Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

belac's statements don't seem specific so here how's about this?


every overlord can use gatestones to only reach a set of predefined province numbers on the map? like 12key provinces around the map which start the game as indies? or a different number but spread around the map and defined before the game begins and fixed for all time...


(overlords can also use a gatestone in any fashion that won't trigger a battle because theres no way to police something that is private and undetectable...)

I know belac probably wanted a stricter rule but i don't think there is a way to police a rule that involves friendly nonbattle movements because its totally private

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

how about giant races vs man races?

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

I was just tossing out ideas. Rdonj seems to want to create a Cold War-flavor game where extremely powerful nations still have reason to coexist with and ally with vastly weaker ones, and severe movement restrictions on the overlords would provide one. Even simpler than what you suggested would be to just forbid overlords from moving into a non-friendly province except via gatestone, but allow them to gatestone anywhere.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

Pretty much, yeah. I fear that if overlords are just given a bunch of gatestones, they'll basically be completely invulnerable to normal nations. If you can teleport say 5 powerful armies anywhere you want on the map from turn 1, you could pretty much crush the armies of normal nations at will. I could maybe see giving overlords 2 gatestones, but I think that is the absolute maximum I could support.

Being able to teleport only to a select number of provinces wouldn't be too bad, and I could maybe get behind that. It would of course be a lot of work for me though, and require even more self policing than the current game. I don't want to try to force people to keep too many rules in mind at all times, as that would seem to overly complicate things. Perhaps if there were special markers put onto the map to show where the gate provinces were it wouldn't be too bad.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

edit the map to include an icon for the teleporting provinces...

then all that has to happen is anyone who is attacked by an army with a gatestone with that icon present tattles...

of course i'm not sure it's a great idea... i think it is required if you want to go above 2gatestones (but you could just stay with less stones)

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

Yeah, there is absolutely no way I'm going above 2 stones. Obvious gate provinces has some merit and I'll consider it.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

I liked the dominion mechanic, but the restriction as it stood was too large, as the game proceeded the restriction only became more troublesome--evidenced by the fact it was removed halfway through. Assuming this mechanic stays in some form, blood sacrificing can be incredibly powerful. At the very least those nations should be restricted to 'normals.' The water based nations should probably be left out entirely, and if they are put in, again they should be restricted to 'normals.'

After some thought, I think the best idea is having some sort of gradient in how much an overlord can bring to against a normal in his own dominion. Specifically how gradual this should be decided by people more familiar with the game. I'd propose that any province lacking dominion or under independent control does not count against this limit. Similarly spells that attack provinces shouldn't count against this.

As far as the victory conditions, they were a little ambiguous. But I imagine they weren't bad if the dominion mechanic is rectified. The game lends itself very well to a team oriented victory--though I'd say they should be heftier than 'meeting both,' not much mind you, and not requiring annoying logistics as would be the case in 'meeting both.'

Public diplomacy shouldn't be required, nor should any sort of required fulfillment of agreements. If you don't make good on your word your more likely to fall prey to that sort of treatment. So in that sense it has its own system of checks and balances. It does allow for more cutthroat game-play, so the only real downfall I see is the possibility of breeding ill will between players. Which in all honesty shouldn't be a problem if these public character attacks are kept in the context of the game rather than the player. i.e. If your going to badmouth Baalz, instead put it in the context of the current game and his nation (not over something he did to you in some other game). Might seem like semantics, but I guarantee it makes a big difference.