.com.unity Forums - Early Era - Glory of The Gods

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Multiplayer and AARs (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145)

- - Early Era - Glory of The Gods - Lost the Host!! (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=32408)

Re: New Game PBEM

I am in support of 24 hour with quickhost on and victory points with no house rules, standard settings, renaming on and 15 HoF entries. But that is up to Manuk. I will set up the game however he decides.

Re: New Game PBEM

What�s the point on VP?

Re: New Game PBEM

I think it means you get one Victory Point for every capitol you own. That would mean the game could end before everyone was killed. Or it means one VP for every year you stay alive, which I don't see the effect of.

And 24 hour quickhost would be great.

Re: New Game PBEM

Well you can set X number of provinces as being worth victory points. Each VP province can be worth 1, 2 or 3 vps.

You can then set whether or not capitols are worth VPs.

Then we decide how many victory points aplayer needs to hold. If it is non cumulative then the player wins when they hold enough victory points for a full year. Setting it to cumulative just means the game will be shorter. I am not a fan of cumulative.

Even with victory points we can set them so it would still be challenge to win.

For example we can have capitols worth 1 VP
(so that right there is 21 VPs on the map)
20 provinces worth 1 VP
5 worth 3 VPS

Then set it so that a player needs to hold 15 VPs to win.

You would still need to be dominating the game to win but it scatters the conflict around the map instead of concentrating it at home keeps.

I think you have greater chance of multi nation conflicts in the same turn fighting for the same province with such a setup.

I wish my wraparound version of Glory of the Gods was ready.

Re: New Game PBEM

24 Hour Quickhost is great for the start of game but with a game this large it will probably make sense to move to a 48 hour after a set number of turns. Possibly even 72 hours if we reach Year 3 or 4.

I'm fine with whatever, but once your turns start taking an hour to do... it can sometimes be hard to find the time every day to turn it in.

Re: New Game PBEM

I�m not in favor of VP. Let�s vote.

Re: New Game PBEM

I like VP. I vote for victory points.

Re: New Game PBEM

I'm fine with VP if they are not cumulative. Otherwise I would vote against them.

Re: New Game PBEM

I believe host preferences are the small reward for doing the effort of hosting. I think we should go with whatever settings you want Manuk. IF its a vote, I cast my vote that way. Please do the game as you wish.

XOX

Re: New Game PBEM

I agree with Xox. You instigated this game, and although I am hosting it for you; I consider you to be the one running the game so it should be your choice.

I am happy to play with whatever settings you decide upon.

Re: New Game PBEM

My preference is for non-cumulative VPs, though of course the host has the final say.

Re: New Game PBEM

How about this - whoever controls the most provinces when the next President of the US is sworn in, is the winner http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif?

Re: New Game PBEM

VP's, I will go with whatever the host thinks.

Turnaround, 24hr quickhost is great for the early game, turns 1-20 but I recommend 48hr quickhost after that, otherwise you will get lots of players having stale turns.

Re: New Game PBEM

I am in favor of non-cumilative VPs.

That way the winner will still be the most powerful/most land, but you dont have to conquer every last thing. It also eliminates the frustration of turtling water nations.

Re: New Game PBEM

If we are voting, I vote for VP, but it seems like most people don't want cumulative so I vote for Standard VP.

Re: New Game PBEM

Non-cumulative VPs sounds good to me too. Adds a bit of extra interest and strategy, I'm guessing, if particular provinces have greater value.

Also 24H quickhost sounds good for as long as we can make it work. It was still working well in the newbie game (21 players I think) when I got knocked out, which was turn 45 or so.

Re: New Game PBEM

Standar VP seems. The rest as it�s set.

Despite the fact tht most of the subjects here say "Re: New game PBEM" I assume this game will in fact be TCP/IP hosted (not PBEM)? I personally vote against PBEM because it sounds like such a pain.

I meant non-cumulative VP's when I suggested we play with VP's. I would actually vote against cumulative VP's myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: New Game PBEM

Ok, I will set up the game as soon as I get home.

So glory of the gods multiplayer
all standard settings

what about
renaming on?
hall of fame entries 15?
score graphs enabled or disabled?

Victory points
(1 per capitol) = 20 points
10 1 point provinces = 10 points
5 2 point provinces = 10 points
5 3 point provinces = 15 points
55 victory points with 20 needed to win (or of course defeating everyone else in the game).

I think that set-up will make for an exciting game. Alliances will have to 'cede' territories to a single nation in the alliance in order for victory to be achieved. Otherwise a win by an alliance would be too easy.

Edit: Yes Virtual it will be TCP/IP; Manuk was going to host a PBEM game because he only has dial-up and I offered to host for him.

Re: New TCPIP game

score enabled. VP public right?
I think allies should name one of them a winner since can only will be 1 god.
[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon09.gif[/img]

Re: New TCPIP game

Aye manuk, that is what I was saying regarding alliances.
Only a single pretender can win (of course (s)he might have help getting there)

And yes victory points are one of the scores on the score graphs so if they are on then everyone can see how close someone is to winning.

Re: New TCPIP game

I like the settings.

Re: New TCPIP game

Me too, sounds good.

Re: New TCPIP game

Quote:

Manuk (btw who is that in you avatar?)

The real Manuk (a character from local tv show)
Chachacha by Alfredo Casero, Manuk played by Fabio Alberti

Manuk is suposed to be a psychic and telepat from an unknown eastern country. And he�s suposed to bring smoke from his eyes but really was smoking under the cape.

Re: New TCPIP game

I vote against graphs. That's what scouts are for.

Re: New TCPIP game

Ok so the player standing is as follows
Manuk : Oceania
Reverend Zombie: Lanka
Strages Sanctus: Atlantis
WSzaboPeter: Caelum
Meglobob: TienChi
Maltrease: Kailasa
FAJ: Agartha
Xox: Arcoscephale
Yucky: Marveni
Hako: Pangaea
Tibbs: Sauromatia
Dr. Praetorius: Niefelheim
Llamabeast: Abysia
Explorer: Ulm
Virtual: Ctis
Kydorias: Riyleh
UninspiredName: Ermor
Cerlin: Yomi
Baalz: Mictlan
Teraswaerto: Vanheim

Only Helheim is unplayed

Cool manuk http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I don't remember much of the TV when I lived there in the early 80s, except that there was maybe only 1 or 2 channels and some really bad wrestling show heh!

But the food made up for the TV http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

As for how Llama's question about how VP's work -- I'm pretty sure they're Axis & Allies style. That is, the number of victory points you have is determined by the number of victory provinces you hold. (The victory provinces are randomly marked at the beginning of the game, and optionally you can also set capitals to be worth VP's). So if 18 VP's are required for victory, that means as soon as a player controls 18 one-VP provinces (or 9 two-VP provinces or 6 three-VP provinces or...you get the idea), he wins.

Non-cumulative means you can't hold VP in your treasury and save them up; you have to control all the necessary victory provinces at once. So if you have 17 VP (you just need one more VP!) and someone attacks you and you lose a one-VP province, you now have 16 VP (and need two more VP to win).

When VP is enabled, there is a VP score graph; you can just check it to figure out how many VP you (and your opponents) have.

(Cumulative VP means that VP provinces produce one, two, or three VP per turn, and you DO hold VP in your treasury. I think few games use cumulative VP because it actually rewards turtling -- once you have only a couple more VP provinces than your opponents, you just have to defend your holdings and it would be quite difficult for them to knock you out or overcome your advantage by expanding.)

Not only does it lead to a clean cutoff without requiring the game to go on for zillions of turns of mopping up after it's quite clear who's going to win, I've heard it makes players more aggressive in the late game -- if you control 20%-30% of the map it encourages you to go out and make risky attacks (because you're probably within striking distance of the win) rather than just turtling and becoming impossibly strong (because if you did that an opponent might be able to out-expand you and get enough VP's for the win because your superior army/economy/research/dominion/SC is just sitting there instead of grabbing VP's).

It also encourages weaker nations to ally against the threat of a strong nation before the strong nation gets too big (because once the strong nation starts to get big enough to be able to take on everyone else at once, it has enough VP's to win) -- which keeps the game interesting.

I'd encourage the host not to check the "capitals are worth VP's" setting and have the following settings:

18 VP required to win (40% of total 45 VP)
9 one-VP provinces
9 two-VP provinces
6 three-VP provinces

These numbers are just an example. I made up these rules of thumb to help me decide what VP settings are reasonable:

a. There should be 1-2 VP provinces per player for a large (12 or more) player game. Any less and lucky placement can lead to a premature win; any more and it gets hard to keep track of them all. Also, if VP provinces are too common, they're no longer "special," so geopolitical maneuvering based on VP provinces as strategically important locations is reduced.

b. 30%-40% of the total VP's should be required to win. Any fewer and, again, lucky placement or a small regional war with a single victor can lead to a premature win; any more and the anti-turtling effects discsussed above don't work as well.

c. If capital VP's are enabled, the percentage in b. should be lower, say 23%-33%, because it takes a lot more effort to capture a capital than to grab frontier provinces in border skirmishes; if VP's are harder to get, then fewer VP's should be required.

Of course this is just my opinion; while I've played a lot of turn-based and real-time strategy games, I'm new to the Dominions series with Dom3 (and I haven't had it for all that long). So feel free to disagree with me. ^_^

My vote:

Renaming on
Hall of fame entries 15
Score graphs enabled

Edit: I was writing my long post when Strages posted his VP setting suggestion; they're pretty close to my rules so I'd be OK with those settings ^_^

I like score graphs as well. I think they're interesting. I can see why people wouldn't like them, since they're a bit unrealistic, but I think they're fun.

My Vote is Normal VP, Renaming on, Score graphs enabled. In other words, just like Virtual.

15 hall of fame is good.
VP that hurt turtling (Grrr oceans!)
Graphs are unrealistic and scouting is better. I dont really care tho.

Take it from me. Turtling isn't working out that great over here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

especially not with 3 water nations in play.

I have run a few test scenarios and several times they started alarmingly close together. Also the water provinces are split in two; one much smaller area and a larger area. None of the water provinces that I can see are set to no start. So anything is possible down there!

Score graphs represent a sort of general rumor mill. Personally, I like them, but I think there should be an option to make them inaccurate by +/-50% on any given turn (rather like reports of enemy army sizes.)

I digress, though - score graphs encourage people to attack eachother, by various means. Attacking am good. Therefore, score graphs am good.

The game is up:

dom3server.dyndns.org
port 1024