Re: Clash Of Armies
 

Hmm, I'd like to try playing as a broken empire (base theme) ermor, assuming there's still space.

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

My mistake, I misread the map name.

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

I'll take the mighty mighty Jotuns in this one.

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

I am pretty sure that blood is overpowered on these settings. The rich world helps blood hunting in two ways:
1. You can take additional provinces out of circulation because the remaining provinces produce extra gold for you.
2. You can buy the blood mages a lot quicker than usual.

I think that the answer is quite simple. Simply ban ALL blood-hunting for ALL nations. This would even allow you to drop the magic site settings to a number lower than 30 to really reduce the power of SCs and big spells.

This would make Mictlan totally unplayable and Abysia would be badly crippled. The Marignon Diaboloical Faith theme is unplayable as well. As for Jontunheim and Vanheim, they are hurt somewhat without blood hunting, but both are still playable.

I suspect that the given game settings favor Abysia because they can get nice national troops from the rich world and will still be able to blood hunt like crazy for the mass devils. Blood magic will rule this game under the proposed settings.

Actually, I will claim Abysia under the given settings to prove (or disprove!) my theory. I really like the 48 hour pace, though I would ask to delay the game start until next Tuesday when I move into my apartment in Virignia.

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

Oh, and one other thing. You need a victory condition of some sort.

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

I'd like to give Pythium a whirl here.

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

I'll take Van if theres still room.

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

I'd like to try Rlyeh. If you don't want sea nations, I will pick Pan

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

I kind of like the idea of banning blood hunting (given what you want to accomplish, anyway).

That said, I will withdraw my choice of Marignon, and switch to Atlantis.

Here's one more thing to ponder: I am currently playing in a 6-player small map game with 25% sites and a rich world. The low sites setting gives a huge advantage to the owner of a gem-producing global. With 5 remaining players in that game, at least its somewhat a matter of choice whether to put one up or not. With 17 players, it could be mostly a race to get the 3 or 4 really useful gem spells. Would it be worth banning those, also?

And, one last bit - I agree with Panther about needing a VP or province-based victory condition.

Re: Clash Of Armies
 

True - Man or Pangaea could easily rush for Alt-5 for Mother Oak, giving them a big leg up compared to other nations. ( In 56 turns, with a N4 pretender searching 25 provinces, zero nature sites found. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )