Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

@ All

I'm not sure what you guys want to do with regards the schedule for the festive holidays. I've had PM's from some players with requests for delays, some PM's generally mentioning a player won't be around, and other PM's from players saying they might be around, but if they are, they'd prefer to be doing family / festive stuff at this time of year rather than playing Dominions. (all of which is both easy to understand and very reasonable IMO)

I'm admining a few other games right now, and in those games I am likely changing the schedule to something like 240 hours with quickhost on, so if players get their turns in the game will host, and if not, the deadline won't hit until sometime in the New Year. And also trust that a player will get their turn done during this time if they are able to.

From the various requests I have received, a 240h schedule starting around the 22nd or 23rd seems to cover everything, so unless I hear any strong objections, and/or a better idea (that doesn't involve lots of players finding lots of temp subs) then this is also what I will do with this game to cover the needs of the festive holidays. (I will of course let you all know when this happens if it does)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

Sounds alright to me.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

+1, thanks Calahan

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

This works for me and is an elegant solution I think, thanks.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

I'm good with it..

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

A good plan--thanks Calahan.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

works for me, thanks

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

Ok everyone, I've changed the hosting schedule to 240hours until the New Year to accommodate all the various delays/schedule requests I've had. The current deadline is now 11:25 GMT Sunday 2nd January, but the turns will continue to host if everyone gets their turns in.

Hope you all enjoy the holidays and New Year.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

@ All (Happy New Year)

Hope everyone enjoyed the holidays :) but now that they are over, it's time to get this game running on a normal schedule again.

I have now switched the timer back to 48 hours, although this won't take effect until the next turn, as the llamaserver doesn't reduce the hosting deadline unless you specifically tell it to . And I won't reduce the deadline since I don't believe a deadline should ever be reduced, as it causes too many potential problems. But I will chase-up and get annoyed with anyone who I suspect is "having a laugh" with submitting their turn, as I want the current turn to host well before the 12th Jan deadline. So can I please ask you all not to get silly with turn submissions just because you have a generous deadline.

(As a note, I was going to switch the schedule back to 48 hours at some point while it was on 240 hours. But was afraid of doing it too early in case the game hosted while I was away (since I knew I was going to be away at various points during the holidays). I did intend to switch it back yesterday, but got back from my New Year's trip a day later than I expected, and missed the chance as a result. Hence the stupid deadline this turn. So apologies for that. Anyway....)


The New Year also brings with it the game's first casualty in the shape of Arco, which was played by Herode. Thank you for playing Herode, hope you enjoyed the game :)

The first player out also prompts me to remind you all that if/when you are eliminated, please do not post anything in the thread that might affect the game for others. ie. Do not post which nation killed you, or any such similar information or game intel that other players should not know about.

(the first casualty also reminds me that I need to sort out the OP, as it has shamefully been on my to-do list for too long now, so I'll try and get on that today if I can.)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

Hi there, ladies & gentlemen, I wish you a happy new year :)

I did enjoy the game, thanks to Calahan for admining and congrats to my opponent for having given me an interesting (to say the least :D) challenge !

Have fun and be wild !

H. from Arcoscephale

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

Thanks for the bang up job admining Calahan. Your efforts are making sure that a great game is had by all and its much appreciated!

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

My spies inform me that the game is heating up, as the second nation was eliminated this turn. With Mictlan's demise coming hot on the tail of Arco's. So I can now reveal that Mictlan was played by your game organiser Executor.

(I will be sorting out the OP straight after I finish this post, so expect to see an update shortly)

Thanks Baalz. I just hope my efforts as admin are having some positive effects on how enjoyable everyone is finding the game. I am very happy though that the game is this far in without any sort of problems having occurred, plus the all important zero showing by the dreaded AI :)

So while I have the chance, I'd like to thank everyone if I can for so-far sticking to the extensive set of player rules I sent out. I only ask that you all please keep it up, as it makes my job as admin a lot easier, and hopefully, the game more enjoyable for everyone. With the latter being the most important aspect of course :)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

Well that was interesting.
I hope I managed to stir up some trouble at least before I went down.
Apologies to nations X, Y and Z for possibly depriving them of some provinces or getting them into war with my conquerors I hope?
To nation X, seeing my scout (quite regular) capture a province with 30 troops in it, given half set to retreat, but still, was the funniest and weirdest battle I have ever seen in Dominions.
I watched it over and over again, it was ridiculous. Now the reason I did that is because that was originally my province before the barbarians took over and I was forced to abandon it due to, well war. So don't hold a grudge. :)

To my main enemy, it is my firm belief that had you attack just two turns later you would have lost. Indeed I planned to attack you 2-3 turns after you started your attack on me, but by the time I managed to pull my forces together one fort had already fallen and I lost my archer backup and one part of my army sadly.
Perhaps I should have anticipated that with a large army on my border for several turns but it was only turn 12 or so.

Second, I curse the bastard who stole my merc army just before the main clash with my invader, they were a very important part of the army! BTW, you must have had crazy money to overbid on them.

Third, regarding that big battle, it worked out much better with my missing part of the army and my mages casting harm on someone that could actually be affected. (I won it in my test battles, go figure)
I'll just add that to luck, well misfortune rather.
And I was torn on whether I should have confronted you on a winner takes all in my lands, or make a move toward your cap while you chase me back. Wrong decision I guess with my army being weakened and getting attacked by another nation.

All in all, even with luck 3 I have never had such bad luck in a game, with 3 indie attacks, famines, migrations in my cap, constant unrest events and gold losing event and all other crap by turn 20.
The only positive thing I got out of luck 3 were gems, which proved to be unusable in the end due to lack of research, and mages...sigh
Heh, and it's quite funny when you pull all your remaining cash into PD, well rather alchemize ALL gems since you can't use them, to about 60-70 PD if I remember and than "the people suddenly revolt" and you lose that province. That, heh, that was nice... :)

Well good luck to the rest of you.

Also, Calahan is still the main admin and his word is the word of God for this game, however should he become unreachable for some reason I'm still here to sort out trouble, grant delays, look for subs, etc...

Cheers all.

BTW, OP updated.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Closed
 

Yeah, I've had this same experience, and recently I've come to think it's tied to the conventional (and I think wrong) idea that it's a good idea to take luck-3 scales with awful other scales. The reason this ends up being a bad idea is because the best/worst events are tied to scales. If you have 4 good events they may be unrest is reduced, or your dominion expanded then you get 1 bad event that barbarians attacked or half your population died. You're getting many more good events but the impact of the fewer bad ones is much more significant. With crappy other scales I think you'll generally come up well head to go with neutral order/luck rather than turmoil-3/luck-3...

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 16/18 left
 

@ All - Turn 39 saw the lizard nation of C'tis eliminated. Their ruler was Hylobius.


@ - Hylobius - "Thank You" for playing Hylobius. I hope you both enjoyed the game, and that you learned a lot from the experience. And also thanks for fighting until the very end, as that is much appreciated by myself as admin, and all the players, as it enhances the game a lot all round when nobody can gain ground by default wins against the AI.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 16/18 left
 

Thanks for the game and thanks to Calahan for his excellent job with admin duties. I will refrain from making any comments about the game so that I don't accidentally spill any information.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 16/18 left
 

@ All

I've been informed that we have another man down, with last turn bringing with it the fall of Ermor's Sacred Temple of the Shroud. Ermor was led right up until the final battle by Aethyr.


Thanks for playing Aethyr, and for fighting it out until your last Principe fell. Much appreciation and thanks for that, as always. Hope you enjoyed the game, and that you're not yet too seasoned as a Dom player to have learnt a few things from it ;)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 14/18 left
 

OP updated, 14 players left.
Thanks for participating Aethyr.

Cheers.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 14/18 left
 

Thanks Calahan for the absolute wonderful job you've done as admi in this game.

I'll refrain from further comments at this time other than to congratulate my persistent opponent, and to wish all remaining players good luck. :)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 14/18 left
 

It seems the attempt of the Witch Kings to rule the world has failed, as I have been notified that their elimination came last turn (turn 45). Sauromatia was played by GrudgeBringer.

Thanks for playing Grudge. Hope RL works itself out for you and your family.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 13/18 left
 

@ All

For those who don't know yet, the llamaserver is having a bad time, and in the past few hours has hosted a load of games with errors, and then removed them from the server.

As such llamabeast has switched off his server until he has time to fix it (which he said will be tomorrow). So this game won't be hosting at the expected deadline. I will let you all know what's happening once I know myself.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 13/18 left
 

@ All

Just quickly popping in to let you all know that the llamaserver appears to be working again, so it's business as usual for this game.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 13/18 left
 

ALL,
Please ignore the email sent by admin, it was a mistake on my part.

Also, The game is delayed by 24h.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 13/18 left
 

So, it's just occurred to me that with the strict anonymity of this game and everyones commitment to play till the death this is going to lead to a very long and miserable end game once the winner is obvious and no concession is possible. The mirco involved in controlling a 200+ province empire when all remaining players are in guerrilla/raiding/"bunker in castle" mode sounds like punishment for bad acts in a past life, while the non-winning players are presumably having a fairly limited amount of fun. I wonder if maybe we could, assuming unanimous consent, alter the victory conditions to be something achievable while the game is still somewhat fun? Perhaps something like when one nation is in control of all capitals?

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 13/18 left
 

Yes, the victory conditions for this game might not be the best given the size of the map, and anonymous aspect of the players.

I'm pushed for time today, but tomorrow I will privately contact each player (as thread posts/discussion might give away clues to player ID's) to gather their opinion, and will likely offer everyone a few options with regards what to do about the victory conditions. Not exactly sure what those options will be yet, but probably a choice between keeping the original victory conditions, switching to requiring all capitals (as suggested above) or a percentage/fixed number of capitals. (the latter will likely need another sub-vote for what percentage/fixed number is required). Or perhaps a majority concession rather than a total one, such as 2/3 or 3/4 etc.

I doubt a victory condition that isn't based on capitals or concession in some way is feasible given how far into the game we've gone. But like I said I'll aim to come up with something over the next 24 hours or so, and circulate it via PM to obtain feedback and votes.


(if anyone wants to give feedback on this before I contact them, then please do so to me via PM. Or if you want to post on the thread in order to convey your message to all players, then maybe again please PM the message to me and I'll post it for you anonymously. As posting on this matter might for example inadvertently give clues to your ID, since an innocent post saying "I don't mind what the victory conditions are" could indicate you have no chance of winning, and therefore give some clue as to your ID. Which I'd like to avoid for obvious reasons)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 13/18 left
 

I was Atlantis and just lost my last candle. Since I was about to lose my last fortress, it was really a race to the loss for me. I am surprised I managed to survive so long without my capital city - circumstances and a lack of real opposition when I fled to the ground I guess.
I won't say too much but I guess it should be ok to say that R'lyeh the other sea-based nation was my main issue; I had a strategy but did not implement it very well and was unlucky to see him get a Kelp right next to Atlantis. I think I managed to give him one bad surprise at some point (hint: Astral magic) but when I tried to do it again I stupidly risked my Master Lich outside of my dominion. The loss of my pretender was a crushing blow to my civ.
All in all a fun day, salutations to everybody especially R'lyeh.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 13/18 left
 

@ All - Sorry for not yet contacting you all about changing the victory conditions like I said I would. Real life work has been all consuming this week, but I should have enough time today to start the ball rolling on this, so all remaining players can expect a PM from me on this matter within the next hour or two.

----------

@ Marmaduke

Thanks for playing. Sounds like you had a tough campaign, but I hope you enjoyed it all the same, and of course learnt a thing or two for next time :) And like all those before you, a big thank you for playing until the very end. It is most appreciated by all the players and admins, as all players doing so leads to far better game all round :)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 13/18 left
 

@ All

Below the chequered line is a message I would like to send you all privately, but due to the 5,000 character limit on PM's, it would take me half the day to send out the 2-3 PM's each that it would need to send it to each of you (it's bordering 10k+ characters.) I made one quick attempt to cut it to 5k, but that ended up as a mess. As such I will instead just PM you all a link to this post, and a short PM highlighting the voting options of this message.

Now importantly, can I ask you all NOT TO POST any sort of reply or vote in the thread, as that might give away some clues to your nation identity, and to instead, PLEASE MAKE ALL REPLIES AND VOTES BY PM, as that will make sure no clues are given away regarding those precious secret identities. If you do feel the uncontrollable urge to post feedback in the thread, then can I please ask you to take extra care to ensure that it is just a general post, and nothing related specifically to the current game state.

-----------------------

NWA Players

I'm contacting you all regarding the victory conditions in the No Wankers Allowed game. The game was advertised with the victory conditions being (from the OP) "Till the death", which means the same as 'unanimous concession' (ie. concession by everyone), and it is these victory conditions that are still in effect now.

But given that the game...

a) Has anonymous players
b) Has no score graphs
b) Is being played on a large map

...it is easy to imagine a scenario where the game has a clear leader / winner, but who is not declared a unanimous winner due to the other players simply not knowing how dominant a position that player holds. So as a result of the current victory conditions, the game could very easily go on for many more turns, and many more weeks than is necessary before the overwhelming leader is declared the winner. Which is a scenario that would bring with it a lot of obviously unwanted results and side-effects, all of which I would like to avoid happening in this game if at all possible.

So due to the potential problems of this 'unanimous concession' condition, by both player request and my own misgivings, I aim to gather opinion and feedback with regards changing the victory conditions to one that is more suited for size of the game, and the settings it is being played under. So can I please ask you to vote and/or provide any feedback you wish on the following suggestions for a new set of victory conditions. I won't make a decision strictly by the votes, but a very good reason would be needed for me not to go with the wishes of the majority of the players.


Voting Options

As I see it, there are two options for victory conditions.

1 - Victory by acquiring capitals (and holding them if necessary)
2 - Victory by majority concession (note this is not a unanimous concession)


Option 1 - Victory by acquiring capitals

Changing to Option 1 will be by far the simplest all round, as all that will be required is to agree upon the required number of capitals a player needs to obtain, and whether or not they need to hold these capitals for a set number of turns. There are 18 capitals in the game, so some logical options regarding the number required are.

Sub-Section 1.1

1a - 9 capitals, or 50%
1b - 10 capitals, or >50%
1c - 12 capitals, or 66%
1d - 15 capitals, or 83%
1e - 18 capitals, or 100%

I personally think option 1c would be a good choice considering the size of the game and the stage it has reached. But that is just my opinion, and everyone is free to vote for any option they wish to. (Remember, please vote by PM only)

When it comes to the added requirement of needing to hold the capitals for a set number of turns, there are probably only two sensible options.

Sub-section 1.2

1y - 1 turn, so to win a player only needs to own the required number of capitals on one single turn to claim victory (note, this would simulate the victory condition seen in games that have VP marked capitals)
1z - 3 turns, so to win a player needs to own and hold the required number of capitals for 3 consecutive turns. eg. The required number of capitals would need to be owned at the start of turn 100, 101, and 102 to claim victory. (I have suggested 3 turns, as this is by far the most often used duration for games which use the "capture and hold" victory condition)

All victory claims that involve capturing capitals will obviously need to be checked by myself or Executor before a win is confirmed.


Option 2 - Victory by (majority) concession

Changing the victory conditions to Option 2 would be more in-line with the original victory conditions, but would also bring with it a lot of potential problems. As unless there is unanimous concession, any individual may feel they have the right to veto any calls another player has on victory, and this is irrespective of whether or not the grounds for the veto turn out to be valid given the luxury of hindsight and analysis.

As for example, one immediate problem I can visualise is that of a clear leader asking for a concession, and there being one other player (lets call him "the contender") of reasonable strength, but well behind the.leader in power. Along with any number of other players (lets call them "the others") further behind again. So the leader asks for a concession, and all of "the others" agree to this concession, but the "contender" doesn't for whatever reason. Now under any majority rules, the concession of all but one of the players will probably meet the required percentage of players accepting concession in order to claim victory. But of course this could leave "the contender" feeling particularly hard done by, as he/she might well have thought they had genuine winning chances (and like I said, irrespective of whether they turn out to be genuine given hindsight and analysis).

One solution is to give "the contender" veto rights, but then this leads to the problem of where to draw the line. As if there are two contenders, do they both get veto rights? And what if there are three or four contenders, do they all get the same rights? And what exactly qualifies someone as a "contender". Who or what decides this? There are so many aspects to Dominions that simply judging on provinces, gem income etc will often be an inadequate way of judging a player's relative power level. And having to meet too many conditions to gain veto rights, ie. to become a "contender", will likely lead to an administrative nightmare. While having too few conditions could lead to a huge number of players having veto rights, and with it the obvious consequence of a never ending game due to each concession vote being vetoed.

So as I see it, changing the victory conditions to one of majority concession could potentially lead to a lot more problems than it solves. Unanimous concession is easy to adjudicate, as either everyone agrees to concede, or the game continues. But any other form of concession victory leads to a whole host of potential problems and judgements calls. All of which I'd like to avoid if possible (again for all the obvious reasons).

As such, I highly recommend that the victory conditions are changed to some form of Option 1. But if the majority of the remaining players do wish to have a concession victory of some kind, and vote for Option 2, then I will come up with some criteria and conditions for a majority concession victory, and contact everyone again regarding them. Which brings me on to the voting...


To vote, simply pick Option 1 or Option 2, and PM me your vote (or reply to the PM I will be sending you shortly)

If you vote for Option 1, then can I also please ask you to make a subsequent vote in sub-sections 1.1 and 1.2, regarding the precise nature of the victory conditions of requiring capitals. If you wish to vote for Option 1, but have no voting preference in the sub-sections, then your vote for Option 1 will still count. If you have a preference or idea for a winning condition related to capitals that is not listed in the sub-sections (such as holding capitals for a duration of turns that is not one or three) then please do provide your own feedback on the matter, as I will take everything into consideration before making a final decision.

If you vote for Option 2, then I would please still ask you to vote in the sub-sections of Option 1 (although of course your vote will still be for Option 2). As if Option 1 gets the majority of support, I would still like to get maximum feedback from all the players on the sub-sections of Option 1 so that I can hopefully make a decision that reflects the wishes of the majority of the players should Option 1 get the majority of support. If Option 2 gets the majority of votes, then I will contact all the players again with a set of possible conditions for a concession victory.

If you do not wish to vote for either Option 1 or 2 then that is fine. You can also provide your own feedback on an alternative Option as well if you wish. As like I said, I will try to take everything into consideration before making a final decision.


And once again, a final reminder to VOTE BY PM TO ME ONLY.

"Thank You" for you time in reading this.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 12/18 left
 

@ All

Quick update on the voting. I've had around ~50% of replies so far, and the voting seems to be going heavily towards Option 1. I'll give it another day or two to see if anyone else wants to vote before I start finalising what the new victory conditions will be.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 12/18 left
 

@ All

Most of the votes have now come in, or at least enough for me not to wait anymore. The majority of players voted for Option 1. (7 voted for Option 1. 3 Abstains. 1 for Option 2).

In the sub-sections....

For the number of capitals required, 1c came out ahead of 1b by 4 votes to 2 (there were a lot of abstains)

For the "holding the capitals" sub-section, 1z came out ahead of 1y by 3 votes to 1 (again, a lot of abstains or gave no preference)


So from turn 59 onwards the victory conditions for this game will be

Capture 12 capitals and hold them for three consecutive turns.

(ie. If you own 12 capitals on the start of turn 100, you must own them at the start of turn 101 and 102 as well to claim the win.)

Important note here is that you must provide the turn files for each turn you held the capitals for to claim the win (so turn 100, 101 and 102 in the above example). As otherwise I can not 100% validate that you held the capitals for the required number of turns and consecutive duration (although it'll probably be easy to tell if you lost one on the middle turn)

(I'll track Executor down shortly and get him to update the OP with the new victory conditions)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 12/18 left
 

It seems Turn 59 was a double header on the elimination front, as both Helheim and Ulm will now only appear in tales of yore. Helheim was played by "rotarr" and Ulm by "Drog the Destroyer"

My thanks for playing goes to you both, and of course for fighting until the end. Both are greatly appreciated by admins and players :)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 12/18 left
 

It's been a fun game for me. I have to thank Baalz for his excellent Helheim guide which I used to good effect for this game (let's hope he wasn't the one who eliminated me though). Unfortunately I wasn't really prepared for the tactics of the person who eliminated me; at least I learned something useful there ;)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

my troops aren't moving where I tell them to move. They just sit there and get slaughtered. I guess there is some movement rules that I don't know about.

It kind of sucks to throw away 5 months work on some movement errors.


I guess I'll just never try to ever move more than one province at at time from now on.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

Thanks for the game. To sum my game up, a lack of indy scouts made me pick a fight based on chance instead of fact to keep up momentum. Of course my target was configured as I had feared and not as I had hoped, forcing me on the defensive burning through gems for early summons to try and stay in the game. After that it was just a matter of time before I got eliminated.

Special thanks for a great job admining the game.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

Ok, I figured out what was happening, He would teleport a SC into the province he was moving his army into. Since the SC took the province in the magic phase , my troops that were 2 provinces away couldn't move there. So only part of my army would move there and get slaughtered every turn.

lesson learned I guess
.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

Not interested in even hearing a reply much less a justification, but I just want to point out that this sort of chatter at this point in the game (when most people have extensive scouting in place) can pretty clearly identify what nation you're playing. With the considerable efforts our selfless coordinator has gone to in preserving anonymity just keep that in mind.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

@ All

Apologies for the delays to the current turn (turn 64). A player is currently having some computer problems, which I am hopeful will be solved soon, but the exact situation isn't 100% clear to me to give any sort of definite timeframe on the problem being resolved.

I know delays are often unwanted, but sometimes problems suddenly occur that can't be helped by the player. And when this does happen, I don't like the thought of a player having all the time and effort invested in a game written off due to no fault of their own, and forcing them to have a critical stale, or a forced sub turn (with the high danger of the sub playing a game-changingly bad turn). And especially not at this late stage of the game.

But I am aware of the number, and the length of, the delays so far this turn, and I will try and find a solution if the source of the problem doesn't seem to be resolving any time soon. Although I would be thankful for everyone's patience and understanding during this time. Thank you.

----------------------
Yes, thank you for this Baalz. As it allows me to take the opportunity to remind everyone to be very careful what they post in the game thread. As the best thread post any of you can make is no thread post at all. I think this has been a very good RAND game so far with regards keeping those ID's secret (at least compared to some I've played in, where id-keeping has been less than satisfactory), and I'd hate to see that change at this late stage of the game :(

So please can I ask again for players to be very careful what you post on this thread (or any thread). If you have a problem, then please PM me. If there is something you feel you must post on this thread, then please PM it to me and I'll post it for you anonymously. But please can you do all you can to safeguard your nation id. Not only for yourself, but also for the enjoyment of the other players in the game. As being a regular RAND player myself, there is nothing I hate seeing more than a player giving their secret id away with thoughtless thread posts, as it has always greatly diminished my enjoyment of that game as a result.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

@ All

I've been informed that Niefelhein were turned AI on turn 69. Which really is a great shame seeing as how the game has gone 69 turns without the AI appearing, as this now loses us our perfect record :(

And it's also a double shame, since to my knowledge it's also the first time one of the rules of the game has been broken :( :(


3. There is to be no turning AI by any player at any point in the game.

This is a golden set-in-stone rule for games I admin. I do not care who you are, or who you think you are. You could be the God of this community, or the God of this world for all I care. It is I and I alone who will decide when and if any nation gets turned AI in this game. Nobody else, and I mean absolutely nobody else, gets to decide whether or not a nation gets turned AI.


But from some of the PM's I've received, it seems it will come as no surprise to some of you to learn that Nief was played by Ghoul

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

Sorry.I forgot about that rule. I only had 2 provinces , and no army, but A rule is a rule.

And I shouldn't have talked about that movement problem either. But when you whole army is being wiped out because of something you don't understand, and you aren't allowed to talk about it, its rather frustrating.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

@ All

It has been brought to my attention that the rules of the game were broken this turn by R'lyeh, as they cast the Arcane Nexus, which is one of the banned globals. The following is taken from the OP.

Banned spells: Burden of Time, Arcane Nexus, Astral Corruption, Forge of the Ancients (Edit - Wrote acronyms in full to avoid any possible confusion)

In the process of casting this, the Arcane Nexus also overcast another players global, meaning that a rollback is the only real solution to the problem. (as while simply killing the caster this turn would get rid of the Arcane Nexus, it wouldn't bring the previous global back). But before this rollback is undertaken, I will pause the game until I hear (private) feedback on whether or not to continue the game, or end it here by concession.

As due to a request by the Abysia player, previous correspondence I've received recently from a few other players, and based on the current game standings as I know them, I am now asking players for their view on whether or not to concede to Abysia this turn.

So please can everyone PM me their thoughts on whether to concede the game to Abysia or not. (DO NOT POST REPLIES IN THE THREAD)


Edit - I will also be removing the R'lyeh player from of the game as per my usual no leniency policy on players who break the rules (even though this wasn't a case of breaking a rule specific to the RAND element of the game, other factors dictate that removal is required in this particular case)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

Nothing to read here...

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

@ All

I think I've had replies and votes from everyone now, and the game picture and opinions is clear enough for me to be able to declare Abysia the winner.

Just about everyone voted to concede, and nobody voted against conceding to Abysia (an abstain was the closest), nor gave a strong impression of a desire to continue the game. Two players said they were happy to concede, but were also happy to fight on if the game continued (but that's still a concession at the end of the day).

So I hereby declare Abysia the winner, and with it, congratulations to Baalz as the Abysia player.


Here is the full player / nation list.

1. Mictlan - Executor
2. Kailasa - Saros
3. C'tis - Hylobius
4. Fomoria - Originally zultor. (Cthulhudreams took over turn 50, and Amhazair took over from him turn 67.)
5. Helheim - rotarr
6. TNN - Ragnoff
7. Niefelheim - Ghoul
8. Sauro - Grudgebringer (Maerlande played the last turn or two)
9. Arco - Herode
10. Atlantis - Marmaduke
11. TC - Originally Fantomen. (don_pablo took over ~ turn 35)
12. Ulm - Drog the Destroyer
13. Hinnom - Happyfungi
14. Pangaea - Isokron
15. R'yleh - Ossa
16. Ermor - Aethyr
17. Yomi - Originally Zeldor. (Mockingbird took over turn 50)
18. Abysia - Baalz


My thanks goes to the players, and in particular the invaluable subs who helped keep the game running.

Not sure there's much else needed from me here, plus a bit short on time right now to babble. If anyone wants to keep the game alive for any reason then please let me know. I have extended the current turn another 96 hours so that nobody gets any more turns or reminders, and I will take the game down on Monday if nobody wants to keep it going.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

Thats the problem with anonymous games. You can't coordinate attacks on the person in the lead.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

That's the whole point silly. Dogpiles ruin the game IMO.

Anyway, thanks for the great gae everybody. Every war was well fought and everybody pretty much stuck stuff out. What more could you ask? :)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed 10/18 left
 

Congrats Baalz

So are you going to write that guide on EA Abysia now? ;)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Game Over, Baalz/Abysia Wins
 

Yeah, as Rotarr mentions I'm working on an AAR/Strat guide based on this game if anybody is interested. A hard drive crash this week cost me a good bit of work that'd I'd done, but I'm gonna try to redo it and publish this game from my perspective later this week.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Game Over, Baalz/Abysia Wins
 

Not too much post-game chatter for this one it seems. I don't really have very much too add since I joined about a dozen turns ago into a really poor Fomoria position. I found the grand total of 1! hammer, barely any boosters or thug/SC gear for my kings and a horribly incompletely site-searched territory, even in national paths. (income in earth and nature was a grand total of 2 each. :) )

After building up the best I could and establishing that Abysia looked like running away with the game with on opposition (for which I had to buy scouts first, since that's apparently an optional luxury too...) I decided to try and go all out to attack Abysia, hoping to take enough provinces to tempt the other nations into joining my attack. After which I somehow managed to send in an incomplete turn and only some conventional forces on the borders went through with their attack while the Kings remained ensconced in their cozy castles. :doh: The next - and last - turn showed that those incompletely geared Kings I had assembled only had a roughly even chance to actually defeat the massive PD Abysia had built, so probably wouldn't have mattered much anyway though.

I'd say: Good Game, Baalz, although I can only assume that to be true since I really only witnessed the result and not the journey itself. :)

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Game Over, Baalz/Abysia Wins
 

Yeah, I had Strand of Arcane Power up for 20-ish turns which found (guess) 30-ish sites. Without score graphs being on it was not obvious at all what a massive gem income I had - at the point Fomoria attacked I had pretty much 40+ gems of each type coming in and over 100 blood slaves each turn. I had empowered a couple wraith lords and a vamp count to be extremely nasty in my really strong dominion, but didn't get to put them to too much use before the game ended. The first one I got though (and only one at the time) did drop the hammer on Kailasa though. As I mentioned I'm putting together a very detailed AAR/guide with all the specifics of this one from my perspective.

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Game Over, Baalz/Abysia Wins
 

Sorry to necro an old post, but I'm extremely interested in this. It appears Baalz hasn't posted since late April though. Does anyone know if he's coming back, or was his hometown attacked by barbarians?

Re: No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Game Over, Baalz/Abysia Wins
 

Devored by winemen probably. Or a blight happened... or Bogus attacked him in his home.