The Middle Way - Faerun EA [Need Replacement]

FrankTrollman · #1 February 5th, 2007, 01:11 AM

Deleted.

DrPraetorious · #2 February 5th, 2007, 01:38 AM

I'd like to try EA Ulm.

I am mainly agnostic with respect to mods and settings but cannot tolerate CB.

Evilhomer · #3 February 5th, 2007, 04:19 AM

graphs on would be prefered if this will be victory point setting, since else the game will just end and many will just surprised about the end, having no clue that player x was winning...

Tyrant · #4 February 5th, 2007, 04:26 AM

That's a good point Evilhomer, i'll vote yes on graphs if we are playing VP and abstain if we are not.

Teraswaerto · #5 February 5th, 2007, 04:39 AM

I agree with Evilhomer on graphs. Usually I like graphs off, since all that information really is supposed to be gathered with scouts - or not gathered, if you think you can risk being ignorant.

However, with some kind of victory conditions that can end the game suddenly for no apparent reason, graphs should be used.

Furthermore the victory condition, if any is used, should be such that in order to win one player would have to control more than half of the provinces/VPs, maybe 60-70%.

I prefer games without victory conditions since they end naturally, and you can't use the mechanics to win before you've actually beat all your enemies. A player may lose practically all their provinces to raids and still come back, just as someone may attack 50 provinces in one turn with Cloud Trapeze or some such and not be in a position to win if there are no victory conditions.

Evilhomer · #6 February 5th, 2007, 04:52 AM

Teraswaerto consider how large this map actually is. If the wictory condition is more than half the provinces/60-70% victory points the winning player will have to rule an empire of 250+ lands. I shudder at the thought of making all the scripting/strategic decisions for such an empire, not to mention the 100's of turns getting to that size.

Victory condition should preferably be attainable within a reasonable amount of time.

Teraswaerto · #7 February 5th, 2007, 05:05 AM

It's true that the map is rather huge... That doesn't change the fact though, that with something like 40% of provinces there is no quarantee that the winner is in an utterly dominant position.

In the late stages of the game, on large maps, winning isn't just a matter of skill, but also of endurance. If there are no victory conditions it's not uncommon that the few remaining empires agree to allied victory simply because they balk at the amount of work going to war would be. Is that a bad thing? Don't know really.

If owning more than half of all provinces is too much, then VPs are better, since it's easier to grasp what exactly is needed to win.

Dedas · #8 February 5th, 2007, 06:09 AM

My votes:

CB: No
Worthy Heroes: Yes
Graphs: Yes

Hellboy · #9 February 5th, 2007, 02:11 PM

Right now, I'm hearing more votes for graphs off, than graphs on, so I'm going with graphs off (at least for the moment). As posters have noted, there is a dependency w/ victory conditions, so I could imagine changing this if we end up going w/ VPs.

Quote:

Teraswaerto said:
...

I prefer games without victory conditions since they end naturally, and you can't use the mechanics to win before you've actually beat all your enemies. A player may lose practically all their provinces to raids and still come back, just as someone may attack 50 provinces in one turn with Cloud Trapeze or some such and not be in a position to win if there are no victory conditions.

...

I agree with this, and overall this is my intent regarding how this game should be won. I would suggest then that the primary way of ascertaining victory is simply by consensus of the players still alive.

However, as you have stated this map is in fact huge, and I think this means that the end game could become rather tedious and painful for those that stick it out. In general I suspect that barring raiding tricks, the outcome of most Dom3 games becomes inevitable once one player controls 40%+ of the resources (maybe gem income [including item hoards] is more important than # of provinces? The value (imo), then of either using VPs or province totals is that they can serve to estimate who will become the inevitable winner, and save time in playing out a tedious endgame.

In any case, I think that if we set a victory condition of 70% control of provinces, this would at least give an "out" to a dominant player, playing against someone too stubborn to concede. Now, I would say the value of 70% is in fact tremendously conservative, most especially on this huge map. I would hope that if I am the victorious player, I can win with never having to manage a 200+ province empire.

Also, while I do believe that we want to avoid the raid type of victory that happened in this game, I just don't see myself losing sleep over a raid involving cloud trapeze into 50 provinces.

So, at this point I see myself leaning towards a game that I would hope will end by consensus, but that still has some kind of province count condition in it (maybe 50%?). But, in my admittedly limited experience on seeing these games go through to completion, I'm flexible on setting the number.

To put it more pedantically, 70% is very, very safe that no one will "steal" a victory, but at the same time holds little value in enforcing victory against a stubborn player(s). While perhaps 40% still holds some risk of the stolen victory, it has more value of forcing the question.

Meglobob · #10 February 5th, 2007, 02:21 PM

Set victory to 1 province over half of all provinces on the map. So if there is 422 provinces, set victory at 212 provinces. Anyone who owns half the world, in my book as won. No one can get to this sort of total, without everyone knowing whats going on, graphs on or off.