Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Rules:
Overlords - Overlords will start with pre-defined empires, 10 provinces large. They will also start with 2 additional forts, but will still only have the regular starting army. All overlords will also be given a gatestone at the beginning of the game. Overlords may only attack normal nation or independant provinces if their god is in the army, or if they have dominion in the province. They may not storm or siege a normal nation's capitol until either all other overlords are dead, or another nation has captured the capitol. They must still follow the god/dominion rule when capturing previously taken capitols. Overlords may attack any other overlord at any time, however.

A blood sacrificing nation can NOT be an overlord. Also, if some of the overlords have stealth preachers and others do not, a generic recruitable stealth preacher will be added to the do nots. Overlords get first dibs on nations, will choose using the ranked lists method before the normals submit their list.

Normals - Normal nations may not cast any global spells, including national globals. Other than this, they can take any action they wish. Normal nations will be chosen using the ranked lists method.

Gatestones - Gatestones will be moved down to construction 6, but will be changed to require e9s9 to forge.


Diplomacy Clarification: Diplomacy is unrestricted and NAPs should not be seen as binding for this game.

Settings:
Age - QM has suggested MA, this seems a decent starting point. Any era should work though.
Map - The map will be around 15 provinces per player, maybe a little more. Pre-set starts, a new map may have to be made for the game. We'll see.
Mods - cbm 1.6, non-unique gatestones
Gold/resource/supplies/indies - normal
Players - I am hoping to get all ma nations in this game, with 6 overlords and the rest normals. However if fewer players sign up this ratio may change.
Magic sites - 20
Renaming - on
HoF - 15
Research - difficult
All other settings default.

Hosting - 24 hours for the first 5-10 turns, 48 hours until turn 30, then 72 hours until someone starts complaining their empire is too large . Extensions will only be granted a maximum of once per turn, for no more than 4 hours until the very late stages of the game. The only exception to this is if it proves necessary to search for a sub, upon which time a reasonable delay will be given. There will be NO rollbacks, ever, unless it is absolutely necessary due to a llamaserver/game issue that requires a rollback to be resolved. A mass stale will not result in a rollback unless it is coupled with some other issue.



Victory Conditions:
Overlords - Either all other overlords must be dead and the sole surviving overlord in control of at least 5 capitols for 3 turns OR control 10 capitols for 3 turns(assuming all nations).

Normals - For a normal nation to win, they must control at least 4 capitols, plus one overlord starting fort for 3 turns(these will have VPs). These forts will be crystal citadels.

Hopefully these victory conditions will prevent the game from dragging on for too long and keep things interesting.



Notes: I will ask that players who are overlords please refrain from using their gatestone with their pretender to take provinces surrounding a normal nation's capitol within the first 10 turns as it would make the game extremely unfun for any player this happened to. After that however, feel free to do so if you like. Keep in mind that only more experienced players will be considered for overlord positions. This is for matters of balance to prevent the game from ending too quickly.




Players: (21/21)

Overlords:
Baalz - R'lyeh
Lingchih - Ashdod
atul - Marignon
DrPraetorious - Machaka
Squirreloid - T'ien Ch'i

Normals:
Kianduatha - Oceania
swapoer - Man (eliminated)
rtyffg - Pangaea
viccio - Arcoscephale
Mithras - C'tis
TwoBits - Atlantis (eliminated)
LumenPlacidum - Ermor
LupusFatalis - Vanheim
Namad - Eriu
melnorjr - Shinuyama
Domdomdom - Agartha
Hoplosternum - Abysia
sansanjuan - Caelum (eliminated)
Pyg - Pythium
Pelthin - Jotunheim
Tarrax - Bandar Log (eliminated)


Edit: Map and mod files attached. Download at your leisure.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Hello

the concept looks very interesting. I would like to sign as an overlord.
Do I have to tell the nation I would like to play now or is it a random assignment on a pre defined list?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Hi. It's my understanding that you're a fairly new player. Correct me if I'm wrong? I'm sorry but for game balance purposes I don't think it would be a good idea to have newer players in as the overlords, it would make them a target and be too easy for the other overlords to kill off. I am going to go with first come first serve for this game, with overlords getting their choice of nation when they sign up and then normal nations once all of the overlords have chosen. Unless this is just wildly unpopular. I would have no problem with the ranked lists method for example.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Tentatively interested, although I'm also hoping some of my other games will resolve soon... (doubt I qualify for Overlord, so i'll hop in the trenches).

I am a little worried that requiring the normal nations to capture an overlord capitol will make it near-impossible for a normal nation to win. Even assuming some normal nation managed to come close to capturing one, nothing stops another overlord from swooping down on their weakened rivals capitol and taking it, and having miraculously beaten one overlord it is highly unlikely the normal nation could handle the armies of a second one.

Effectively, the premium on overlord capitols means that to take a single overlord capitol a normal nation has to not only beat one overlord, but then fend off the other four. (first, because eliminating overlords makes it easier for overlords to win, and second, because Overlords will quickly run out of targets they can take other than the territories of other overlords).

It might be better to simply require 5 capitols for 3 turns for normal nations, and make the overlords need to meddle in normal nation diplomacy to prevent such a thing from happening. (I believe this was the original proposal).

I'm also slightly worried that the game settings require an awake dom10 pretender, because the game places an extra premium on spreading dominion.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Well yes and no. I am kinda new as I have less than 5 MP games on internet using the llamaserver. But I have been playing this game for more than 1 year now on hotseat with friends. Playing on internet allowed me to play with different players that's it but I guess the winning tactics and strategy remain the same.

It is up to you to decide as it is your game. If you think I am not experienced enough then I will drop without any hard feeling :)

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

You make some good points squirrel. I want to force the normals to have to face the overlords eventually though. Theoretically, the normal is "winning" by becoming an overlord. And becoming an overlord without ever fighting one feels wrong to me. So we're going to compromise here. Instead of having to control a capitol, you have to control one of an overlord's starting forts. These will have VPs in them, but VPs will not be used to determine a winner, they'll just be there as a reference.


I wouldn't say an awake dom10 pretender is absolutely necessary, but it's certainly not a bad idea. It is a safe bet though that most players would decide to go with a dom10 awake pretender to keep out overlord dominion.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Yeah, I would prefer someone with more mp experience than that play as the overlords. Otherwise you will just be crushed mercilessly by all the other overlords... it's unavoidable. You would be perceived as weak even if you aren't, ganged up on and it would not be pretty.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

i'll play as long as one or two of the irc regulars do :)

but you seem to be actively recruiting on irc anyways

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Yep. I think there will be a few from irc.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

I'd love to play as a normal nation. I noticed that you didn't mention anything about the blood nations being banned in this thread. If that's true, I'd love to play Abysia. Otherwise maybe Ulm.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Yeah, blood sacrifice nations are fine, just not for overlords. I will go ahead and mark you down for abysia.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Hey

Is this game noob friendly? I just bought (and received) the game through mail, and I want to try my hand at the multiplayer. Is there a place for me?

Bogdan

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Greetings tegramon. You may feel free to join as a normal nation. This may be a bit odd of a game to join as your first mp game... it is in no way a traditional game setup, and possibly a bit more complex. For the moment though I will mark you down as interested in playing. If you decide otherwise later just let me know and I'll remove you from the list.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Count me in as another noob.
I have played the game for several months mostly SP.Currently i am trying MA CT.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

I will play an overlord, if needed. Rdonj's inclusion of me seems a bit inconclusive.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

I'd like to join as a normal nation - Sauromatia for example;)

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Well, the way you were talking it didn't look so good ;) If more vets don't sign up for overlords soon I will start opening up overlord positions to less experienced players. I still don't want noobs as overlords but somewhat experienced players may suffice if there are not many really skilled overlords in the game.

Ossa - This is MA so sauromatia won't quite be possible. You are free to pick from any ma nation though. AFter overlords choose their nations.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

i thought as admin you were selecting which nations are overlords and which aren't?



also I guess if I am allowed to pick a nation so early on in this process i'll pick vanheim

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

I decided that it doesn't really matter who I think the overlords are, the overlords can decide for themselves who they'd excel with. Currently I'm only letting the overlords pick nations. I have you down as a normal right now... do you want me to switch you in as an overlord instead?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Hey rdonj....

Would love to play - but I'm in 2 games now, and this is all I can really handle.

I love the fact that you are trying non standard nations - ie multiple province.

this was something I tried to get people interested in - using pts to let them build/start with bigger empires.. but I couldn't get any interest.

So I will follow your thread with interest and hope all goes well!

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

i'm probably half the player ling is ;)

i just noticed you had another guy who was a normal down as already having wanted abysia...

also... abysia and vanheim both can blood sacrifice? right? making them intelligible for selection by overlords?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Thanks :). A game like this is something probably out of a lot of people's comfort zones. I am just hoping there are enough people who might be interested enough to play, then I can worry about whether it blows up in my face or not.... Let me know if you decide to change your mind about not playing. I'm sure we could find a spot for you.


Namad - You're right, I shouldn't have marked down abysia already. Well, I still want overlords picking first. I guess I will have to remove the mark for abysia and deal with this later.

Abysia and vanheim are blood sacrifice nations so yeah, they will not be available as overlord choices.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

I don't want this concept to die the death, so you can confirm me. I'm not sure I'm much of a vet, but I'll be an overlord if you like. I've no idea what nation to take, though.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

I'll take you as an overlord. Don't worry about deciding your nation too quickly. I plan on holding sign ups open until this saturday. That should be plenty of time to decide on a nation.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Interesting concept. I'd like to be in as a normal nation. As pangaea, if overlords do not take them first of course.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Welcome to the game :).

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

namad is right up their with baalz in talent...

surprisingly, I'd really like to get in as .. arcosephale.. no chance to win but I enjoy the race...

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

how about we just see how many players we get then have rdonj set the teams?

the best players can just be the overlords... and we can use however many total nations we can get signups for? that way we make sure to get the ideal balance for the game? or is it too late to change the game settings now that we've started asking for players?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

If the teams are looking too unbalanced when signups are over, I will ask if anyone is willing to switch for the sake of balance. I have enough faith in the community that I believe this will be enough. The way this is going we may be a little overlord heavy. Or we may not. Ideally I'd like to have three or so times as many normal nations as overlords. If everyone who is signed up plays, we are reasonably close to that ratio even right now.

So CP, should I pencil you in?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Well, I'm happy to play as either side if it gets things off the ground.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

With the Noob v Vet game now having finished, maybe you'll get an influx of players for the 'normal' nations in this game, allowing you to get your desired Overlord : Normal ratio. I'm sure there are now a few confidence filled noobs out there from that game who want to show that their downing of the Vets had nothing to do with numerical advantage ;)

Best of luck with the game everyone. And hope it develops more-or-less as intended.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

If possible i play.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Seeing I'm fast gravitating towards zero ongoing games I'd like to sign up if there's still room.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

can i still join this game ?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

If there's still space I'd like to take part as a normal nation.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Thanks greg :). I of course hope that you will be able to stay with your first choice, players permitting.

Viccio: Sure, you can play.

Atul: I'd love to have you. Would you like in as an overlord? With all these other sign ups, I think I need another.

Coobe: Yes you may join. Sign ups will stay open for 3 more days.

Mithras: Welcome aboard.

Calahan: Yeah, I was hoping to get some of the players from noobs vs vets. They've been very good players, doing a good job of avoiding stales, sticking with the games, and finding subs when necessary. And I can see I have 3 now :D Of course, if more Noobs alumni wish to join, I will be only happy to take them.



Edit: Okay, so technically if I want 6 overlords with 24 players, I'm looking at a 4 to 1 ratio of normals to overlords. If all players on the list, including tentatives were to play we would be exactly at that ratio right now. I'm not going to worry too much about exactly hitting this ratio. Anywhere between 3 to 1 and 4 to 1 should be fine.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 15 of 24 max players
 

Well, if you have more overlord qualified players than needed, some of them could possibly be convinced to play normal nations? The real problem would be if you didn't get enough overlords.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Sign up phase
 

Good to be on board. If you feel that you need overlords I can do that, won't have problem the other way either. I'm easy.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 15 of 24 max players
 

This sounds fun, or at least unusual, so I'd like to join too!

BTW, what are the diplomacy parameters to be in this kind of game?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 15 of 24 max players
 

Welcome aboard, twobits :) I am confused though, what do you mean by diplomacy parameters?

Squirrel - I think we're doing okay on the overlord to normal ratio right now. Mostly veteran players aren't signing up for the game though, so it may be hard to get a full game with 6 overlords. I think we're probably not going past 5.

Atul - Thanks for being flexible. For the moment I will mark you down as an overlord. We'll see if we need to change things around later.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 15 of 24 max players
 

Just wondering if there were any restrictions on diplomacy, like in a RAND game or something. Or whether you're anticipating groups of "normals" to try to gang up on selected "overlords", or that "overlords" might collect one or more "normal" 'minor allies' or such.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

I think diplomacy is essential to this style of game. Defeating overlords is going to require normal cooperation.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

Oh, no, there will be no restrictions on diplomacy. Overlords and normals may feel free to interact as they wish. As overlords will control the bulk of the gem income in the game, I strongly suspect that there will be both groups of normals who band together to try to bring them down, and normals who do business with the overlords to get things they need. Neither of those outcomes is undesirable from my point of view. And I agree with squirrel, even another overlord would have trouble taking out an overlord without normal intervention. And to do it while not being killed by whatever normals were around him? That would take some doing without effective diplomacy.

Also, I think diplomacy in this game should be machiavellian (backstabbing allowed), thematically speaking. The overlords are the devil, and if you make a deal with the devil, you have to expect he is going to betray you in the end. Besides if diplomacy was not machiavellian it could lead to scenarios where a player could take victory virtually unopposed due to standing NAPs, which would be easier than normal due to the relatively easy victory conditions of this game.

Hopefully this is not too controversial of a decision, unfortunately I forgot to mention it in the first post. Bad form I suppose, I always forget to mention diplomacy.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

IMHO, diplomacy is always allowed and machiavellian unless specified otherwise.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

That's what I figured, but with a lot of games going the RAND route these days, I just wanted to check :) And yes, let's make sure it's Machiavellian - I hate having my hands tied by rules-lawyers!

So maybe that should be made clear, if that's the way we want it - deal breaking and back-stabbing are perfectly fine, should perhaps be positively encouraged, and should have absolutely no out-game consequences (so what happens in Overlords stays in Overlords ;) ).

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

Added a short blurb to the OP to help clarify the situation.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

I am not willing to abide by an agreement to selectively not remember who has lied to me and who has not.

If you lie to me, I will remember you have lied to me. I won't expect any sort of retribution or punishment, but I certainly won't promise to forget it occurred forever.



meh, fine i'll play... I've never held a grudge against anyone who has lied to me, but I will certainly remember it happening if you do, and perhaps be less confident in what you say to me for years to come.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

I'm not sure machiavellian diplomacy means no out of game consequences. A player's reputation is built on such things. And its not just backstabbing or lack thereof - a player who behaves erratically may find others less willing to deal with him. Worse, a player who backstabs seemingly at random will be much less likely to be trusted than one who backstabs for clear reasons - ie, predictability in backstabbing gives other players a reasonable expectation of when you might or might not do so.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

There have been a few threads about this (NAPs being binding, or reputations carryng over etc).

IIRC there was no consensus on the 'default' so it's always good to be specific.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

If a game states specifically that back-stabbing is to be expected, and that Machiavellian types of play and NAP's are accepted (and even encouraged) in that game, then that should be enough to ensure anything that happens within that game, stays strictly in that game alone.

If a game fails to state this info regarding NAP's etc, or states that NAP's are binding, then there is a case to be made for a players general reputation in future games to be harmed by their actions in that game (such as backstabbing).

But I think it is completely out of line to hold personal grudges against a player, or to mark their reputation as untrustworthy, for backstabbing etc. in games where it specifically states it is to be expected. It is just another rule of that game, and there should be no post-game repercussions for any player who is simply acting within the rules of the game.

If you don't like the thought of being back-stabbed, then don't sign up for games where it is an option. And if it isn't stated clearly in the rules at the sign-up stage, then make a point to ask the admin of that game about it before signing up.