Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

oh sorry - i hadn't seen all the battles yet.

I was happy w/ how that little battle communion worked - not that i expect it to live a long life :)

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

At this point, I honestly wouldn't mind ending this game, or turning it into a "Neutrals-only" slugfest or something. We are going to have to work through some of the details if we're going to play a game of this type again. Is there anyone who feels strongly that they want to continue playing?

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

Well I certainly hope to have a grand slaughtering before the end.
About the other conditions we already discussed it at length with Baalz I recall and what we had suggested was fine for a better balanced game of this type IMO. that was around page 37 of this thread.

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

well, Baalz and I are having some epic fights... but the game itself is dead as the giant neutrals just sit and hoard. :)

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

That was my point when I talked about too much neutrality. The victory conditions as they were set are the prime reason for this IMO as neutrals had a strong interest in leaving the other two factions slaughter each other.

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

Well, I know that that was kind of what I was doing. Waiting to see who slaughters who of the good and evil. I would be happy to let this game go, in all honesty, but I have two personal reasons for wanting to do so: I realized literally a few weeks after I started this game that I hate Dom3 endgame, and I was staring down an extended one here. And I also have finally gotten my fill of Dom3, and need a break; after over a year and a half of playing, that is a personal record for me, out of an entire lifetime, with *any* game! I realize however that those opinions aren't shared by the majority of players, and I don't want to derail the thread. Just explaining why I'm voting 'end it'.

As to a different setup, I think the initial rules were set up quite well. There were far too many players though. If Good can make it to the end-game as a coalition, then they pretty much have it won. Even in this game, Good advertised making some critically bad decisions both in Pretender design and during the early game; if that wasn't just don't-kill-us propaganda (which I half-suspect it was), then even with all those critical errors, they are still a major power even now! Without those critical errors, we would probably now be checking if anyone wants to continue in the face of Team Good's clear victory. ; )

I think a game like this is best set up with 10 players: 5 Evil, 2 Neutral, 3 Good. Spread the Team Good out a bit, but make sure there is no more than one other player between any two of them on the map. That way they can come to each other's aid if necessary, their early expansion isn't crippled by slamming up against other Good, and they can team up on other nations if they like. And with only three in Team Good, it no longer becomes so *absolutely critical* that Evil destroy them early game, so Evil need not go after them exclusively, and Neutral may not be able to turtle up in such safety.

I did enjoy this game though, don't get me wrong. Learned a lot, had some fun, and there are a few things I would like to mention I was doing if we do officially decide to end it.

--IndyPendant.

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

I'd vote to end this game in favor of anyone who wants to claim victory.

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

well, I've submitted my turn. If people are tired of the game and want to end it, that's fine with me. I was only supposed to be a short-term sub ;p

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

Well I'd be really sad to end this game like this after so many turns.

Re: Global War (upgraded to 3.20)
 

well, you neutrals should get a war going then :)