Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

Indeed. To me "backstabbing encouraged" games are really "quasi-no diplomacy" games, as in the spirit of the rules of the game every player should be looking at attacking every other player if there is a good opportunity, regardless of the completely meaningless words exchanged. It's stated up front by the host that everyone's words are meaningless, you *can't* have a NAP...though you're free to agree to whatever you want with other players knowing full well it's meaningless.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

I, on the other hand, make a different list, of players whom I think are likely to put a big black mark on my record if I backstab them. Much easier to backstab someone who doesn't care, and all the sweeter when you pull out the dagger if you know the player who does care trusts you, because the players who really care about keeping deals aren't going to pay attention to a little blurb about "non-binding NAPs" in a game description, even moreso than the backstabbers aren't going to care about its omission.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

After speaking with rdonj about the topic, I get the feeling that the idea he has in mind is not the same idea baalz just stated. Then again who knows, the vagueness of the topic makes it difficult to tell if anyone is agreeing with anyone else.

In a game especially designed for manipulation of other players via diplomacy, is it possible to have *all* diplomacy be totally meaningless?



This contradiction led me to consider if I wished to play in this game or not. However, once I realized this phenomenon, where everyone interrupts the same statement in a different fashion, was universal... I was able to rationalize my position as yet another interruption of that statement. Therefore, I can believe whatever I want to believe without needing to disbelieve anyone else's interpretation! It then became logically consistent for everyone to disagree about the scenario's guidelines. As a result I won't have any problem playing in the game.


On a larger scope, the games where diplomatic constraints are "unstated" or stated as "no restrictions"... suffer from the same problem. Many people take this to mean that naps cannot be broken and then they whine when they are. Still others take this to mean there are no rules and no need to honor naps. So, the scenario in which every dominions3 game is played is one where each individual player plays according to his own set of rules, which almost always differ from another player's guidelines. This seems to be a contradiction of sorts, but given that it has occurred 1000s of times and in fact ALWAYS occurs... clearly it must be a valid and consistent game setup. Despite appearances to the contrary.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

I think the main problem people have is that they consider both the following types of NAP's to be governed by the same level of trust.

1 - An NAP you sign with another nation, and then have no further contact or dialogue with until 50+ turns later when one of the nations involved says "Hey, you just attacked me. But we signed an NAP 50+ turns ago!".

2 - An NAP you sign with another nation, and then have constant contact with throughout the course of the game, trading items, intel, maybe coordinating attacks.


I consider case 1 to be pretty much a joke. As how can it possibly be realistic to think... "How can I defend the huge 10 border province I have with my Eastern neighbour? I know, lets defend it all nice and securely with a little piece of paper with NAP written on it. As that means I can leave vast sections of my empire completely undefended, and I'll never have to put any troops there again what-so-ever. That is until my Eastern neighbour gives me a convenient 3-turn warning that he is going to attack me in that area."

To me, this way of thinking has no logic to it, or even a remote connection to the realities of any strategy game I have ever played. And anyone who thinks along these lines deserves to get backstabbed to death in every game they play.


Whereas case 2 above is a situation in which you will rarely see a back-stabbing incident occur. As there you have two nations who have agreed to not fight each other for the mutual benefit of both nations, but are in constant contact, and are both regularly benefiting from such a high level of contact.

So at least in my experience to date, a high level of respect builds up between the players involved in these cases, which greatly reduces the chances of any back-stabbing. It may still happen of course, but anyone who has worked closely with another player in a game over any reasonable duration of time, would find it very difficult to suddenly turn on their friend and ally.

Whether case 2 should be like that in the context of the game is another matter, but in reality that is how it does tend to work.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

Diplomacy is an ability to gain strategic advantage and find solutions, so if someone makes a NAP so he can more easily attack it's still a diplomatic move to me, and a good one.

I believe both types of NAPs stated above by Calahan are the same, and should not require "maintainance", however a NAP is basically a show/sign of trust between two nations/players, and it is specifically up to them if they are to find them binding or not, and of course the "house rules", which are rarely stated, and never state that NAP are binding which would be ridiculous IMO.
But still, a player who belies that a NAP in any case scenario is enough of a protection has still quite a lot to learn, and should experience some backstabbing as a lesson.

I don't think that diplomacy is meaningless in Machiavellian games as Baalz states, however it is probably reduced to a lower level and players should be aware of what type of game they are entering and not ***** about it if they get screwed over.

But again, Machiavellian game or not is the same to me, nothing prevents anyone from breaking any form of pact, agreement in any game as all is fare in love and war, and as I said, it would be stupid to assume that pacts cannot be broken, any pact.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

Diplomacy in a machiavellian game is the art of convincing your rivals that what is to your advantage is also to their advantage. A rival who believes that what you want is also to his advantage will likely do what you want or something close to it. I had an NAP last over 50 turns in Water Total War because we both understood that violating it would take us both out of the game. (I think he jumped the gun slightly in ending it, but I shall enjoy watching him die =) ).

Also, feel free to whine about being stabbed, just don't expect anyone to care. But stabbing will put a blackmark on that nation's reputation (at least in game) and other nations may be more wary about dealing with them in the future. Nations who honor their agreements will find other nations are more likely to form and honor agreements with them.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

Sure, I'll join this as a normal nation.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

I'll play.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

It is good to see so many NvV alumni signing up for this game, they are a fine group of players.

Rdonj, have all other settings been decided upon via the earlier concept thread? Map type (i.e. random with placed starts, pre-existing with placed starts, or custom with placed starts), nation selection process, etc?

It will be interesting to see who will prevail in this mixed FFA type game. Likely, one of the overlords will have a good chance with their perks and being helmed by an experienced player. Geography may play a role in deciding which players choose to work together initially but as it is FFA there can be only one winner.

If I am needed to reach a recruitment goal and no one else can be found you may count me in as a normal nation. Otherwise should someone need a sub I am likewise available, especially for any of my former teammates. Best of luck.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

Interesting to read the comments about importance of diplomacy in NAP and non-NAP enviroment. I've played mostly multiplayer games (where communication and diplomacy are of utter importance) outside these forums, and the whole concept of NAP's has been slightly alien to me. My conclusion has been this: Enforced NAP's kill the diplomacy in the game. I think diplomacy and communicating is *much* more important in games where NAP's are not enforced.

Although, I've played exactly one game where NAP's were accrding to the game rules binding; it is the exact one game where I have had the least diplomacy and contact with the other players. You sign a NAP, after that you don't have to give a hoot of what the other thinks; if he intends to attack you, he will have to inform you ages before. NAP games are the lazy mans games and not very different from single play, if you ask me :)

Where NAP's are not binding you actually have to *play* the game as a multiplayer game: You have to be in contact with the other players, you have to rely more on intelligence gathered (both in game and outside the game in communications with the other players. Pacts and alliances are much more fluid, becaue you know you can talk yourself out from sticky situations if you just are able to prove the alternative to your destruction is the better one (while in NAP games that is not true; how can you can you possibly take advantage of a lucrative situation where your NAP partner is doing something silly and still expect you to still let him get to a winning position?).

Without enforced NAP's you have to build yourself a reputation. Do you want to be viewed as a windmill, who rotates allegiances all the time? Do you want to be viewed as a bonehead, rigidly following agreed plans even if they mean your own destruction? Or do you want to be viewed as a reliable character who still are not totally against the idea of changing direction if the situation so demands?

Of course each of us have our own views on not only the other players, but on our selves too. It would be interesting to know how close your own views on self correlates with the views others have on you :)

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

I pretty much agree with Jarkko on NAPs. I too feel they are detrimental to the game in general, but since they're a industry standard there's a little to do.

Just a few questions about the game, if I may.

1) "if water nations are included UWGIM"

UWGIM?

2) Overlord nations "can't take neutral capitals". Can an overlord take a former capital from a third party if the original nation is dead? (i.e. neutral Marignon kills neutral Ermor and takes his capital. Can overlord Jotunheim come and take province Ermor from Marignon now?) And does taking mean storming the castle, or does moving into province to siege count also?

3) Domkilling allowed, I assume?

4) If overlord nations are to choose first, when are we choosing and with which nations are available? No blood sacrificing nations, sure, but there's either/or mention about stealthy preachers. How and when is that decided?

Thanks.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

Lumen, lupus, welcome aboard. I am adding you to the list now.

Unless something in this thread specifically states otherwise yeah, all the settings from the concept thread apply.

Thanks for offering to fill in if I need another player. I won't know until saturday but it's good to know I have the option.



Atul:
1) UWGIM is a mod burnsaber made to make being underwater and attacking underwater nations more interesting. It reduces the research and gem costs of water breathing items and I believe air breathing items, adds a few new spells, and makes some other minor adjustments. You might want to check it out. Link. As it so happens, QM is also adding portions of this to the next version of CBM along with unique gem gens. If the new version of CBM comes out before the game is started we will just use CBM to make creating the mod slightly less complicated for me.
2) Good question. I think my answer is that you can, but only if that player is within one capitol of winning. However this answer may change when I next visit IRC if the regulars there can convince me this is wrong.
3) Domkilling is perfectly acceptable, yes.
4) Overlord nations can begin picking as soon as I declare the signup phase over on saturday. That will probably be within two hours of this time. As for stealthy preachers, I am thinking for simplicity's sake, I will just wait and see what you guys pick. And if some of you have stealthy preachers and others don't, I am considering adding a generic, recruitable stealthy preacher to those that don't have one. If there is too much of a problem with this I will probably just ban stealth preach nations from being overlords for simplicity's sake.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 16 of 24 max players
 

So, in other words, achieving the alternative winning condition (other than being last one standing, i.e. 10 capitals for 3 turns) for overlords would require either domkilling or harvesting winning neutrals and/or other domkilling overlords?

I'm fine with any way, just want to make clear that everyone's playing by the same rules.

Hm, gotta admit though, if other neutrals' capitol's were free game there probably wouldn't be much incentive for neutrals to fight each other.

EDIT: and the question about what means taking the capital still stands. But thanks for all clarifications. :)

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Sorry about that. For the purposes of this game, taking the capitol means putting it under siege and/or storming it.

However, you bring up a good point w/regards to the victory conditions. I had actually completely forgotten about the 10 capitol victory condition when I gave that answer. Acquiring netural capitols that way sounds extremely unfun to me, and at the moment you would HAVE to acquire at least one capitol in that fashion. So question #2 may be considered unanswered until further discussion can come to an arrangement that is sensible and fair.

I would ask everyone to please bear with me on this. The special rules for this game have had a lot of unintended conseqeunces that have taken a while to bubble to the surface. However once we get this all ironed out I am sure that this will go on to be a unique and, hopefully, rewarding experience for all players.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Re: taking normal capitols - eventually a normal is going to get killed by another normal. Pushing your dominion onto that territory and taking *that* capitol shouldn't be nearly as difficult on pushing your dominion onto an active player's capitol.

Similarly, Overlords should be encouraged to try to kill off the other overlords as the preferred victory condition - which current game rules definitely do encourage.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Yeah, that was what I was asking, whether taking those neutral-conquered capitals is kosher. And apparently as rules currently stand, it isn't allowed either. If I understood rdonj's answer correctly.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

How about this. You can take a neutral-conquered capitol if you have dominion there, but you still can't conquer their own capitol until all other overlords are defeated. Does that sound reasonable?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

I thought overlords could attack any normal province they could push their dominion into? So a normal capitol they push their dominion into is fair game.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Nope, attacking capitals was explicitly banned.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

So if I get this straight (as it currently goes), if a Normal takes another Normal's capital, he better hope he has some plan on keeping it out of an Overlord's dominion, or he can likely expect an immanent Overlord attack by said Overlord on that capital?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

I believe the current suggestion is that any capital under Normal rule is vulnerable to Overlord attack only if there's Overlord dominion on the province.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

On the plus side for the normal nation, though, you might be able to convince other overlords that you are much less dangerous having the capital. At least that might work with the first capital--after that, they might be less helpful.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

From the concept thread:

"However, they can only attack normal nations or independents if their pretender is in the army or if they have dominion in the normal nation's (or independent's) province (an overlord cannot take a normal nation's capitol unless all other overlords are dead)."

So, if by some miracle all the normal nations are still alive when the 2nd to last overlord bites it, the overlord can start attacking normal capitols provided he meets the other requirements.

Also, they don't need dominion there if their pretender is present (i forgot that).

I don't see the problem with settings as written.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Well my problem was when capital was considered no more as a capital (when not in possession of original owner, when original owner is dead, for the whole game). Since people usually talk about X's capitals even when the original nation is gone.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Capitol has multiple uses, indeed. When people say X's capitol, and X no longer holds it, they're using it as shorthand for X's former capitol. To actually be a capitol it must meet the definition of capitol (center of government, etc... which seems to mean access to the capitol only recruitables in game).

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

This is correct. Unless someone changes my mind by the end of the day this is how we are going to play it. This will require some rewriting of the rules in order to make sure it remains clear for once the game is started, so once I've decided my decision is indeed final the first post and the game concept thread will be updated appropriately..

Also I may slightly adjust the number of capitols required to win as the numbers given were for the full intended compliment of 24 players. Chances are any changes made would be minor, and largely to account for the lesser quantity of overlords.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Ok, since all this is theoretically coming together, can we please have a list of rules that we can reference without looking at two threads and having to delve into the threads for further posts with ideas that may or may not actually be upheld rules? I know I'm confused.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

I'm in as a normal, if there is still room.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 18 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Sorry for the confusion. As I said earlier a rule from the first post of the concept thread is still a rule for this thread unless specifically stated otherwise. However, I will go ahead and put all the rules on the first post of this thread just to make sure everything is clear.


Melnorjr - yes there is still room, your name has been added to the list.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 19 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Okay, the opening post is, once again, updated. I don't believe I left anything out, although it is possible I did. There is still slightly more information in the concept thread's OP that is not in this thread, but not the actual rules. I don't think any pertinent information is missing but if there is something that would like to be added let me know.

Also, I have decided that I will indeed go with the ranked list method of nation selection for normals. Overlords will still be first come first serve. Once all of the overlords have finalized their choices, I would like for each player to give me a list of three nations they would be willing to play. If you do not care what nation you are, one will be assigned to you randomly. If you do not get ANY of your choices, further picks will be handled on a first come first serve basis. This information will be added to the first post of the thread.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 19 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Oh, right, your ranked lists should be pmed to me. Also one of the overlords sent me a ranked list. I was avoiding that to save time, but what the hell, it would be less confusing if just everyone submitted a ranked list.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 19 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

do we pm the ranked lists to you? or post them here?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 19 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

I think the Overlords submit a ranked list, then our nations are chosen, then the others submit their ranked lists. At least, I think this is how it is going to work.

I'd like to join as a normal.
Can normal nations cast globals if all overlords are defeated?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 19 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

I would like to play. Although I am fairly likely to miss a turn early on, depending on whether I can get internet access next Saturday.

If this is OK then please sign me up if there is still room.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. 19 of 24 players, last day to sign up
 

Pm your ranked list to me.


DomDomDom and Hoplosternum - The both of you are just on time. No, normals cannot cast any globals, ever. This game will probably take a while to get going, as we may be using a completely custom map. So it is possible we will not even start until after next saturday. We shall see.

I just have to ask QM now if he can tell me whether he is playing or not, and then I will see if victory conditions will need to be adjusted.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. Accepting Pretenders
 

Okay, all the overlords have sent in their nation choices. However, with 22 players and 4 overlords, the overlords are looking seriously outmanned. I am either going to switch in QM or namad as another overlord before posting the overlord list.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

I can join as an overlord if you're still short. Since everyone else has presumably submitted lists already:
Machaka, Ermor, Marignon, Shinuyama, Arcoscephale, T'ien Ch'i

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Since qm has not responded yet, I find this to be a reasonable solution. I am reasonably satisfied with number of players per team, and will post the overlord nation picks now.

Edit: Alright, Overlords nation picks have been added to the first post. Normals, please pm me your nation picks now. Some of you have already done so, but if you wish to make alterations based on what the overlords have chosen, feel free to do so.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Hope springs eternal. I'll jump in.
-ssj

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

I guess having accepted another new player to play as an overlord, it wouldn't really be fair to turn you away. It would have been nice had you joined while signups were officially going on, however. Well, this fills up the game, so I will still have to ask one of the normals to play as an overlord for "team" balance purposes.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Q: How do you get an overlord capital?
A: Why, you ally with another overlord, of course!

The overlord capitals are worth no more to us than any other capital, *and* we can't (realistically) win unless all the other overlords are dead! Furthermore, we're allowed to attack each-other at will.
Once the game is in motion, consider that Machaka is less of a late-game threat than all of the crazy astral nations (Ally with R'lyeh/Ashdod/Pythium/Marignon? Are you nuts?), so I am a natural choice for any such alliance. Please forward inquiries, proposals and offers of spiritual bondage and eternal servitude to the true God, Knife Bright Insight, He who vanquishes false idols. Note also, my brash arrogance and love of trash talk temper any possibility that I might be a long term threat.
All hail Knife Bright Insight!
I'd like to trade the other Overlords for some astral junk, esp. once I can make hammers.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Ooh ooh, pick me!

Nah, I doubt I qualify. And I'd have to totally rethink the strategies I was considering...

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Yeah, it'll be either qm or namad. Not that I don't have a certain amount of faith in you, you did well in noobs. But for this game I would prefer someone with slightly more experience. Perhaps in the next game, if people don't hate this one ;) Although maybe someone else should host it, since I have been so wishy-washy.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Coobe (in spite of low post count) is also fairly experienced.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

experienced, but no high skill :) im the laziest dom3 player there is when it comes down to late game

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Laziest in late game? Bah, I'm competing in that series too.

Yet Another Tidbit: Gate Stone does no good to immobile pretenders. Gah, one more bad idea down the drain.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

QM is an overlord. He will be playing as T'ien Ch'i. Everyone who has already submitted a list to me, if t'ien ch'i was one of your picks you may wish to revise your list.

Everyone else, I will be PMing you shortly.


Also, QM is set on releasing the next version of CBM before this game starts. So hold off on creating pretenders. I also have it on the highest authority that gorgons will be taking a hit in the new version of CBM, so if you are pan, you will want to take this into account.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Okay, everyone who has not sent me a ranked nation list has now either received a pm from me or an email. The sooner you get your lsits in, the sooner the game can start. Unless QM takes even longer than expected to get the next cbm out ;).

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. *Accepting nation lists
 

Ahh, the poor Gorgon, already nerfed almost to oblivion. So sad to see it nerfed again. Still, doesn't matter to me in this game.

I also take some of the blame for this, since I continued to make CBM 1.5 Gorgon pretenders that were worth their salt.