Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

By the way. When you have all the capitols you need, you need to notify everyone and let them know that they have 3 turns to change the situation before they lose.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Damn. Ai Jotun left some tough troops in the field. Curse the player that goes Ai with tough troops. He is a slacker.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Look this storming of my Capital is still probably a couple of turns away at least. I can still win :p

But while it's fun being crushed by both Baalz (a bit) and Vanheim (a lot) don't you think it's time so of the rest of you attacked one or other of them? I mean none of the rest of you can likely win now but you can still take part :)

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

After an amazing assault of the bottom of the graph, Pythium has been eliminated. Kudos to Kianduatha for persistence.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Since very early in the game Vanheim and R’lyeh have been closely allied with the goal of a joint victory – possible under the rules for an overlord and normal. As we’ve combined got the same gold and gem income as the rest of the world put together (not counting Eriu’s most certain to be dispelled global) I was wondering if anyone would object to conceding to our joint victory? We’ve both been pumping tarts out for some time now, artifacts, elemental royalty, helophagus, etc. Van’s got a huge blood economy and hundreds of vamps following through that dom push, and I’ve got a never ending supply of starspawn and my hoards of lobo guards are now supported with will of the fates + army of lead + will of the fates + fog warriors + weapons of sharpness + darkness. I’m about to wish for a couple gate stones so I can drop that fun wherever supported by teleporting starspawn & fairy queens.

This map is so big though and the victory conditions so steep it’s gonna take a quite annoying amount of time to actually win – particularly trying to coordinate the timing for a joint victory. Does anybody honestly have a prayer of actually stopping us?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Ashdod sends it's reply to the request for concession.

"Suck it"

Ashdod does not surrender.

OOC:
I will settle for a draw, as of now, but not concession.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

To counter, and not just seem like a pain in the butt, I now have Wheels, and will soon have Chayots. On top of my already formidable troops. What you guys are throwing out there, does not really scare me.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

oh i see what he means... it is technically possible to achieve a joint victory if you prepare all the capitals in such a way that the timers expire on the same turn... although i believe this would require baalz being the only overlord ...

it'd be much easier for vanheim to just try and win right now on his own...



there's no reason we couldn't try and convince vanheim to just win on his own... i know you haven't been planning a joint victory all game because vanheim talked about solo victory earlier in this thread... you've just intimidated him into thinking it isn't possible... but it most likely is...



in fact if lingchih doesn't want to surrender to r'lyeh he can simply try to convince vanheim to throw in with him instead

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

the victory conditions are only steep because you are going for a victory which requires total domination...


if r'lyeh were to stale 6times in a row vanheim would probably just win before you came back.... whereas your joint victory would require what is basically a total domination and several months of work....




it's possible to have a joint victory in utopia too! the victory requirements are 7/18 meaning if a team of two conquers 14/18 vps with the final two both happening at the same time..... i'm sure joint victory has been technically possible in many games

that's basically the same case as in this game

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

My assertion is that we have achieved total domination and our plan is to just crush the remaining players and take our time setting up whatever we want. *If* you concede that we can crush everyone else then the argument is moot. If you're pinning your hopes on me staling 6 times in a row or one of us backstabbing the other then I'll ask again for a concession because that's just not gonna happen. I've got no doubt that Ashdod and Eriu and to a lesser extent Marignon can cause some casualties and slow us down - which is the reason I'm asking for a concession rather than just moving for the victory. At this point though I can't imagine any situation where anyone successfully goes on the offense against our combined might - dom push + vamps + leech/l4l spam is gonna make assaulting vanheim a very daunting process before he even does anything fancy, while the bulk of my empire is underwater and massively castled.

In considering my request for concession I'd ask that you not be thinking about how you could fight us off, but to honestly ask yourself if there is any realistic chance at all for you to conquer us. Not one of us, but both of us working closely together. Not raiding some of my land and stalling for a bit or hitting and running Van out of dominion - pushing into our core and defeating us. If you have no realistic chance at doing that (which I honestly believe is the case) then we will eventually win even in the best case (for you) scenario that you stall us a considerable time.

But, if Ling really feels his Chayots are gonna make the difference his opinion is as valid as mine.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

this is not a team game... you cannot ask for a team concession.


that's ludicrous.....

in any game i start i could start a cabal on turn20 and say that the first second and third place players are all now on the same team and demand a concession.... (when the reality is the only hope of all the other players for victory is that those top players squabble amongst themselves and take each other out... it sounds insane but it's what always happens)


any turn players could throw their weight behind either you or behind vanheim and i think it would make it quite easy for there to be a sole victor


honestly what you are asking for is just insane... you are asking for people to give you an insanely rare and impossible victory condition when there is another victory condition much much much much easier to satisfy....

right now looking at the game i'd say there's like a 54%chance vanheim wins 43% r'lyeh wins and 2% chance both win at the same time and 1% chance neither win


that doesn't mean that players have to call it a tie between vanheim and r'lyeh.... it means we can try to stop either player from winning so that the other player wins.... i am pretty sure if everyone turns on you that a vanheim victory could be setup and setup quickly... but hey maybe i'm wrong... i just haven't seen any in game evidence of me being wrong about that matter



and we all know you just made this up after you got bored because for the longest time vanheim was bragging about winning a solo victory and doing so alone... so it's not like you guys have been a secret unknown team all along or anything like you make it out to be....

it's obvious you've just bullied vanheim into this position via reputation because you either don't think you can stop him from winning alone or because you are too lazy to win a war against vanheim over the long haul... he was obviously about to win for ages but just never had any confidence in himself on the matter so doesn't care much?


i'd be willing to concede to baalz alone if he had a fairly successful war against vanheim, and i think it's possible vanheim could just flat out win with in the next 5-15turns... i mean i'm willing to admit that i can't win i just don't think the game is enough in hand for a concession...


a concession usually requires one player to control as much as all the others combined.... two players controlling as much as the other 4-5combined is rather a meaningless statistic....

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Let's play a few more turns at least and see how things work out. I need to get my Ophanim and Chayots out into the field, since I've never actually used them in an MP game. I know it's getting boring, but it only requires a little work every three days, and I'd really like to see how my high end summons work against intelligent players. I'm not saying I could win... I'm way too far behind for that. I'm just saying that I would like to see some more gameplay, and ultimately, a clear-cut winner would be great to see.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Just to say, I have nothing agaisnt the idea of you two getting a joint victory. Still you can come prise my one VP out of my cold dead lizard hands.

Regards.
C'tis.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Actually, since turn 2 or 3 I was working closely with Baalz. Furthermore, I never said I was winning solo, in fact I even hinted that my intention was not to win solo. I'm not sure what chip you've got on your shoulder Namad. A simple concede or not will do. Turning this into some sort of personal attack is a bit over the top.

Also next time you want to make some statement about our impossible chances, you'll probably want to make sure the numbers you pull out of your *** don't in fact give us 2:1 odds of winning jointly.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

the odds of jointly winning are only low because of the odds of one of you winning are so high....


in fact maybe they should have been lower..... no one ever goes for a tie... the odds that someone would backstab someone else in this case based on historical evidence... are something like 98% if not 99.999%


now sure maybe you two aren't planning to backstab eachother.... but that doesn't mean my method of determining the odds with which you are likely to do so are false




furthermore my odds were based on the fact you had not posted... and baalz is a known manipulator!!!! now that you HAVE posted ... and I've read your post.... I'd probably chance my odds to something like 50/50!! (you probably should've both posted in the first place... I mean how was anyone to know you had formed such an alliance going on baalz's word alone?)

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

How hard is it to beat a baby chimpanzee, anyway? I am re-invigorated.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Hmmm. Well this game has been dull for a long time. So on that basis I am OK with conceding :p I may be knocked out soon - although if forced to stick to the real victory conditions Vanheim has to hold off actually taking my Capital for a long time while Baalz catches up :)

But two less deserving winners I can hardly have the pleasure to have lost against. Alliances of this sort (where allowed - and I wish there was more of that) should be declared, not kept hidden, so that others can modify their play accordingly. Long term, effectively unbreakable, agreements are bordering on cheats when they are kept hidden. Especially in a game where diplomacy was declared to be none binding. The game settings and map position has ensured they have had an extremely easy ride. Now they seem to be just playing with the rest of us until they meet the joint victory conditions, though granted that's probably as much to do with the game win conditions as their design.

So while I would love to see Namad and Ling (or anyone else) stop them lets face it they aren't going to - just drag the game out a bit longer. We are not even going to get a crusade against them are we? Marignon appears to have gone into long term hibernation and he still seems to be the toughest of the rest. Lets just call this one so we can all free up time to join other games. Or even tinker with the settings (and hopefully have a wrap around map!) and have another Overlords game.

No criticism to Rdonj though and lots of thanks for him for organising this. I really liked the idea and I doubt anyone knew excatly what all the changes he made would do to the game balance. Not sure it has all worked as intended, especially the original Overlord restrictions, but there were some nice ideas.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

given the non-binding terms of their agreement....


all we'd have to do to is tip the balance of power such that one of them feels he can easily defeat the other.... I feel like vanheim is in a much better position to win than baalz but.... baalz is far more confident and less likely to admit anything....

the constant statement that their agreement is secure... is proof enough that it is insecure ;)






but honestly i don't think anyone cares enough to perform any diplomacy of the sort required to force one of them to have a single player victory.... since most players aren't communicating at all and many just spend 5minutes on their turns...

if everyone else wants to forfeit i'd certainly do so... but if even one other player wants to keep going i intend to keep filing turns as long as anyone has any interest in doing so

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

My goodness there's some bad attitudes in this thread. The constraints placed on overlords (before they were lifted) *strongly* encouraged developing a good relationship with a normal you could trust and to me seemed to work out into a dynamic team game so I can't believe its such a shock to be playing for a team victory. I very much assumed all the overlords were doing the same thing - I don't see how you could have any prayer of winning even a single war otherwise based on the original constraints. The non-binding, backstabbing encouraged diplomacy of this game means publicly declaring who you're working with would be beyond retarded as you go through the game trying to play each player off against one another. I had similar agreements with 3 different normals...and for all I know they were talking to other overlords! As the game progressed Vanheim emerged as the one I was actually going to go with and we entered a long period of wondering how much we could actually trust each other, but eventually came to a watershed moment when the backstabbing would happen if it was going to and came through it with a good mutual trust.

If you think there is any chance of stopping the both of us working together from eventually conquering the entire world (I disagree), then don't concede. This is Ling's position, but he seems to be alone in that.

If you're withholding the concession based on the hope that you could throw the game to one of us by slowing down the other....read to the words I'm typing. Vanheim and I are both in agreement that we want the game to end right now because there is no challenge in slowly and meticulously crushing everyone in lopsided fights. If there is no chance of stopping both of us, then one of us is without of doubt going to be in control of the map and in a position to dictate exactly when and how victory conditions are satisfied even if it takes an arbitrary amount of turns to set up. This would be tedious beyond endurance to actually have to do though.

As to your disparagement to my character Namad, use your head for just a second before you start talking. Do you honestly think there is the remotest chance that if I were lying about this that Lupus would not call me out himself? Obviously I discussed it with him before I posted, but even if you hold some absurd theory as to my complete untrustworthiness at least give me the tiniest amount of credit that I wouldn't so publicly lie in a manner guaranteed to immediately be shown false.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

i think the biggest problem is that baalz can't just try to win alone...

if the victory conditions were say... something like 6for all or +1for overlords instead of +4


but by this point in the game everyone is too disinterested to lift the last overlord restriction in an attempt to make the game fair and "endable"


it'd be a lot easier to drive a rift between the two of you because.... all i am hearing is this.... baalz, "I'm an overlord and I can't win any victory but a total domination because those are the dumbass rules... so I'll just win a team victory" and vanheim saying "I could win quickly by betraying baalz but somehow i'd take more pride in a team victory anyways and hey if i can get the team victory faster than the single victory why not....(even though it should be totally harder to get a team victory than a single victory due to the much higher requirements)"



but the problem is that the team victory is much much much harder to pull off as a result the concession should be much harder to win!!! i mean none of the rules of the game make any sense but generally... the less likely a victory the less likely the concession should be.... your claim is that since victory is so unlikely you'd like us to concede because the game is boring and stupid...

I'm just trying to defend the principle that games with lower victory point victory requirements are also games where concessions are given more liberally.... this case flies in the face of that logic... maybe that logic was flawed all along... maybe it is games with insanely too high victory conditions which beget the insanely quick concessions? whereas the super low victory conditions convince players to never concede? we probably should've just terminated the game months ago






BUT LIKE I ALREADY SAID if everyone but me forfeit's i'll forfeit (there's no point in convincing me to forfeit since I ALREADY AGREE) I just won't force anyone to forfeit who doesn't want to by forfeiting without their consent (one player alone can't continue if all the other players besides you just quit so i don't intend to abandon anyone thusly)


honestly I haven't really wanted to do my turns for like 10-20 turns... I don't really care at all for victory statistics.... it's just that if I were you and I wanted to enjoy my victory I'd have probably gone for a more substantial one.... i mean if all you care about is HoF stats... what does a two player tie for first place even count as? half a victory? it's not like it'd be a team victory it'd be more like a concurrent victory...


I mean I think the original rules had ... the goal in mind... being that the overlord would gain his ally underlings... and attempt to use them to destroy the other OVERLORDS not the other normal players.... and once the other overlords died... the manipulating lone overlord would just instantly satisfy the victory conditions due to the victory conditions suddenly being halved for him..... of course.... the rules designed to encourage this... did.... absolutely nothing to encourage it.... weren't overlords allowed to attack each other outside of dominion all game long? or was that only a suggestion for overlords2 ? I get the real rules and the proposed rules confused sometimes...

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

maybe i'm just upset because i haven't had any desire to play my nation or try to win in months and i've only been keeping going because i was curious to see who would win... there were many strong nations i was curious to see battles between even though i would be no match for them.....


yet the entire game went by without any powerful nations ever fighting each other robbing us the chance of a little fun... i was all prepared for you guys to have a couple battles then forfeit to whoever was coming out slightly ahead.... i guess it feels like a waste of a game to quit without seeing any of the strong spells armies or scs go head to head.... but.... if the game isn't fun playing more of it certainly won't be fun... ya know what?



maybe you should send out an in game messaging asking for the concession? then if you get the yes messages back just turn the game off? because for instance... i noticed arco isn't checking the forums but i wouldn't wanna turn the game off with him still wanting to play around?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Overlords have been able to attack each other the whole game, yes.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

There's nothing cheating about diplomatic wins in a game that has victory conditions that can allow for that. Even if the victory conditions were "last man standing", then they wouldn't have to fight one another.

Hell, I was hoping to join them until I fell behind when Ashdod hit me while I was focused on Machaka. I'm perfectly willing to concede this game to their alliance. The game seems like it's being lengthened beyond what's even amusing anyway. We have an overlord that's not even submitting turns any more. About the only thing I'd be looking forward to at this point is seeing if I can put up some resistance to Ashdod's SCs.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Ok, the root of the issue is (practically?) nobody is enjoying this game so it's pretty ridiculous to keep playing it. I'm asking for a concession because calling a draw at this point seems ludicrous when I can't conceive of any situation that this game is not eventually won by Vanheim or R'lyeh, so if Vanheim and R'lyeh are content with a joint victory explicitly allowed by the game rules what the hell is the issue?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Namad, I don't respond quickly to these threads quite frankly because reading your verbose drivel isn't worth my time.

As far as diplomacy, why the hell would anyone publicly announce anything. Covert operations are much more successful because they are unexpected. Quite frankly I would have thought you of all people should have caught on to this before now.

To be quite honest, I could care less whether you all concede or not--here on out I get to test all sorts stuff on players. Conceding defeat robs me of that opportunity. To the same end, I'm certainly willing to accept such a concession as everyone else seems to be bored and frustrated.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Yeah, at this point I've already reached my goal of killing off Pythium, so I'm fine with conceding if people don't want to play anymore--I have basically no chance at all of winning(ugh, MA Oceania without clamming), but it does give a decent chance to test random things on people.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Ashdod concedes... on the condition that we play one more turn. I need to respond to Baalz' wanton and unexpected attacks on me this turn. I was sucker punched... at least I need the chance to hit back. After that, yeah, let's end this thing, and get on with more fun games.

It was kind of funny watching my PD kill one of his Tarts though :)

So bring it, Baalz. Let's have a few fights worth watching at the end.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

I never said anything about public disclosure....

I also agree it is totally valid for you to share a victory in this manner...

the point I am making is that this concession amounts to a draw between vanheim and r'lyeh with everyone else losing.... it just seems odd that either of you would accept what is essentially half a victory.... it would seem more likely that the two of you would want to continue posturing for another month before admitting the joint victory was the best either of you could do.....

It's just a manner of what I consider valid terms of a concession and I guess no one agrees with me...

as lupus has started being personally hostile with me, I refuse to continue this discussion.

I will no longer be playing, thinking about, or discussing anything to do with the game overlords.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

In support of my ally Namad, I will, though conceding the game, not support any "winner" post in regards to this game. To claim this game as a "win", on any scale, team or otherwise, would be a gross travesty, in my opinion. The win conditions varied from turn to turn, the game was quite experimental, and, in the end, it was only finished because everyone got tired of the ubiquitous nature of it.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Wow, this if fun. Unleash the hounds!. I should have done this ages ago :)

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

So is this one finished :) Or do I still need to do another turn before we all concede :( Maybe we can have an extension while we decide :D

If this is the end congratulations to Lupus & Baalz. Perhaps I was a bit harsh before, it's only a game after all and you still have to take your chances and capitalise on good luck. So well done to them :)

EDIT PS - My vote is to end it here obviously :)

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Hosting postponed 24 hours.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Good game all. And congrats to Baalz and his little buddy.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Good going, Lupus! Your first MP game is a victory!
Congrats, Baalz! Well done.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

That was fun. Congradulations to the winners.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Was fun ladies and gents; good game everyone.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Okay, I'll be taking the game down later today unless someone really wants to see the next turn.