Global War (upgraded to 3.20)

[DonCorazon]

I have no interest / capacity in taking over Arcos or Pyth. My point was simply to vent the frustration of playing support for players who bail when things get bad. I'll stick it out until the Golden Hall at Mag Mor is in flames but I am not going to pick up the wreckage of other players - it's bad enough my sacrifices have been in vain, not going to exacerbate it with giving up more of my free time. I will stick it out as TNN, which is what I committed to when I signed up for this game.

[DonCorazon]

Server seems to be down btw

[CUnknown]

It's back up now, I'm sorry DC.

[CUnknown]

Sorry that this game was horribly managed!

You're right Zeldor that our teamplay was not the best. And our race/pretender selection was pretty awful. But, Evil had many newbies and things sort of balanced out.

I hope people had fun, anyway.

Have we made a decision on what to do with Good? I have already taken Pythium's turn this turn. But for next turn, what am I doing? Making him and Arco go AI, or just letting them stale, or what? Perhaps Foodstamp should make this decision.

[Hoplosternum]

I think the game was a nice idea. I like team games and I like themed games.

But in hindsight there were problems with the set up. If you are going to have a team game you really need to have teams rather than just one.

Plus the neutrals in fact were playing just a normal game but with boosted starts and where only they could use diplomacy. A big advantage. While good and evil had large restrictions. Many of which - like the secret enemy - made the job of the neutrals much easier.

Having said that the neutrals have played the game very well and exploited their advantages to the maximum.

I know we as goods did not play it very well. Especially me (I was TC!) but I am pretty much a newbie. Most of our opponents were rushers and we had neither picked rush nations in most cases nor the awake SCs that may have given us the quick starts we needed. Nor did we power pick our nations well. Pythium and Arco were good picks but the rest of us perhaps could have chosen better.

Of course an unbreakable alliance of 5 looks very strong. But in fact the restrictions on good and the set up which pitched all the 9 evil players to attack us none stop right from the start (well those that could reach us!) neutralised this.

Anyway while this game was not much fun for me I think the idea was good but definitely needs some tweaking. I don't think this format works. But themed team games certainly could.

[Rathar]

I totally see the point about an AI "good" being bad as it would likely attack you. Hmm what to do?

I still think having one player do multiple nations is bad juju.

[Kheldron]

Even if I understand Rathar's point, I don't think it'll change much at this point of the game if any good plays several nations.
They don't seem that overpowered even if consolidated and if it can help the health of the game, as Baalz stated, well...go for it !

I for one had great fun in this game but I must admit the settings were tweaked in neutral favor. I never really had any other threat than counterattacks from those I first striked. Therefore our initial advantages weren't deserved IMHO.
If we ever launch a second version of this game, that would be what I would remove. For the other parts, I think the main problem went from lack of a strategy from the goods part, or lack of initial power (rush nations and/or awake pretenders). That alone was their demise imo.

I move on vacations on wednesday until the 16th of august. I'll try to connect as often as possible (usb key and internet in hotels) but I may not be able to do my turns more than once every 2-3 days.
Since that's our current pace, I hope it won't change anything but...