Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

I think in a game that size requiring so much posting about wars will become messy. Also, those rules could cause some problems, such as being unable to eliminate an enemy as his lands aren’t contiguous, and you aren’t allowed to get through someone else’s lands to finish the job. Why not just play it as a normal game, excepting the victory condition?

How would the 3 winners be selected? Last 3 nations? Biggest 3 after a certain number of turns?

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

There is a board game called _Dune_ which has an interesting alliance mechanic. Basically, nations are only allowed to make alliances during times of Confluence, i.e. every 10 turns or so. After a Confluence, alliances are unbreakable until the next Confluence, though the exact degree of support given to your allies is of course up to you. You are considered at war with everyone not in your alliance, and an alliance maxes out at 3 members. I think this might work for the big game. You could have all diplomacy be public during the Confluence turn, and then after that you are only allowed to PM your allies, if any.

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

I think it would be fun if the next megagame was a RAND game

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

Well, I assumed that we would set something arbitrary as maximal endpoint, such as top 3 nations owning 30 capitals in total, or something to that effect. Then the same clause would apply as in this previous game, where if it ends for any reason before that point is reached, we have to look at who had what at the end, and determine victors by some sort of consensus, which would be very easy unless #3 and #4 were tied, but we could credit them both a .5 win in that case, just as ties in other games.

And I agree, the enforced public diplomacy setup would be incredibly hectic with 60 nations. That's one thing I liked about my idea, was that there should be an inordinate amount of backroom dealings, as people struggle towards the top. I think people will behave differently when they know they only need shoot for top 3.

:happy:

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

Dune (the board game I know) also requires more capitals to win, if you are allied.

So you need 3/5 if you are single... 4 if you have 1 ally.. all 5 if you have two allies.

Anyway.. I love Zeldors map.
EA... sign me up = )

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

I would like it to be RAND with CBM mod and same victory conditions as Kingmaker on a wraparound map with the increased arena prize.

Btw could not La Ermor be used like Ma Man was as the prize doner? Reason being that La Ermor is a banned megagame nation so can not take part anyway but produces the most gems of any nation, 15 d isn't it?

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

No one is going to dispute Zeldor's skill at the game (at least, I'm not), especially considering that diplomacy IS an important skill in any game of this type, and this illustrates how potent that particular tool was in Zeldor's arsenal.

For "There Can Be Only 3", I felt that the very structure of the game would mitigate this precise phenomenon in multiple ways. First, people cannot just pick a favorite to win (and donate their dying gems, etc... how many free gems did LA Agartha actually get?), because no single nation would be able to stand alone. Likewise, if the 3 strongest nations ally, the structure would be in place - since anyone who wanted to impact the game would participate in an alliance - to support the formation of a mega-anti-alliance to take down the trio of ringers who wanted to bring about an early victory. Not only this, but because no nation should be able to stand alone in such an environment, monopolization of the Forge should not create a winner, as it would leaves one's allies without the tools that they needed to support the third nation who owns all of the artifacts.

Beyond that, I would suggest a banning of the Forge altogether anyways, as it seems to have allowed Zeldor to take an advantage, and in a short 2 turns magnify that advantage in a way that would require a mega-alliance to defeat, once those artifacts were all assigned and properly deployed.

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

I don't think banning Forge would be necessary with CBM [but still worth considering], as it's lvl9, so you'd need a massive research lead to get lvl9 Forge before others can get some artifacts.

And it was probably around 1000 gems from donations, I will count them when I look through turn files for my AAR.

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

I am quite new on this forum, but I really like the idea about a game with 3 winners. About a month ago I planned to host a game with this exact rule, but somehow it never happened. Now, the megagame with 3 winners is going to be even more interesting. Count me in when it starts :)

Re: There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
 

Yay, someone just likes the idea. :D Now I just need to consolidate my powerful position of having 1 fairly inexperienced supporter! :happy: