Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Sounds good. Scraps my defense ;) but if its a way to keep the game going, whatever.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

i'm all for totally removing the restrictions. I do think that if we are to totally remove all restrictions we should impose a turn that is not the current turn for the rule change to take effect on.... that way anyone at war with an overlord has at least a turn or two to plan for the change? does that sound reasonable to anyone else?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Haha, it'll take much more than one turn before I retool everything, that's more than fair.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

well I was just saying one turn should be the least.... and one turn I think makes that first turn 43? so ... 3turns would be 45? and etc...

Hopefully I'm not at war with any overlords so it's not much a concern of mine but... some specific number is probably fairest in general...

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Might as well do another 3 turn changeover deal. So on turn 44, you may proceed to give whatever orders you like.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Hmmm. I could go either way. I'm strong enough that with all restrictions lifted, I could probably quickly do a lot of damage. On the other hand, I would not miss the game were it to end now. Sorry if that sounds wishy-washy.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Yeah, with the rules as they were I'm not really surprised with overlords being a bit apathetic at this point. Well, no one seems to really be calling for the game to end, so I would assume you all are moving forward.

Also, I've set the hosting interval to 72 hours. I figure it can't hurt since the holidays are upon us, and technically I was supposed to do it turns ago anyway.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

what are the overlords new victory conditions?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Victory by concession or control of 50% of the map. At which point should have long since been obtained.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Oh no!

I have been away so couldn't respond before now.

I agree this rules completely knack the Overlords fun and I can see why they are completely apathetic. I am surprised they have continued so long especially after the thread began talking about how the rules made the game both unwinable and rather pointless for them.

But the rules were stacked massively in their favour. It took me (with a great deal of manual and spell site searches) till turn 35 to get in to double figures of gem income (apart from a turn when I stole one of TCs provinces) and thats with 20+ provinces. I still have less gems per turn than an overlord started the game with.

Marignon (especially) and R'Leyh are massively ahead in research and have large gem rich empires. They are also two of the best players. Baalz's gem income lead is huge and has been for a long time. While Vanheim and Ashdod are fairly powerful anyone seriously think the eventual winner won't be Baalz or Atul from here if all restrictions go? But with a conquer 50% of the world victory condition it is going to take a long time from here.

So I vote we abandon this game under the Rdonj's new victory conditions.

But as we have all invested a lot of time to this game though if people do want to complete it at least make any victory conditions quick so the game ends soon (or at least could). The game was not designed to be fair (in a free for all sense) and has been anything but. So if we move to free for all rules at least leave the easy victory conditions. Let everyones victory conditions be the same as a Normal. 5 Capitals (with other peoples Overlord starting Forts counting as capitals too).