to know if I'm unaware of a rule change, or perhaps I misinterpreted to begin with?

[Lingchih]

Was the restriction on normals casting global's lifted or something? Thought that was pretty much their only restriction? Doesn't matter much to me that its up, just want to know if I'm unaware of a rule change, or perhaps I misinterpreted to begin with?

I'm not aware that that restriction was ever lifted. Oceania should probably kill off the caster of the Wild Hunt, since it was cast against the rules of the game. Or, Oceania should be disqualified.

[LupusFatalis]

Meh, was probably just an accident. Not like wildhunt is a game-changer far as I know--disqualification is probably a bit harsh. Killing the caster seems more than reasonable.

I was really just interested if it was lifted, as I'd revise my strategy somewhat.

[kianduatha]

wow, completely my bad. With all the other rules talk the restrictions on us 'normals' casting globals completely slipped my mind. I'll try to get him killed off somehow. I'm sure Marignon or someone will be glad to oblige.

[Lingchih]

Totally understandable, kianduatha. The rules to this game are quite mind boggling. Just kill the caster off.

wow, completely my bad. With all the other rules talk the restrictions on us 'normals' casting globals completely slipped my mind. I'll try to get him killed off somehow. I'm sure Marignon or someone will be glad to oblige.

[namad]

had this not been brought up again in the thread i was planning to start aiming for a global myself :-/

so don't feel bad and... dangit back to the drawing board on my plans!

[rdonj]

Yeah, killing the caster off is a fine solution. Disqualification would be a little overkill for just casting one global. It's a good argument to looking into modding out globals for the normals in the next game though.

[namad]

all globals could be modded to be national spells for all nations that are chosen to be overlords? or would that be too much work? or would it mostly just be copy/paste?


also is there anyway to specifically know which mage cast a global? like if you see that mage in battle does he get an icon on him or something? i forget... or i never knew

[namad]

since no one wants to trade for my astral gems.... does anyone want to sell or rent a province to me that allows recruitment of astral mages? pm me or find me on irc to haggle


also anyone wanna give me a bulk discount rate on antimagic amulets? like 4s each if i buy a large enough amount?

[rdonj]

IIRC, to make normals unable to cast globals and overlords able to, I'd have to disable the normal globals, and make some copies of them for the overlords to use and give those to them as national spells. However I think you can only give the same national spell to 3 nations, so if there were more overlords I'd have to make two different versions of the copied spell to use.

There's a green pentagram or something that shows up on a mage that has cast a global.

[namad]

dang i actually lost a unit to the wild hunt... seems if the commander routes it dies (assassination style battle)

if you need any help killing the caster of that spell and there's anything i can do to help lemme know cause... all my mages are priests and if i have to script all of them and/or lose more of them i'll be inconvenienced

[kianduatha]

You're already helping him suicide, don't worry :)

[namad]

wts lots of dwarf hammers in exchange for something that is not fire gems (other gem types or... use your imagination ... pm offers)


also interested in trading my fire gems away for some non-fire gems.... willing to do 12fire gems for 10nonfire (feel free to pm and haggle worse offers)

[LupusFatalis]

You can pm me with an offer if you like. Last time I offered you something the response was "your craaaaazy" or something like that, lol.

[namad]

want to sell dwarf hammers, accepting payments in any gemtype besides fire... reduced prices!

[Lingchih]

So, we should probably put some game counters up. I have a vague idea who is winning, but by no means a complete idea.

Heh... leave it to me to finally play Ashdod, in a game where they cannot attack anyone.

[Squirrelloid]

I am winning. No. I have already won.

...

I'm not playing anymore! =p

(BTW Baalz, hoped you liked getting your teeth kicked in by a dying nation =). Damn blood sacking skinshifting loonies. At least I took ~100 of them with me as well!)

[namad]

does anyone know who ended up with the 3machaka forts that count as vps?

[Baalz]

So, I'd like to change my vote to be to lay this game to rest. I find myself completely apathetic and phoning in every turn...I feel like there is nothing I can do. I don't mean that as a whiny exaggeration, I mean literally I'm sitting on a pile of mages and gems and I can't do anything productive with them. Just keeping beating back the indie attacks (my luck-3 scale doesn't help much where my dominion isn't) would be pretty much a full time job for my pretender...who of course needs to be called back due to my half-assed efforts. Literally, I've got nothing I can do right now other than perhaps a suicidal plunge into another overlord while I wait for one of the normals to really realize how utterly unable I would be to respond to any kind of attack (hint: Vanheim's blood sac has pushed my dominion out of my capital...so good luck fighting around there). Those of you not playing overlords just consider for a moment how you would plan an attack on another overlord with the assumption that their normal ally is going to counterattack you there where you have no prayer of pushing your dominion. On top of this, the bar is so high for an overlord victory as to be essentially impossible, thus I find it very difficult to much get into doing these turns. I get the impression from general comments from other overlords that I'm not alone in this feeling, so my vote is we call it a successful experiment and gg all.

[namad]

why not just alter the rules in some fashion? making overlord victory easier? allowing overlords to attack indies at will... allowing overlords a 2nd type of army that can attack anywhere?

etc?

[LupusFatalis]

Heh, to be honest, I haven't been playing for the quick win for a while now, I've been playing to test out some things.

[Baalz]

why not just alter the rules in some fashion? making overlord victory easier? allowing overlords to attack indies at will... allowing overlords a 2nd type of army that can attack anywhere?

etc?

I don't think you appreciate the scope of the handicap. Yes, those things would help a little, but at the end of the day the overlords cannot realistically bring a fight with a normal to a close. As we pull into late game and it becomes not too uncommon for 20 provinces to switch hands in a single turn of a war, only being able to commit to big fights is completely paralyzing. Not to mention the single point of failure that happens if you lose your pretender and gatestone due to bad luck or clever planning by your adversary. Also, an overlord planning to go on the offensive needs to consider whats going to happen if he does start succeeding in taking out one of the remaining overlords...I can't imagine any way that plays out except several normals attacking him to keep him from winning, which is just absurd to try and think about fighting off with two offensive armies.

It seems like several of the normals want to keep playing, but the overlords are all finding themselves sitting around unable to do anything that would not be suicidal. Really the only way I can see this being viable for the overlords going into late game is to essentially scrap the overlord restrictions almost entirely, and I don't imagine that would be accepted.

[namad]

uhm maybe.... overlords can attack anyone anywhere at will provided that whoever they are attacking is a player that has once before attacked them? (so use your god to attack someone and as soon as they attack back you're allowed to attack them at will? or they can refuse to attack back and just lose the one province a turn?)


or like... any better ideas anyone can think of in the next 1day?

[rdonj]

I'm going to make an executive decision on this. Either - all restrictions are lifted and this finishes as a normal game, OR we end it now and reorganize a new overlords game with more sensible rules where it's actually possible for overlords to win. If we do end up calling it I can leave the game up for anyone else who wants to continue playing.

[LupusFatalis]

Sounds good. Scraps my defense ;) but if its a way to keep the game going, whatever.

[namad]

i'm all for totally removing the restrictions. I do think that if we are to totally remove all restrictions we should impose a turn that is not the current turn for the rule change to take effect on.... that way anyone at war with an overlord has at least a turn or two to plan for the change? does that sound reasonable to anyone else?

[Baalz]

Haha, it'll take much more than one turn before I retool everything, that's more than fair.

[namad]

well I was just saying one turn should be the least.... and one turn I think makes that first turn 43? so ... 3turns would be 45? and etc...

Hopefully I'm not at war with any overlords so it's not much a concern of mine but... some specific number is probably fairest in general...

[rdonj]

Might as well do another 3 turn changeover deal. So on turn 44, you may proceed to give whatever orders you like.

[Lingchih]

I'm going to make an executive decision on this. Either - all restrictions are lifted and this finishes as a normal game, OR we end it now and reorganize a new overlords game with more sensible rules where it's actually possible for overlords to win. If we do end up calling it I can leave the game up for anyone else who wants to continue playing.

Hmmm. I could go either way. I'm strong enough that with all restrictions lifted, I could probably quickly do a lot of damage. On the other hand, I would not miss the game were it to end now. Sorry if that sounds wishy-washy.

[rdonj]

Yeah, with the rules as they were I'm not really surprised with overlords being a bit apathetic at this point. Well, no one seems to really be calling for the game to end, so I would assume you all are moving forward.

Also, I've set the hosting interval to 72 hours. I figure it can't hurt since the holidays are upon us, and technically I was supposed to do it turns ago anyway.

[namad]

what are the overlords new victory conditions?

[rdonj]

Victory by concession or control of 50% of the map. At which point should have long since been obtained.

[Hoplosternum]

Oh no!

I have been away so couldn't respond before now.

I agree this rules completely knack the Overlords fun and I can see why they are completely apathetic. I am surprised they have continued so long especially after the thread began talking about how the rules made the game both unwinable and rather pointless for them.

But the rules were stacked massively in their favour. It took me (with a great deal of manual and spell site searches) till turn 35 to get in to double figures of gem income (apart from a turn when I stole one of TCs provinces) and thats with 20+ provinces. I still have less gems per turn than an overlord started the game with.

Marignon (especially) and R'Leyh are massively ahead in research and have large gem rich empires. They are also two of the best players. Baalz's gem income lead is huge and has been for a long time. While Vanheim and Ashdod are fairly powerful anyone seriously think the eventual winner won't be Baalz or Atul from here if all restrictions go? But with a conquer 50% of the world victory condition it is going to take a long time from here.

So I vote we abandon this game under the Rdonj's new victory conditions.

But as we have all invested a lot of time to this game though if people do want to complete it at least make any victory conditions quick so the game ends soon (or at least could). The game was not designed to be fair (in a free for all sense) and has been anything but. So if we move to free for all rules at least leave the easy victory conditions. Let everyones victory conditions be the same as a Normal. 5 Capitals (with other peoples Overlord starting Forts counting as capitals too).

[rdonj]

So I vote we abandon this game under the Rdonj's new victory conditions.

But as we have all invested a lot of time to this game though if people do want to complete it at least make any victory conditions quick so the game ends soon (or at least could). The game was not designed to be fair (in a free for all sense) and has been anything but. So if we move to free for all rules at least leave the easy victory conditions. Let everyones victory conditions be the same as a Normal. 5 Capitals (with other peoples Overlord starting Forts counting as capitals too).

Well, my reasoning for 50% or concession is because, being rather disconnected from the game in question, I didn't want to come up with victory conditions that would put someone basically on the brink of victory by accident, and have the game rapidly descend into drama. 50% was just a number that I figured wouldn't be too close to someone winning already, and in hindsight probably would be easier to achieve than the original victory conditions :P.

That said, I am not at all attached to these victory conditions. Yours sounds fine, though I would bump the number of capitols up to 6 as I'm pretty sure there's at least one person with 4 already. If this is acceptable, it would probably be a better idea than playing this game on forever like concession victories tend to. Which was an original intent to the game. So I would find this to be a perfectly reasonable victory condition.

[namad]

we could always leave the overlords with their inflated required victory conditions.... they are afterall in the lead... and if they have no attack restrictions having a big lead might be advantage enough to balance out their victory conditions being ~double those of a normal...

?

[rdonj]

Okay, we'll take a vote.

1) to win this game, a nation needs to acquire 50% of all provinces or obtain a concession victory

2) to win this game, a nation needs to control 6 caps/overlord start forts

3) to win, a nation must control the number of capitols they were required to control in the initial game settings


This poll ends on the same turn that everyone loses their restrictions, someone please remind me when that is and we can tally the votes.

Sorry for being such a wishy washy admin this game. I have been experimenting with having a very open democratic process, which unfortunately has generated a lot of confusion.

[namad]

I think both 1) and 2) would make me quit right away

so my vote is for 3)


although i'd accept a 4) that was a compromise somewhere between the options like.... maybe 8VP for overlords and 6for normals and overlords only start with 1vp (can't utilize their own starting forts) I believe 3) is 5/10 so 6/8 would be a compromise? or maybe 5/7 or 5/8 ... i think someone might already have 4 so that's out....

[chrispedersen]

I don't know - this seems to me just a lot of poor planning on the overlords part.

If you guys don't mind me asking... what dominion settings did you guys choose? You start out with an income advantage - did anyone build temples to start?

Can't attack except with dominion.. did anyone build for that?

[Squirrelloid]

Everybody took dom 9-10 Chris. Most took awake pretenders.

Both blood sacking nations were reserved for normals.

Pushing dominion was virtually impossible.

[Baalz]

Just to further illustrate the point, I took a dominion score of 10 with an awake pretender. I've got the leading count of provinces, and as far as I can tell the most temples of any nation. I've got as of this turn 28 temples (constituting an investment of over 11,000 gold since I don't need the temples to recruit my mages) out of 43 provinces with a dominion score of 10. I've got friendly dominion in 31 of my provinces. This includes many priests preaching at friendly temples. I have pushed my dominion close to as hard as theoretically possible and I'm not even close to having all my own territory in friendly dominion much less pushing into other people's territory. It's kind of insulting to have you just assert that it's poor planning on our part.

[rdonj]

Yeah, I don't really blame the overlords. There's just not much they could have done with the restrictions I placed on them. Their only chance really for this game was to really play up the overlord angle and use vassals to do most of the gruntwork for them. Trying to fight and subjugate another normal on their own was just not going to happen. And overlords going after other overlords would just have been inviting the others to attack them. Once I realized how hard it would be for an overlord to achieve their victory conditions I realized this game was likely to go on forever.

[Lingchih]

Win condition three is fine with me.

[Hoplosternum]

I don't blame anyone either. I think this game has been a brave attempt and had lots of nice ideas but it hasn't quite fitted together as was hoped.

I think Victory Condition two is quickest and therefore best :p But three is OK too. It will drag it out a longer though - probably to little purpose.

[namad]

WTS dwarven hammers! reduced prices available... excepting payments which do not contain earth gems (or payments which do)


also WTB: stone sphere

[rdonj]

1 turn away from the switchover, and so far votes are leaning towards option 3.

[namad]

should we set jotunheim ai or look for a sub did he quit? how did i not realize sooner? dang... this game really is struggling to exist, ain't it

[namad]

want to trade for death gems, want to trade for air gems Offering: other types of gems, misc....

[rdonj]

I'll add jotunheim's name to the sub thread.

[namad]

want to trade for air gems or death gems!

offering fire,water,earth,astral,nature,gold,items!!


selling dwarven hammers! reduced prices! excepting payments of all sorts!

[rdonj]

Okay, sub situation is dealt with, jotunheim is probably going AI. Adding 48 hours to the timer to give ferrosol time to give me his email address and get a look at his nation. I may have to give him a bit more time as I've not been around much early in the day lately, and I'm pretty sure he lives on the other side of the pond.

[LumenPlacidum]

Ah, that's pretty bad news.

[Lingchih]

Well, not for me, since I am his neighbor. But yeah, bad news in that the game seems to be bogging down, with people going AI.

[Ferrosol]

Hi all subbing in for Ctis is you have any diplomatic deals with ctis contact me and let me know the details. As a general announcement we will be loyal to our friends and merciless to our enemies so we encourage you to be careful in which role you choose.

Also rdonj I sent you a PM with my Email address

[namad]

this is sortof odd... someone agreed to sub for c'tis but not jotunheim? jotunheim has double the territory, eh? if we can only get one sub and only have two nations staling maybe the stronger nation should get the sub? then again maybe i'm just wrong about which nation is stronger or not

[rdonj]

Well, I think we lucked out with c'tis, since ferrosol signed up just to play c'tis. Jotunheim's 8 stales probably made it unattractive regardless of its lack of being dead.

[namad]

selling dwarf hammers for 10gems each payable in air or nature

[Lingchih]

Hmm, I seem to have a new neighbor. A bit slimy and tentacled. I suppose I should punish them for conquering my vassal Agartha, but then, Agartha was never much of a vassal. They never paid me anything, and would hardly even talk to me. Good riddance, I suppose.

Just don't come any farther north, R'lyeh. The mages of Ashdod would not take kindly to that.

[namad]

do we have a clear description of the victory conditions? and with the abolishment of rules does that include the normals cannot cast globals rule as well?

[rdonj]

I believe so. If you are an overlord, you must capture and hold as many capitols as you were supposed to have to hold from the start of the game. i.e. 10 capitols, or 5 if all the other overlords are dead. If you are a normal, you must own 4 capitols and one of the forts that an overlord started with.

The abolishment of rules does indeed allow a normal to cast globals now.

[namad]

wtt water and pearls and fire for air

[Lingchih]

Burden of Time? Really, Baalz?

OK, who wants to dispel it? I can do it if no one else is willing. I'll need copious amounts of astral gems donated to me though. No telling what R'lyeh cast it at.

[Baalz]

Oh, giants last a long time don't they? If you wait a few turns to dispel it there will be a lot less humans around....

[LumenPlacidum]

And so the shadow of death spreads across Ermor... seems oddly appropriate for a MA game. Stupid nation comprised entirely of venerable senators!

[Lingchih]

Yeah, I'm pretty good overall. But the Talmai Elders don't seem to handle it too well. And, considering they are 600 gp a pop under the current CBM, I don't really like losing them. So yes, your newest global is a direct affront to me.

Send those Astral gems to me nations. I assure you they will be used for nothing other than the dispelling of the Burden of Time. And, I don't mean send a handful... send all you have.

I can patch up the Talmai Elders with rings of regen and whatnot. But it must be really horrific for other nations, such as Ermor. Not to fear though. I can dispel the calamity. I just need the gems to do so.

[namad]

does atul need a sub?

[rdonj]

:(. I'll ask.

[Lingchih]

Wow. The silence was deafening on my request for Astral gems to dispel the Burden of Time. Not a single donation. Well, I guess it will stay up then. I'm a little dense... I am just now realizing that spell was cast specifically at me.

[Hoplosternum]

Ling - I have two astral gems I could chip in with :p It's killing me but I was dead anyway. Which of the big powers are really affected? Vanheim, R'Lyeh and yourself should be OK. Marignon has gone AWOL. So who would help who could? This is just hastening the end thank god....

[Baalz]

R'lyeh: now accepting concessions 24 hours a day!

[rdonj]

Atul hasn't responded to me yet. If he stales again when the turn hosts just say something here and I'll go looking for a sub. Or has he already staled since it was brought up?

[Lingchih]

Atul hasn't responded to me yet. If he stales again when the turn hosts just say something here and I'll go looking for a sub. Or has he already staled since it was brought up?

It looks like he has staled 3 turns in a row now, and 4 of the last 5.

[namad]

WTB commanders from my neighbors... transfer made with charm

my need is for diversity, especially interested in astral mages...

willing to negotiate interesting trades for gold/gems/items/mycommanders/etc

[LupusFatalis]

Umm, wait a second, I thought the normal victory conditons were upped to 6 capitals (one must be a previous overlord fort). Is that not the case?

[rdonj]

Not unless you can find a post where I said that, since I cannot for the life of me recall having done so.

[LupusFatalis]

oh I see, I mixed up win condition 2 and 3, good to know.

[namad]

want to trade for air gems

[LupusFatalis]

sure, I could use air gems--what would you like?

[namad]

I want to trade my non-air gems

for someone else's air gems...


that's what i meant

[namad]

want to trade for air gems

[Lingchih]

Hmm, AI Jotun seems to require some more troops. Thought I would have quite a few allies there. Seems I was wrong. ahh, well, I guess I can do it myself.

[namad]

if vanheim storms abysia and wins the storm does that instantly end the game? or is he one short even with that one?

[Baalz]

Victory conditions have to be satisfied for 3 turns according to the rules.

[rdonj]

Yeah, VPs have to be held for three turns, so no instant victories.

[rdonj]

By the way. When you have all the capitols you need, you need to notify everyone and let them know that they have 3 turns to change the situation before they lose.

[Lingchih]

Damn. Ai Jotun left some tough troops in the field. Curse the player that goes Ai with tough troops. He is a slacker.

[Hoplosternum]

Look this storming of my Capital is still probably a couple of turns away at least. I can still win :p

But while it's fun being crushed by both Baalz (a bit) and Vanheim (a lot) don't you think it's time so of the rest of you attacked one or other of them? I mean none of the rest of you can likely win now but you can still take part :)

[pyg]

After an amazing assault of the bottom of the graph, Pythium has been eliminated. Kudos to Kianduatha for persistence.

[Baalz]

Since very early in the game Vanheim and R’lyeh have been closely allied with the goal of a joint victory – possible under the rules for an overlord and normal. As we’ve combined got the same gold and gem income as the rest of the world put together (not counting Eriu’s most certain to be dispelled global) I was wondering if anyone would object to conceding to our joint victory? We’ve both been pumping tarts out for some time now, artifacts, elemental royalty, helophagus, etc. Van’s got a huge blood economy and hundreds of vamps following through that dom push, and I’ve got a never ending supply of starspawn and my hoards of lobo guards are now supported with will of the fates + army of lead + will of the fates + fog warriors + weapons of sharpness + darkness. I’m about to wish for a couple gate stones so I can drop that fun wherever supported by teleporting starspawn & fairy queens.

This map is so big though and the victory conditions so steep it’s gonna take a quite annoying amount of time to actually win – particularly trying to coordinate the timing for a joint victory. Does anybody honestly have a prayer of actually stopping us?

[Lingchih]

Ashdod sends it's reply to the request for concession.

"Suck it"

Ashdod does not surrender.

OOC:
I will settle for a draw, as of now, but not concession.

[Lingchih]

To counter, and not just seem like a pain in the butt, I now have Wheels, and will soon have Chayots. On top of my already formidable troops. What you guys are throwing out there, does not really scare me.

[namad]

oh i see what he means... it is technically possible to achieve a joint victory if you prepare all the capitals in such a way that the timers expire on the same turn... although i believe this would require baalz being the only overlord ...

it'd be much easier for vanheim to just try and win right now on his own...



there's no reason we couldn't try and convince vanheim to just win on his own... i know you haven't been planning a joint victory all game because vanheim talked about solo victory earlier in this thread... you've just intimidated him into thinking it isn't possible... but it most likely is...



in fact if lingchih doesn't want to surrender to r'lyeh he can simply try to convince vanheim to throw in with him instead

[namad]

the victory conditions are only steep because you are going for a victory which requires total domination...


if r'lyeh were to stale 6times in a row vanheim would probably just win before you came back.... whereas your joint victory would require what is basically a total domination and several months of work....




it's possible to have a joint victory in utopia too! the victory requirements are 7/18 meaning if a team of two conquers 14/18 vps with the final two both happening at the same time..... i'm sure joint victory has been technically possible in many games

that's basically the same case as in this game

[Baalz]

My assertion is that we have achieved total domination and our plan is to just crush the remaining players and take our time setting up whatever we want. *If* you concede that we can crush everyone else then the argument is moot. If you're pinning your hopes on me staling 6 times in a row or one of us backstabbing the other then I'll ask again for a concession because that's just not gonna happen. I've got no doubt that Ashdod and Eriu and to a lesser extent Marignon can cause some casualties and slow us down - which is the reason I'm asking for a concession rather than just moving for the victory. At this point though I can't imagine any situation where anyone successfully goes on the offense against our combined might - dom push + vamps + leech/l4l spam is gonna make assaulting vanheim a very daunting process before he even does anything fancy, while the bulk of my empire is underwater and massively castled.

In considering my request for concession I'd ask that you not be thinking about how you could fight us off, but to honestly ask yourself if there is any realistic chance at all for you to conquer us. Not one of us, but both of us working closely together. Not raiding some of my land and stalling for a bit or hitting and running Van out of dominion - pushing into our core and defeating us. If you have no realistic chance at doing that (which I honestly believe is the case) then we will eventually win even in the best case (for you) scenario that you stall us a considerable time.

But, if Ling really feels his Chayots are gonna make the difference his opinion is as valid as mine.

[namad]

this is not a team game... you cannot ask for a team concession.


that's ludicrous.....

in any game i start i could start a cabal on turn20 and say that the first second and third place players are all now on the same team and demand a concession.... (when the reality is the only hope of all the other players for victory is that those top players squabble amongst themselves and take each other out... it sounds insane but it's what always happens)


any turn players could throw their weight behind either you or behind vanheim and i think it would make it quite easy for there to be a sole victor


honestly what you are asking for is just insane... you are asking for people to give you an insanely rare and impossible victory condition when there is another victory condition much much much much easier to satisfy....

right now looking at the game i'd say there's like a 54%chance vanheim wins 43% r'lyeh wins and 2% chance both win at the same time and 1% chance neither win


that doesn't mean that players have to call it a tie between vanheim and r'lyeh.... it means we can try to stop either player from winning so that the other player wins.... i am pretty sure if everyone turns on you that a vanheim victory could be setup and setup quickly... but hey maybe i'm wrong... i just haven't seen any in game evidence of me being wrong about that matter



and we all know you just made this up after you got bored because for the longest time vanheim was bragging about winning a solo victory and doing so alone... so it's not like you guys have been a secret unknown team all along or anything like you make it out to be....

it's obvious you've just bullied vanheim into this position via reputation because you either don't think you can stop him from winning alone or because you are too lazy to win a war against vanheim over the long haul... he was obviously about to win for ages but just never had any confidence in himself on the matter so doesn't care much?


i'd be willing to concede to baalz alone if he had a fairly successful war against vanheim, and i think it's possible vanheim could just flat out win with in the next 5-15turns... i mean i'm willing to admit that i can't win i just don't think the game is enough in hand for a concession...


a concession usually requires one player to control as much as all the others combined.... two players controlling as much as the other 4-5combined is rather a meaningless statistic....

[Lingchih]

Let's play a few more turns at least and see how things work out. I need to get my Ophanim and Chayots out into the field, since I've never actually used them in an MP game. I know it's getting boring, but it only requires a little work every three days, and I'd really like to see how my high end summons work against intelligent players. I'm not saying I could win... I'm way too far behind for that. I'm just saying that I would like to see some more gameplay, and ultimately, a clear-cut winner would be great to see.

[Mithras]

Just to say, I have nothing agaisnt the idea of you two getting a joint victory. Still you can come prise my one VP out of my cold dead lizard hands.

Regards.
C'tis.

[LupusFatalis]

Actually, since turn 2 or 3 I was working closely with Baalz. Furthermore, I never said I was winning solo, in fact I even hinted that my intention was not to win solo. I'm not sure what chip you've got on your shoulder Namad. A simple concede or not will do. Turning this into some sort of personal attack is a bit over the top.

Also next time you want to make some statement about our impossible chances, you'll probably want to make sure the numbers you pull out of your *** don't in fact give us 2:1 odds of winning jointly.

[namad]

the odds of jointly winning are only low because of the odds of one of you winning are so high....


in fact maybe they should have been lower..... no one ever goes for a tie... the odds that someone would backstab someone else in this case based on historical evidence... are something like 98% if not 99.999%


now sure maybe you two aren't planning to backstab eachother.... but that doesn't mean my method of determining the odds with which you are likely to do so are false




furthermore my odds were based on the fact you had not posted... and baalz is a known manipulator!!!! now that you HAVE posted ... and I've read your post.... I'd probably chance my odds to something like 50/50!! (you probably should've both posted in the first place... I mean how was anyone to know you had formed such an alliance going on baalz's word alone?)

[Lingchih]

Actually, since turn 2 or 3 I was working closely with Baalz. Furthermore, I never said I was winning solo, in fact I even hinted that my intention was not to win solo. I'm not sure what chip you've got on your shoulder Namad. A simple concede or not will do. Turning this into some sort of personal attack is a bit over the top.

Also next time you want to make some statement about our impossible chances, you'll probably want to make sure the numbers you pull out of your *** don't in fact give us 2:1 odds of winning jointly.

How hard is it to beat a baby chimpanzee, anyway? I am re-invigorated.

[Hoplosternum]

Hmmm. Well this game has been dull for a long time. So on that basis I am OK with conceding :p I may be knocked out soon - although if forced to stick to the real victory conditions Vanheim has to hold off actually taking my Capital for a long time while Baalz catches up :)

But two less deserving winners I can hardly have the pleasure to have lost against. Alliances of this sort (where allowed - and I wish there was more of that) should be declared, not kept hidden, so that others can modify their play accordingly. Long term, effectively unbreakable, agreements are bordering on cheats when they are kept hidden. Especially in a game where diplomacy was declared to be none binding. The game settings and map position has ensured they have had an extremely easy ride. Now they seem to be just playing with the rest of us until they meet the joint victory conditions, though granted that's probably as much to do with the game win conditions as their design.

So while I would love to see Namad and Ling (or anyone else) stop them lets face it they aren't going to - just drag the game out a bit longer. We are not even going to get a crusade against them are we? Marignon appears to have gone into long term hibernation and he still seems to be the toughest of the rest. Lets just call this one so we can all free up time to join other games. Or even tinker with the settings (and hopefully have a wrap around map!) and have another Overlords game.

No criticism to Rdonj though and lots of thanks for him for organising this. I really liked the idea and I doubt anyone knew excatly what all the changes he made would do to the game balance. Not sure it has all worked as intended, especially the original Overlord restrictions, but there were some nice ideas.

[namad]

given the non-binding terms of their agreement....


all we'd have to do to is tip the balance of power such that one of them feels he can easily defeat the other.... I feel like vanheim is in a much better position to win than baalz but.... baalz is far more confident and less likely to admit anything....

the constant statement that their agreement is secure... is proof enough that it is insecure ;)






but honestly i don't think anyone cares enough to perform any diplomacy of the sort required to force one of them to have a single player victory.... since most players aren't communicating at all and many just spend 5minutes on their turns...

if everyone else wants to forfeit i'd certainly do so... but if even one other player wants to keep going i intend to keep filing turns as long as anyone has any interest in doing so

[Baalz]

My goodness there's some bad attitudes in this thread. The constraints placed on overlords (before they were lifted) *strongly* encouraged developing a good relationship with a normal you could trust and to me seemed to work out into a dynamic team game so I can't believe its such a shock to be playing for a team victory. I very much assumed all the overlords were doing the same thing - I don't see how you could have any prayer of winning even a single war otherwise based on the original constraints. The non-binding, backstabbing encouraged diplomacy of this game means publicly declaring who you're working with would be beyond retarded as you go through the game trying to play each player off against one another. I had similar agreements with 3 different normals...and for all I know they were talking to other overlords! As the game progressed Vanheim emerged as the one I was actually going to go with and we entered a long period of wondering how much we could actually trust each other, but eventually came to a watershed moment when the backstabbing would happen if it was going to and came through it with a good mutual trust.

If you think there is any chance of stopping the both of us working together from eventually conquering the entire world (I disagree), then don't concede. This is Ling's position, but he seems to be alone in that.

If you're withholding the concession based on the hope that you could throw the game to one of us by slowing down the other....read to the words I'm typing. Vanheim and I are both in agreement that we want the game to end right now because there is no challenge in slowly and meticulously crushing everyone in lopsided fights. If there is no chance of stopping both of us, then one of us is without of doubt going to be in control of the map and in a position to dictate exactly when and how victory conditions are satisfied even if it takes an arbitrary amount of turns to set up. This would be tedious beyond endurance to actually have to do though.

As to your disparagement to my character Namad, use your head for just a second before you start talking. Do you honestly think there is the remotest chance that if I were lying about this that Lupus would not call me out himself? Obviously I discussed it with him before I posted, but even if you hold some absurd theory as to my complete untrustworthiness at least give me the tiniest amount of credit that I wouldn't so publicly lie in a manner guaranteed to immediately be shown false.

[namad]

i think the biggest problem is that baalz can't just try to win alone...

if the victory conditions were say... something like 6for all or +1for overlords instead of +4


but by this point in the game everyone is too disinterested to lift the last overlord restriction in an attempt to make the game fair and "endable"


it'd be a lot easier to drive a rift between the two of you because.... all i am hearing is this.... baalz, "I'm an overlord and I can't win any victory but a total domination because those are the dumbass rules... so I'll just win a team victory" and vanheim saying "I could win quickly by betraying baalz but somehow i'd take more pride in a team victory anyways and hey if i can get the team victory faster than the single victory why not....(even though it should be totally harder to get a team victory than a single victory due to the much higher requirements)"



but the problem is that the team victory is much much much harder to pull off as a result the concession should be much harder to win!!! i mean none of the rules of the game make any sense but generally... the less likely a victory the less likely the concession should be.... your claim is that since victory is so unlikely you'd like us to concede because the game is boring and stupid...

I'm just trying to defend the principle that games with lower victory point victory requirements are also games where concessions are given more liberally.... this case flies in the face of that logic... maybe that logic was flawed all along... maybe it is games with insanely too high victory conditions which beget the insanely quick concessions? whereas the super low victory conditions convince players to never concede? we probably should've just terminated the game months ago






BUT LIKE I ALREADY SAID if everyone but me forfeit's i'll forfeit (there's no point in convincing me to forfeit since I ALREADY AGREE) I just won't force anyone to forfeit who doesn't want to by forfeiting without their consent (one player alone can't continue if all the other players besides you just quit so i don't intend to abandon anyone thusly)


honestly I haven't really wanted to do my turns for like 10-20 turns... I don't really care at all for victory statistics.... it's just that if I were you and I wanted to enjoy my victory I'd have probably gone for a more substantial one.... i mean if all you care about is HoF stats... what does a two player tie for first place even count as? half a victory? it's not like it'd be a team victory it'd be more like a concurrent victory...


I mean I think the original rules had ... the goal in mind... being that the overlord would gain his ally underlings... and attempt to use them to destroy the other OVERLORDS not the other normal players.... and once the other overlords died... the manipulating lone overlord would just instantly satisfy the victory conditions due to the victory conditions suddenly being halved for him..... of course.... the rules designed to encourage this... did.... absolutely nothing to encourage it.... weren't overlords allowed to attack each other outside of dominion all game long? or was that only a suggestion for overlords2 ? I get the real rules and the proposed rules confused sometimes...

[namad]

maybe i'm just upset because i haven't had any desire to play my nation or try to win in months and i've only been keeping going because i was curious to see who would win... there were many strong nations i was curious to see battles between even though i would be no match for them.....


yet the entire game went by without any powerful nations ever fighting each other robbing us the chance of a little fun... i was all prepared for you guys to have a couple battles then forfeit to whoever was coming out slightly ahead.... i guess it feels like a waste of a game to quit without seeing any of the strong spells armies or scs go head to head.... but.... if the game isn't fun playing more of it certainly won't be fun... ya know what?



maybe you should send out an in game messaging asking for the concession? then if you get the yes messages back just turn the game off? because for instance... i noticed arco isn't checking the forums but i wouldn't wanna turn the game off with him still wanting to play around?

[rdonj]

Overlords have been able to attack each other the whole game, yes.

[LumenPlacidum]

There's nothing cheating about diplomatic wins in a game that has victory conditions that can allow for that. Even if the victory conditions were "last man standing", then they wouldn't have to fight one another.

Hell, I was hoping to join them until I fell behind when Ashdod hit me while I was focused on Machaka. I'm perfectly willing to concede this game to their alliance. The game seems like it's being lengthened beyond what's even amusing anyway. We have an overlord that's not even submitting turns any more. About the only thing I'd be looking forward to at this point is seeing if I can put up some resistance to Ashdod's SCs.

[Baalz]

Ok, the root of the issue is (practically?) nobody is enjoying this game so it's pretty ridiculous to keep playing it. I'm asking for a concession because calling a draw at this point seems ludicrous when I can't conceive of any situation that this game is not eventually won by Vanheim or R'lyeh, so if Vanheim and R'lyeh are content with a joint victory explicitly allowed by the game rules what the hell is the issue?

[LupusFatalis]

Namad, I don't respond quickly to these threads quite frankly because reading your verbose drivel isn't worth my time.

As far as diplomacy, why the hell would anyone publicly announce anything. Covert operations are much more successful because they are unexpected. Quite frankly I would have thought you of all people should have caught on to this before now.

To be quite honest, I could care less whether you all concede or not--here on out I get to test all sorts stuff on players. Conceding defeat robs me of that opportunity. To the same end, I'm certainly willing to accept such a concession as everyone else seems to be bored and frustrated.

[kianduatha]

Yeah, at this point I've already reached my goal of killing off Pythium, so I'm fine with conceding if people don't want to play anymore--I have basically no chance at all of winning(ugh, MA Oceania without clamming), but it does give a decent chance to test random things on people.

[Lingchih]

Ashdod concedes... on the condition that we play one more turn. I need to respond to Baalz' wanton and unexpected attacks on me this turn. I was sucker punched... at least I need the chance to hit back. After that, yeah, let's end this thing, and get on with more fun games.

It was kind of funny watching my PD kill one of his Tarts though :)

So bring it, Baalz. Let's have a few fights worth watching at the end.

[namad]

I never said anything about public disclosure....

I also agree it is totally valid for you to share a victory in this manner...

the point I am making is that this concession amounts to a draw between vanheim and r'lyeh with everyone else losing.... it just seems odd that either of you would accept what is essentially half a victory.... it would seem more likely that the two of you would want to continue posturing for another month before admitting the joint victory was the best either of you could do.....

It's just a manner of what I consider valid terms of a concession and I guess no one agrees with me...

as lupus has started being personally hostile with me, I refuse to continue this discussion.

I will no longer be playing, thinking about, or discussing anything to do with the game overlords.

[Lingchih]

In support of my ally Namad, I will, though conceding the game, not support any "winner" post in regards to this game. To claim this game as a "win", on any scale, team or otherwise, would be a gross travesty, in my opinion. The win conditions varied from turn to turn, the game was quite experimental, and, in the end, it was only finished because everyone got tired of the ubiquitous nature of it.

[Lingchih]

Wow, this if fun. Unleash the hounds!. I should have done this ages ago :)

[Hoplosternum]

So is this one finished :) Or do I still need to do another turn before we all concede :( Maybe we can have an extension while we decide :D

If this is the end congratulations to Lupus & Baalz. Perhaps I was a bit harsh before, it's only a game after all and you still have to take your chances and capitalise on good luck. So well done to them :)

EDIT PS - My vote is to end it here obviously :)

[rdonj]

Hosting postponed 24 hours.

[Lingchih]

Good game all. And congrats to Baalz and his little buddy.

[LumenPlacidum]

Good going, Lupus! Your first MP game is a victory!
Congrats, Baalz! Well done.

[Mithras]

That was fun. Congradulations to the winners.

[LupusFatalis]

Was fun ladies and gents; good game everyone.

[rdonj]

Okay, I'll be taking the game down later today unless someone really wants to see the next turn.