.com.unity Forums - New game - The Art of War, Fight!

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

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

- - New game - The Art of War, Fight! (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43097)

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

I'll play, I've got 2 on the go and room for one more.

I'd also like to clarify diplomacy: this must mean no trading, alliances, NAPs and other agreements, but are you allowed simple messages of intent in-game like "I don't plan on attacking you", or "Prepare to die, heretic scum!"?

I always prefer graphs on, mostly actually from a roleplay-style view that I think the world would have nations with embassies, merchants, and travellers who would have basic information about other lands which would let rulers know that sort of general information about others.

I'll play anything given randomly. It's half the fun.

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

I would like to play. I'm in support of fully random nations (no trading etc), no mod nations, CBM 1.5, and graphs on.

As for the victory condition, with this many players and still more signing up, seems the easiest would be a certain percentage of capitals.

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

Agema:

No in-game messages at all. No trading. Not sending of anything if you get defeated. No telling anyone in the game what nation you have. It's like SP, but with humans, not AIs :)

And I agree with TheDemon - VPs at capitals, preferably around 35-40% to win, depends on number of players [if it's big, 30% may be enough].

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

I'm indifferent to graphs.

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

I'd like in please. Graphs on, CBM, the rest as it comes.

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calahan (Post 690690)

Also one suggestion, you might want to disable re-naming, since it could help give away a players identities due to many players liking to rename their commanders after the random picks they get. Since it's then feasible for someone to start making a list (from the various games they might be in) of who renames their commanders like this and who doesn't. Think as many measures as possible should be taken to keep identities a secret.

Final point, you might want to mention something about what the penalties are if someone does communicate during the game. Will they be warned, instantly turned AI etc. While I'd like to believe that everyone will stick to the spirit of the game, it would be useful for clarity sakes to state the rules clearly before hand in case anyone is tempted.....

"Oh sorry, I forgot there wasn't any diplomacy in this game. It won't happen again honest. And it's no big deal since I only needed to do it once so that I could arrange for everyone to attack the player who just attacked me"

Yeah, I forgot about renaming. We'll have it on off as to protect players from themselves.

And I have been thinking about the penalties for breaking communication, just not sure how to go with it.
I too hope that everybody will play in the spirit of the game but in case they "accidentally forget",
at the very least I think a permanent sub should be found, making them AI could cause even more unstability to the game.
So, IMO, kicked out or AI.

Agema, no communication of any kind. You are free to reveal you identity only once you're dead, but only your own, and there will be no posts like,"Oh damn Pangaea killed me".
Everybody is free to comment on stuff like indie strength, and other harmless stuff like that as long as it doesn't jeopardize you or another player.

So, victory conditions, percentage of capitals, I agree with this. We will have to sort this out later, once we see how many players we've got.

Now, nation selection. This is a you choose type of game, so what kind of system would you prefer?
Do you want a standard, random nations all the way, meaning no trading or anything of that kind,
or,
Do we steal Baalzes idea from Fearun, you state eg. two nation you don't want to play. Or maybe someone has an even better idea?

There also seem to be no objections to this being a MA game, so I recon that is settled.

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

Stating some nations you don't want sounds good.

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

I reckon pure random

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

Changed my mind to now preferring pure random nations. IMO if you can't play the hand you're dealt, then maybe your skills are not as high as what you thought they were. Anyone can be a good player if they constantly play the same nation until they perfect a strategy for it, and making players play new nations tests out their versatility.

I do have my usual reservations about marking capitals with a bull's-eye VP though. Maybe just have the usual X number of capitals, with all victory claims going to the non playing admin for checking.

Edit: I did originally say the Legends of Faerun system for nation selection was fine, but then I read hEad's post below and realised it's correct that stating nations you don't want to play partly gives away your identity. So my vote is now for pure random.

Re: New game - The Art of War, Random nations, no diplomacy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar (Post 690716)

I reckon pure random

I agree here; tis the only truly anonymous means of getting into the game. We can’t trade, because that would give away who we are, and by selecting some nations not to have, we know that citizen x is definitely not selection y...

Go random and let the dice decide!