Alexander - PBEM Game - Running

PashaDawg · #1 February 5th, 2008, 07:53 PM

Obviously, this is a matter of taste, Calmon, and it would be great if you played. What if the setting was 14 VP provs? Would that still be too fast? After all, even 33% would mean that a player would essentially need to control 1/3 of the map in order to win.

calmon · #2 February 5th, 2008, 08:31 PM

You don't need to control 33% of the map to get 33% of the VPs and thats the main problem i have. For example nations like caelum (fly) the midgard (stealth) can easily jump deep in enemy lands and surpise attack the VP provinces (Sure you still need a good early game).

And like i said before you don't get any special bonus to fortify your low pop VP provinces and even i do it i'm sure many other don't. I've my experiences with this: http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...=&fpart=1&vc=1
At the end only a few provinces were protected by fortresses and the winner got ~60% VPs at the end (40% was needed) and all this in 1 single turn. He had only a fraction (2 or 3 VPs) of this a turn before. He won with a massive angel teleport attack. Without some special nation features you're more an oberserver in such a game.

Thats why i dislike non-capital-VP games and maybe i should have think about before joining but to my defence i asked to change the victory condition

.

What do you think about 40% province ownership as win condition?

djo · #3 February 5th, 2008, 08:55 PM

I read the end of that thread, very interesting. (Side note: I like reading about people's tactics after the end of games, since I rarely survive to the end game myself.)

I would be happy to play with either the original VP condition or some % of provinces (30-40% range). If we stick with VPs, though, everyone should be aware that the surprise win has to be defended against.

PashaDawg · #4 February 5th, 2008, 10:59 PM

Ok. I think 40% is fine. That would be 15 VP provinces to win. Unless a player has strong concerns with that, let's use that victory condition.

PashaDawg · #5 February 6th, 2008, 12:38 AM

I have updated the scenario file to add the VP's. It is attached to the first post in this thread. While I think the VP placement is satisfactory, if anyone thinks any are wildly unfair, please let me know.

Pasha

PashaDawg · #6 February 6th, 2008, 12:42 AM

I think I am just waiting on Aristander, Calmon and Dedas for nation choices.

Please get me your choices by Wednesday.

Jurri · #7 February 6th, 2008, 12:59 AM

Ahem, Calmon's saying that he'd prefer 40% of provinces, not VPs. Me, I don't like victory conditions based on provinces, since you can't protect your provinces by building forts the way you can your VPs. So a province-based victory condition is even more vulnerable to sneaky/flying/teleport/remote summon attacks, with no feasible counters available.

Also, 40% of Alexander is, what, 116 provinces? Even with a rather handsome 30-province grab at the end you'd need to run an empire of 60+ provinces for who knows how many turns... Not something I think is fun. Victory Points are great in that you can capture the necessary points in a much shorter time-frame (even without any sneaky teleport-grabs) and thus can ideally skip the mind-numbing end game shuffle.