MP Apotheosis [Running] - Page 4

Kadelake · #1 June 17th, 2010, 06:57 AM

I think we should let Grayjoys friend join and keep the map. It should work for 11 players as well, especially with two of players underwater.

I'm reluctant to ban any nations. Ashdod is one of the best nation (certainly better then the number of wins in hall of fame make it look like) but there are several other really good nations as well. The game just isn't completely balanced. It's my opinion that it's mostly chance that determines which player turns out to have the best conditions. A lucky starting position and lucky site searching might tip the scale more then the nations advantage.

I guess one of the reasons that Ashdod haven't got more registered wins are because of their fearsome reputation. If people know Ashdod are really strong, they might be more inclined to gang up on them.

Amadamus · #2 June 17th, 2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadelake

I think we should let Grayjoys friend join and keep the map. It should work for 11 players as well, especially with two of players underwater.

I'm reluctant to ban any nations. Ashdod is one of the best nation (certainly better then the number of wins in hall of fame make it look like) but there are several other really good nations as well. The game just isn't completely balanced. It's my opinion that it's mostly chance that determines which player turns out to have the best conditions. A lucky starting position and lucky site searching might tip the scale more then the nations advantage.

I guess one of the reasons that Ashdod haven't got more registered wins are because of their fearsome reputation. If people know Ashdod are really strong, they might be more inclined to gang up on them.

Ok, no probs - was worth a go!

Just to be a final pain in the bum Kadelake, can i swap to Jotunheim please? - I can see that shuttling hoards of undead around gets old quick with Ermor...

Greyjoy · #3 June 17th, 2010, 10:16 AM

But with MA, at least you can shuttle them around at 3 mapmove....

Finalgenesis · #4 June 17th, 2010, 08:28 AM

oh btw, is diplomacy in this game binding (agreements) or Machiavellian?

Kadelake · #5 June 17th, 2010, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

oh btw, is diplomacy in this game binding (agreements) or Machiavellian?

I noticed your post here as well.

Hmm, I'll try to give my view on diplomacy. I've never thought much about this before, just done what comes naturally

You are free to perform diplomacy over PM or any other way.
You are free to make "backroom deals", spread information and plot with the other players:
"Look how big player X is! Plus he is a really good player and plays nation Y!! We should team up against him before it's too late!!! Let's divide his provinces between us "
Trades are binding, you can't agree to a trade and then not deliver your part. (It would actually be kind of stupid not to keep your deal. Who would like to trade with you if they know your not trustworthy?)

About NAPs I'm not sure. I've played three MP games and I don't think I've ever seen anyone violate a NAP. They seem to be respected generally. What do people think? Maybe it would be easier for new players if NAPs where binding?

Greyjoy · #6 June 17th, 2010, 09:31 PM

Well. I, personally, will almost never violate the x-turns warning of a formalized NAP. And yes, Pantokrator help you if you violate trade agreements. But it's probably a good idea to hedge against the former.

Finalgenesis · #7 June 17th, 2010, 10:19 AM

Well Ama, for reference from an opponent's pov I'd rather you don't have the hordes of undead to shuttle with in the first place.

Kadelake · #8 June 17th, 2010, 02:59 PM

Amadamus changed to Jötunheim.
I played Utgård in my first MP game and they where really fun. Be warned though, if you try to optimize blood hunting it will be a lot of work

Finalgenesis · #9 June 17th, 2010, 09:32 PM

Sounds good, so basically

agreements made in good faith (trade, NAP...etc), no restrictions otherwise. Simple, I like it.

Edit: just saw Grey's post, the reason why I nitpick on this point is whether I need to divert resource to possible betrayal. E.g. If NAPs are binding I can leave border more or less undefended, also less dangerous to extend yourself in other wars, as otherwise people would be tempted to backstab you when you are fully commited on someone.

Thanks though I got a much better feel on diplo now, basically nothing is binding but good faith is expected.

Verjigorm · #10 June 17th, 2010, 10:46 PM

The problem with "in good faith" (and this is why I always stay out of discussions involving pathetic attempts to make people make good on promises made, NAPs, etc...) with the obvious exception of binding trades is this...

Once it is set than no arrangement can be broken, it opens the door to the use of treaty as a weapon. Since you cannot attack me, if I can grab a crucial choke point or a certain land before you (or even take provinces from you that were conquered by barbarians, etc.), I can use the treaty as a weapon against you.

Once treaties of this nature come into play the "in good faith" clause goes into effect with all of its subjective glory....

Player 1: You broke our NAP!!! Ummm!!! I'm telling mommy!!

Player 2: Well, you took my High Temple of the Magii when it fell to Barbarians!

Player 1: So? Our NAP didn't say anything about "reserving provinces"....

Blah, Blah, Blah...
In such situations, both players will feel that they are in the right and both will be able to draw supporters. Yes, the NAP was technically broken, but Player 1 was definitely using it an a douchebag-esque manner, so one could see arguments for the "in good faith" side as well...

If you aren't prepared to deal with discussions of a truly political nature (e.g. in which people might change their mind), you aren't prepared to play Dominions in MP.

That aside, once someone starts frequently breaking treaties based solely on fancy, people will eventually get the idea that the best thing to do is to make the treaty and then kill them as soon as an advantage appears. Turnabout is, of course, fair play. NAPs can be very useful if you abide by the arrangement and don't push it by playing nasty with the letter of the law, but once you go douchebag on either side of the scale like using an NAP to strong arm, stifle expansion, or snag provinces or on the other hand breaking treaties without appropriate notice as defined by said treaty, you end up with a monkey sh__ fight...