|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
That picture is sweet, the fireball being launched looks like someone holding a giant lance of fire or some such.
And yeah, too bad I am not relying on any artifacts to continue my scouring of life from this war-torn world. I did just waste ~230 Death gems this last turn though, trying to get a Foul Vapors into that open global slot. ;) |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
clingclingclingcling
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
I do not think you improved Helheim's chances with the Armageddons. Likely your best chance of being bailed out(or being avenged) were by Lanka and EA Mictlan, both blood nations.
But the chain Armageddon strategy is one I have not seen before. And it is interesting to see it used in a game where clams were nerfed so heavily and in the 70's. But Helheim and LA Agartha were not drained by any major wars. Just like Formoria. Some nations likely have vast stores of resources because they were allowed to avoid serious war for far too long. LA Agartha had the inside track to winning anyway. The Armageddons just hastened the pace a bit. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
Zeldor is an extremely skillful diplomat, and so I had 2 reasons for the Armageddons (though I seriously did NOT cast the first 2): first, to punish the people who blamed me offhand, but second, to hasten the game. I reasoned that whether the depopulation of the world clinches LA Agartha's victory, or it allows someone else an opening to get at them - I will be happy, whatever the outcome. I just think it's funny, that I turtled too long as Gath, and then I subbed in for someone who had a much more aggressive, and impressive start - but then had turtled for too long. :p I have an interesting concept for the next mega-game. This comment is just a teaser, I'm not going to explain it yet. ;) |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
The reason it did not happen was Lanka, who for his own reasons, refused to join in. I have had no chance to win for a long time so was completely willing to attack La Agartha and help Lanka to win, fellow blood nation and all, plus has kept his treaties meticulously. Without Lanka joining in, a attack by just me and helheim was pointless. So we abandoned the idea and now just amuse ourselves with random destruction until a god is declared King of Kingmaker. I think Agartha/Lanka are just having a race to the 15 capitals with an agreement not to attack each another. So they will seek to take the capitals of any, 'weak' nation around them. The situation to me looks like only La Agartha, La Caelum, Ea Lanka and Ea Niefelheim can win now, barring any surprises. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
On turn 78 Xietor waves goodbye to Kingmaker. Many hours were spent on trying to make the game a fun adventure for the participants. I want to thank Llamabeast for his tireless work and his arena idea, as well as Dr P for his map contributions. Dr. P, Twan, and Llamabeast also played large parts in getting the Kingmaker mod put together.
My sub has a nation with 63 provinces, good research, and a decent position to play Kingmaker should he choose to do so. He may just want to astral travel around and cast master enslave on various armies and have some fun. who knows! Good luck to the winner! |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
Well, I don't feel good with it. Especially now, seeing LA Agartha profiting so much from the Armageddon mess (regardless of the caster). Nevertheless, Lanka will taste the blood of Agartha soon or Later. :evil: |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Xietor, thanks for the work you've done by starting and moderating this game. :)
_ |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Hadrian now knows the identity of my sub, and the email has been changed. So I am officially out of Kingmaker. I will leave it to my sub to post his identity, and state his diplomatic intentions. He has been informed as to my current diplomatic situation, which of course a permanent sub is free to ignore.
Without revealing his identity, I will say my sub is an extremely good player, and would not take a backseat to anyone. /cheers. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Xietor, thanks to for helping create this game. It has been fun so far.
It is always entertaining playing with you ;) so I hope to see you again in MP. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
Also, the idea that a sub gets to be anonymous when every other player in the game is not strikes me as completely ridiculous. Anyhow, I'm (thankfully) not in this game, but I've been following it since I subbed a bit for the big Z, and I was taken aback enough at some of the assumptions here to want to chime in, FWIW. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Permanent subs are never bound by the departing player's diplomatic arrangements. I encouraged my sub to honor my treaties, but you cannot bind a permanent sub to past treaties. A temporary sub IS expected to honor all treaties of the player for whom he is subbing.
That has been the rule in both Big Games, including Velusions, and every other mp game I have played in. And it makes sense. My sub is not unknown. He is very well known on the forums. The game admin, hadrian, knows who he is. I choose not to announce who my sub is. But that does not mean it is a secret. Or it is a mystery. I am sure he will announce himself, either on this thread or in game. That is his prerogative. I posted for a sub and no one claimed the spot for several days. But it was open to the first player who claimed it, including you Micah. It is my hope that my treaties are honored. But the fact of the matter is I do not have many. A 6 turn nap with formoria, 6 turn nap with la caelum, and I am at war with la marignon and Bandar Log. That is the extent of my treaties. So there is not a lot to honor in any event. I have no treaty with niefelheim or LA agartha, the 2 frontrunners. I do have good relations with several nations, but no formal treaty, and I passed that information along to my sub. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
I searched the rules post and the rest of the top 50 posts for the game and found no mention of this perm-sub "rule" that you speak about. Did I miss it? I don't see why you can't bind a sub to old treaties, it's a game choice like every other choice. Your sub is bound by your previous decisions in how to purchase troops, spend gems, site search, research, and every other aspect of the game, why should diplomacy be any different? IMO it is most certainly NOT a player's prerogative to play by different rules than everyone else in the game, in this case by not disclosing his/her identity when the rest of the game participants have, and an option not to was not readily given. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
X - "sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the best policeman"
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Micah, I am not sure where you are headed with this? The perm sub/temp sub is not a "rule." And it is not my intent to argue about a game I am no longer a part of. This debate may be one more appropriate for the general thread.
But to try and choose my words precisely, and I have been playing mp dominions for years, just not on this forum(here only since Katrina). So this is just my understanding of things. It is not a set rule. Certainly not a game rule. 1. Diplomacy/treaties Players are free to break ignore naps anytime they want. KO has said he sees nothing wrong with this. Personally I have never broken a treaty. But that is just me. But Diplomacy/treaties/naps are not set rules. There is no penalty for breaking them in any game I know of. Your reputation may take a nosedive if you get known as a person who breaks treaties. The "penalty" for being a treaty breaker is you may find it difficult in future games to get a treaty with anyone if no one trusts your word. 2. Temp. Subs-my understanding is a temp sub is not free to break a player's treaties. he must obey the player's wishes as he is just standing in for the player, who will be returning to take the reins of his empire after a break. I have seen game administers, when they are forced to find subs, tell the temp sub to obey the treaties of the player. 3. Permanent sub. A permanent sub is taking a position over from a fresh perspective. He does not inherit the treaties of the other players. In kingmaker I had a 6 turn nap with lolomo who plays la caelum. Lolomo may trust me, but he may not trust the perm sub as far as he can throw him. So lolomo's nap is personal to me, not my nation. The same cuts both ways. The perm sub may not trust a player that i trust. And he may not want to be bound by a 6 turn nap when he feels he will be attacked at any time by the other player. Therefore in every mp game I have been in, the 1st thing a perm sub does is reaffirm existing treaties of the former player, or reject them. That is my understanding of the situation. But if you start a thread on the meaning of a 3 turn nap, you will quickly see it means 100 different things to different players. So I likely should not have assumed my viewpoint on permanent subs was a universally accepted one. But I have never before heard it questioned. As to the identity of my sub, it is not a secret, and should not be a secret. On that I agree. But I just handed off the position a few hours ago, and I see no reason to steal my sub's thunder. If for some reason he does not announce himself by tomorrow, I will post his name.. At the moment the sub is likely downloading a map, a mod, and trying to read this long thread, and look at a very complicated position. In short I bet he has no clue what he wants to do yet. If anyone with whom I have a treaty wants to know who my sub is, they can pm me and i will tell you. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
I think that, should we make it a new rule, that, for new perm subs, the new sub has one turn under the old treaties. All treaties have to be re-negotiated in that turn. If they are not re-negotiated, they are void.
I've not been in this game for a long time, but I follow the thread. Oh, and Xietor, all this stuff about keeping your sub secret is just goofy. My lord man, just tell us who the sub is. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
The following rules apply:
1) *Temp* subs are expected to obey the intentions of the player for whom they are subbing. This is explicitly stated for some games, I believe Xietor mentioned it at some point. This would include treaties, unless the original player wants those broken/ignored... 2) I'll take Micah's word that no rules were specified for permanent subs. Therefore, they can do whatever they want. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Xietor:
You seem to have really strange idea for some basic MP rules. And it's even stranger considering your MP experience. I think that it is absolutely common, normal and expected that perm-sub takes over a nation with all good and bad things coming from it. So perm sub should honor all NAPs and alliances. If he does not it is almost as he broke them. Of course that is jut a rule of honor, but same applies to all other diplomatic agreements here. The fact that neighbours may be ready for the possibility of new owner picking new path does not mean that he can just come and launch an invasion on an old ally of a previous player. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
I posted because I felt that your characterization of the situation was, shall we say, oversimplified and subject to misinterpretation. "Where I was going with it" was making an attempt to clear things up, since you were presenting things as fact or consensus that I pretty strongly disagree with, and I didn't want other people to read it and assume that everyone was in agreement with how things work.
Your latest post makes a whole lot more sense to me than the one I initially replied to. You're now making reasonable arguments for why things should change, as opposed to just saying "it's the rule." I still disagree with your conclusion, as well as the assertion that treaties are not inherited, but I can at least see where you're coming from. IMO, if a player doesn't trust your sub (or the sub doesn't trust the player) he is, of course, free to break the treaty and claim extenuating circumstances. It's up to the other players to decide how much tarnish that would put on his reputation. But I think it would be pretty clearly a flat-out violation of a treaty if he just attacked with no warning whatsoever, or used the sub as an excuse to duck out of a NAP that had been given notice on and still had multiple turns left until hostilities commenced just to get an advantage over the former ally. That was the conclusion I got from your initial characterization of what happens when a sub takes over. Treaty-breaking is, of course, an option with non-binding diplomacy regardless, but I don't see why the sub should be able to get out of the political fallout from such a move just based on being a sub. Reaffirming treaties is smart, but every time I've done it I assumed that it was in relation to the ongoing portion of the treaty, not the static part...so if my 3-turn warning NAP partner subbed out I would be confirming that the sub didn't want to give notice on the treaty, not that he could ignore the whole thing. And yes, you're right about not needing to immediately disclose who the sub is, but again, I feel that the way you posted about it initially was subject to misinterpretation for long-term plans to do so. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
As I said Zeldor my understanding of the custom comes from the games and players in the games in which i have participated.
In fact, in this game, you have two very experienced players, K and Baalz, who took over positions as perm. subs. K for sure felt he was not bound by my nap with the former player. And I am not sure how Baalz approached his role when he took over MA Arcos. But it is hard enough to get perm subs as it is, and it may be harder to get them if they cannot play the race as they see fit. While I am not motivated enough to read Perpetuality thread, I think that was Velusion's logic. In Fallacy I also had to reconfirm my treaties with the players that took over MA Ctis. In any event, it is not something I made up out of thin air. It is just something that has been a part of my gaming experience. Other players may well have had different gaming experiences. From Zeldor's perspective, it really is not relevant as I had no treaty with him anyway. And I certainly did not get a sub because I wanted LA Arcos to attack either of the nations with whom i had naps, la caelum or formoria. In fact it is my strong hope my sub would see that as a futile course of action if he wishes to influence the outcome of the game. Though my sub is a very strong willed person, and my advice will likely be secondary to his own assessments. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
As a player not in the game and thus hopefully not biased it has been my experience in the moderate amount of MP games I've had that new players are treated with a clean slate. All bets are off, etc etc.
I have seen one turn grace periods for new players to get their feet wet pretty commonly but I have never heard anyone suggest in any game (and I read a LOT of games even if I am not in them) or forum topic that treaties mandatorily carry over from player to player. For subs, yes of course but new players, never. On the other hand I have seen many many games where the new player is treated as a completely different person and all treaties and such became null and void. Shrug, my .02 cents |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
To Jim.
Turtles can poke their heads out. You were given one of the largest armies in the game that had back to back wars with two other nations right before you subbed. My "turtling" had Helheim within the top 5 in nearly every stat including provinces and gem income when you hit the scene. Just because I had a large numbers of fortresses doesn't mean I did not play aggressive as well; I would have had to play aggressive to lead in provinces for a hefty chunk of the game and still be within the top five for provinces when you took over. I am sorry that you seem so unhappy with what you were stuck with, but Helheim hardly had 0 chance of winning when you got it. I won't go into details because I don't want to give away specifics of your position, but you had some pretty powerful options no matter which way you planned to go. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
Thus, the only part that struck me as really odd about your announcement, was your point on this odd secrecy. Yes, the community is reputation based - as long as we know who it is that is doing what to whom. And Foodstamp, I'm not trying to badmouth you, or say you are a bad player. ;) I'm sure that for most people, taking on a nation of the size that Helheim was, at this stage of the game, is a huge undertaking. I'm sure that most of the things you had set up, made some sense, or had some purpose. Unfortunately, to me, a lot of that purpose was not visible, and it was a daunting task trying to organize things to my own liking, and move some commanders around a bit. My main problem with the position really, was the diplomatic dead-end that resulted from an allied EA Tir + MA Agartha + LA Agartha to the north. Once I had sniffed that out, I began to move forces south to invade Marignon, and then I had war declared on me by Numero Uno. Helheim had an incredible gem income, some awesome indie mages, and a burgeoning Blood economy (that I nearly doubled in scope, for a brief couple of turns) - and was certainly not a lemon. But it was more of a blitzing build, and I do feel that (likely because you were starting to lose interest in the game, not because of any deficiency on your part) you rested for too long, and that while there were tools available to cash in on that time spent, the 1-2 blow of the 2v1 war declaration, and then the first Armageddon totally tanking the entire economy, says to me that the nation just waited too long to get growing again. You did awesomely though, I for one am jealous by your early-mid game performance in this game. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Games simply don't state obvious things. NAP is between nation A and B. The fact that Obama is becoming a new president does not mean that all previous pacts that Bush signed are no longer viable. Even common sense would suggest that continuation of all previous agreement is obvious. If new players wants to change relations with someone he can do so, according to rules from previous agreements [so simply wait X turns from NAPX and attack then].
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
I personally agree with you Zeldor and wish it were that way. It's been my experience that it's rarely so however.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
it's pretty frustrating to build a strategy on an ally and then, for RL or whatever reasons, have them bail and have a new sub totally reverse course on you. It happens I know but the traditional approach I have seen is for subs to honor existing pacts for at least a few turns and then decide whether to renew or not.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Traditional yes, Mandatory no.
Treaties often do get reconfirmed due to the strategic realities of a games situation but if a new player changes direction people will think it a bit cheesy but nowhere near as cheesy as if the old player broke treaties in the same manner. I posit that this is because we expect new players to be well, different. And yeah, man does it suck to have your "Trusted" ally go poof. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Xietor, given that we have different view of our nations' current disposition towards each other (at war? We haven't fought a single battle in 10+ turns, the border has stayed the same! I'd call that a truce without standing treaties), I feel that your insistence on anonymous _permanent_ substitute is ridiculous. Where can I go to straighten out these misunderstood diplomacy things?
I really appreciate the effort you went through to organize and manage this game. Seriously, thanks. But this curve ball you've thrown is (again) a bit hard to swallow. I'm with Micah and Zeldor on the sub issue. Some continuity should be expected, of course a new player is free to do what he wants but the honoring of treaties (even if it's just the cancellation period of NAPs) should be the baseline, not "get out of the jail free" card. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
You can contact him in-game. If he decides he wants to correspond with you out of game, he'll give you an e-mail address.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Of course I can. This situation is not the end of the world, never mind few Armageddons here and there.
Just saying, zeroing status quo, not providing means for hasty communication when there are big armies at the both sides of the border and assuming everything is as it should be is plain silly. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Atul,
Give me some small credit. I did not tell frank trollman we were at war and leave it at that. I told him we were technically at war but neither side had attacked each other in a long time. My message to Frank was QUITE lengthy and detailed. Several pages long. Likely more detailed than any sub could ever want. So there was not simply a 5 sentence pm with who i was at war with and who i am not. He was not only told I am at war with la marignon, but every type of attack LA Marignon has ever sent against me, and which are the most likely in the future. etc. As it is a new day and since has not posted, I did give out his name. He does prefer to be contacted in game. And if he wants to contact you more quickly he can(as he did me). He likely is reading this thread, so I will tell him I bear him no ill will in disclosing his name, but agree that at this point in a game it should be done. As a personal note, some may recall there was quite a battle in the last Big Game between Frank and myself. As I told him, that was over a year ago, and I certainly do not carry grudges from one game to the next. I would be just as happy to be allies with him in a new game as anyone else. And that certainly goes for anyone who i fought wars against in Kingmaker as well. While I am a verbose opponent, and that takes some aback, it is not meant to be personal. And though Ruin may string the Council of Marigon up for the Buzzards to feast on in Kingmaker, Admiralzhao is considered by me to be an honorable and extremely capable Dominions player who I would ally with in a heartbeart in the next game. Good Luck All! |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
Seriously though, thanks for putting together the game. With old enemies and old friends fading into the sunset, I hope KM ends soon. Capital count? Utgard has 5. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Well chalk that up as yet another misunderstanding in communications, that "I'm at war with BL and Mari" still made a stop for me. I still retain the excuse of not being a native English speaker. ;)
Edit: Bandar Log, still at two. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
LA Agartha has only 6 capitals under full control, so nothing to be worried about :) I am interested in Caelum's and Niefel's count.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
LA Caelum still has only 3 capitals.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
EA Tir Na Nog still has 3 capitals.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
EA Niefelheim has 4.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
How many more are you sieging? |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Lanka has 6 capitals (+ one under siege).
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Amhazair:
I am not obliged to disclose that :) |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
I got some ugly bug, it could be called battle replay bug if the result of the battle was totally impossible to happen [even at extreme odds]. I guess we can do nothing about it though, so I will report it to llamabeast, so he can take a look and send it to Illwinter.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Correction: I just noticed I have *5* capitals now. My bad.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
I have hit a bug serious enough that I am actually posting on this forum. While the first turn I performed with LA Arco went through fine and dandy with all of my orders and messages going out, the last two turns did not. Instead I got a message of:
"CD Key Violation" with the message body of: "Your CD key has been used on multiple installations. Your orders have not been executed." While sort of technically true (in that I transferred Dominions completely from my desktop to my laptop when I retired my desk top two years back), that's not even relevant and shouldn't have been detected by the game. And if I happened to have the same key as another player by whatever chance, it would have flipped on the first turn, not the second. Meaning that either the game has completely broken or someone hacked my position between me taking my first turn and me taking my second turn. I'll turn over the position to whoever wants it, but I can make no guarantees that you will be allowed to take turns. Needless to say, I do not check this forum on any regular basis, if you wish to contact me, do so by email. ftrollman (at) gmail.com -Frank |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
3 things are odd about this -
First, trying to do a LAN game with the same CD key, all I got was "Stale Turn". Second, Llamaserver doesn't show Arcos as staling. And third, Llamaserver should post a warning stating exactly which nations submitted turns with identical CD keys - and we're not getting such a warning..... :bug::angel::shock: |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Hmm... if Xietor was playing he'd say so. Llamabeast is away, so contacting Hadrian, game admin, sounds like an only solution [and if situation needs it, I think no one will object postponing it till 7/8th, it would be just 1-2 days].
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
I no longer get the turns, and have not submitted a turn since I got a sub.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
The same thing happened to me when I subbed for a game about a month ago. First turn was ok, second or third turn there was a message about duplicate CD keys. But the succeeding turns after there were no problems. I would suggest just continuing on with it. Probably just a bug.
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Frank's problem is my fault. I was living at his house when my computer blew up AND I had lost my copy of Dominions. He had it on a thumb drive so I put it back on my computer.
I forgot to put my key back into the key file. I'll replace Frank's with mine and all should return to normal. |
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
A lawyer is typically at the root of all of problems.:D
|
Re: KingMaker - let the Ascension War commence!
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.