Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Well, my reasoning for 50% or concession is because, being rather disconnected from the game in question, I didn't want to come up with victory conditions that would put someone basically on the brink of victory by accident, and have the game rapidly descend into drama. 50% was just a number that I figured wouldn't be too close to someone winning already, and in hindsight probably would be easier to achieve than the original victory conditions :P.

That said, I am not at all attached to these victory conditions. Yours sounds fine, though I would bump the number of capitols up to 6 as I'm pretty sure there's at least one person with 4 already. If this is acceptable, it would probably be a better idea than playing this game on forever like concession victories tend to. Which was an original intent to the game. So I would find this to be a perfectly reasonable victory condition.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

we could always leave the overlords with their inflated required victory conditions.... they are afterall in the lead... and if they have no attack restrictions having a big lead might be advantage enough to balance out their victory conditions being ~double those of a normal...

?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Okay, we'll take a vote.

1) to win this game, a nation needs to acquire 50% of all provinces or obtain a concession victory

2) to win this game, a nation needs to control 6 caps/overlord start forts

3) to win, a nation must control the number of capitols they were required to control in the initial game settings


This poll ends on the same turn that everyone loses their restrictions, someone please remind me when that is and we can tally the votes.

Sorry for being such a wishy washy admin this game. I have been experimenting with having a very open democratic process, which unfortunately has generated a lot of confusion.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

I think both 1) and 2) would make me quit right away

so my vote is for 3)


although i'd accept a 4) that was a compromise somewhere between the options like.... maybe 8VP for overlords and 6for normals and overlords only start with 1vp (can't utilize their own starting forts) I believe 3) is 5/10 so 6/8 would be a compromise? or maybe 5/7 or 5/8 ... i think someone might already have 4 so that's out....

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

I don't know - this seems to me just a lot of poor planning on the overlords part.

If you guys don't mind me asking... what dominion settings did you guys choose? You start out with an income advantage - did anyone build temples to start?

Can't attack except with dominion.. did anyone build for that?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Everybody took dom 9-10 Chris. Most took awake pretenders.

Both blood sacking nations were reserved for normals.

Pushing dominion was virtually impossible.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Just to further illustrate the point, I took a dominion score of 10 with an awake pretender. I've got the leading count of provinces, and as far as I can tell the most temples of any nation. I've got as of this turn 28 temples (constituting an investment of over 11,000 gold since I don't need the temples to recruit my mages) out of 43 provinces with a dominion score of 10. I've got friendly dominion in 31 of my provinces. This includes many priests preaching at friendly temples. I have pushed my dominion close to as hard as theoretically possible and I'm not even close to having all my own territory in friendly dominion much less pushing into other people's territory. It's kind of insulting to have you just assert that it's poor planning on our part.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Yeah, I don't really blame the overlords. There's just not much they could have done with the restrictions I placed on them. Their only chance really for this game was to really play up the overlord angle and use vassals to do most of the gruntwork for them. Trying to fight and subjugate another normal on their own was just not going to happen. And overlords going after other overlords would just have been inviting the others to attack them. Once I realized how hard it would be for an overlord to achieve their victory conditions I realized this game was likely to go on forever.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Win condition three is fine with me.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

I don't blame anyone either. I think this game has been a brave attempt and had lots of nice ideas but it hasn't quite fitted together as was hoped.

I think Victory Condition two is quickest and therefore best :p But three is OK too. It will drag it out a longer though - probably to little purpose.