.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Multiplayer and AARs (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145)
-   -   Overlords - Game Thread. (playing) (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43863)

melnorjr September 11th, 2009 11:57 AM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Part of the reason I don't think this will be too gigantically in the overlord favor is that they can't direct that much of their strength at any one normal - they are going to be surrounded by them, and the minute a normal thinks he can take an overlord province and smash a temple, he's gonna do it, cause then the overlord will have that much more trouble fighting him back - and he might just grab a magic site or two in the process, which are at a major premium in this game.

The overlord are strongest of course, but they can only attack you with one army at a time unless their dominion starts taking you over - its on heck of a limitation. a normal stands a reasonable chance of winning if he happens to be near an overlord who is distracted dealing with other normals long enough for him to get a few temples up and prevent the OL from attacking him. Once he does that, he can start taking over other normals till he has his required number of nomral caps, then try and take out a weak overlord for the win. It's possible. And if I recall, he only has to have the OL cap. he doesn't have to hold it.

rdonj September 11th, 2009 01:35 PM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoplosternum (Post 709692)
Well we new the conditions before we signed up so there is no point complaining about them now :) Although I agree they do favour the Overlords a lot.

I am curious about the diplomacy stance. I don't have a problem with a back stabbing diplomacy game. We all know that diplomacy in this game is not binding and that betrayals don't carry over in to other games. So trust between players is not encouraged :p Yet the whole set up of the game seems to require a great deal of diplomacy to work especially if the normals are to have a chance. So while I don't have a problem with this diplomacy option in games, I am surprised it was selected for this game.

This doesn't mean I want this changed. I signed up with these terms. Just wonder why this was selected. It seems to be aimed at an issue some people have with lazy napping in standard mp games. But this is not a normal mp game....

There are two main reasons I thought diplomatic agreements should not be binding for this game. One, it fits my thematic sense for the scenario. Two, with the victory conditions so low it would be very easy for someone to get a victory without really having to fight properly for it (without getting into that murky situation of people trying to decide whether it's okay to ignore your NAPs if the game is on the line).

Quote:

And if I recall, he only has to have the OL cap. he doesn't have to hold it.
I guess it's not specifically clear from the first post in this thread, but normals still have to control all their caps for 3 turns. However, instead of an overlord cap they only have to control any one of an overlord's starting forts.

Gregstrom September 12th, 2009 03:49 PM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Bad news: My employer is busy making a large number of staff redundant, and I volunteered to be a representative on one of the ensuing consultation groups. After attending the first meeting, it has become apparent that I won't have very much free time over the next three months - I certainly won't be able to start a new game of Dom 3 any time soon.

So, with apologies to everyone here, I'll have to withdraw from the game.

sansanjuan September 12th, 2009 03:59 PM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregstrom (Post 709894)
Bad news: My employer is busy making a large number of staff redundant, and I volunteered to be a representative on one of the ensuing consultation groups. After attending the first meeting, it has become apparent that I won't have very much free time over the next three months - I certainly won't be able to start a new game of Dom 3 any time soon.

So, with apologies to everyone here, I'll have to withdraw from the game.

GS,
Sorry to herar that. Hope it works out.
-ssj

rdonj September 12th, 2009 04:59 PM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Decision on what this means shortly. Please hold.

rdonj September 12th, 2009 05:35 PM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Iainuki has requested to swap from ma oceania to the now-vacant pythium. I have taken pity upon him and granted his request. Oceania is now available if anyone wishes to switch.

rdonj September 13th, 2009 07:24 AM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Alright, it seems there will not be an issue with the map having only 5 overlords, so there will be no need to re-shuffle players. The new version of CBM seems to be coming along nicely, I expect it will be ready before the map is, unless QM is detained from releasing it. So you should have at least some opportunity to get used to the changes before the game.

TwoBits September 14th, 2009 02:10 PM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Got a map/game-balance related question. As a guy who (perhaps foolishly) requested a 'normal' Water nation, I'm wondering what's to stop the Overlord water nation (in this case, R'lyeh/Baalz -yikes!) from stomping my guts out with impunity?

I mean, if I was a land 'normal', and an Overlord showed up with his pretender on my border, I'd just cry out to all the other Overlords and Normals, "hey, so-and-so is attacking me - this would be a good opportunity to use those Gate Stones, etc.!".

But if, underwater mind you, R'lyeh shows up with a Kraken backed up by a bunch of Mindflayers on turn 5-6 or so (and he can attack anywhere as long as his pretender is along for the ride, right?), what hope have I?

Great, he can't put me under siege, but at that point I only have one province left, and zero help for rescue? How are the Water 'Normals' supposed to defend themselves from the Water Overlord?

LumenPlacidum September 14th, 2009 04:00 PM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Do everything you can to equip yourself specifically to counter an early SC? In the case of the Kraken, it seems that just chaffing him to death is quite possible what with the fact that his protection is subpar, doesn't naturally regenerate, and that he's not immune to his own poison. You'd need some sermon of courage spam to fight that way, though. Plus, drowning the enemy in bodies is a way to fight mind hunters in small quantities too. Do you really need to beat him so much as just make him understand that it will be more painful to wipe you out than it will be to create a relatively friendly border that allows the two of you to attack someone else.

It might help to rush early to some important anti-SC spell that you can spam as he tries to munch on your army or to construction so you can spam ethereal crossbows, which are pretty damn frightening to that kind of unit early.

I might be missing something, though.

kianduatha September 14th, 2009 05:04 PM

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (Awaiting map creation)
 
Our main concern is early year one, before we could even get to anti-SC spells(especially with difficult research). But, I do know that a kraken porting into enemy dominion is going to get creamed. Even if there's only a 5% chance of dying, it isn't worth the risk of losing your gatestone. That's of course assuming we aren't all crammed in together, in which case we can try to defend each other.

I presume if an overlord attacks us with his pretender, taking back our territories is not a full declaration of war towards them?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.