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.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

WTS dwarven hammers! reduced prices available... excepting payments which do not contain earth gems (or payments which do)


also WTB: stone sphere

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

1 turn away from the switchover, and so far votes are leaning towards option 3.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

should we set jotunheim ai or look for a sub did he quit? how did i not realize sooner? dang... this game really is struggling to exist, ain't it

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

want to trade for death gems, want to trade for air gems Offering: other types of gems, misc....

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

I'll add jotunheim's name to the sub thread.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

want to trade for air gems or death gems!

offering fire,water,earth,astral,nature,gold,items!!


selling dwarven hammers! reduced prices! excepting payments of all sorts!

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Okay, sub situation is dealt with, jotunheim is probably going AI. Adding 48 hours to the timer to give ferrosol time to give me his email address and get a look at his nation. I may have to give him a bit more time as I've not been around much early in the day lately, and I'm pretty sure he lives on the other side of the pond.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Ah, that's pretty bad news.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Well, not for me, since I am his neighbor. But yeah, bad news in that the game seems to be bogging down, with people going AI.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Hi all subbing in for Ctis is you have any diplomatic deals with ctis contact me and let me know the details. As a general announcement we will be loyal to our friends and merciless to our enemies so we encourage you to be careful in which role you choose.

Also rdonj I sent you a PM with my Email address

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

this is sortof odd... someone agreed to sub for c'tis but not jotunheim? jotunheim has double the territory, eh? if we can only get one sub and only have two nations staling maybe the stronger nation should get the sub? then again maybe i'm just wrong about which nation is stronger or not

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Well, I think we lucked out with c'tis, since ferrosol signed up just to play c'tis. Jotunheim's 8 stales probably made it unattractive regardless of its lack of being dead.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

selling dwarf hammers for 10gems each payable in air or nature

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Hmm, I seem to have a new neighbor. A bit slimy and tentacled. I suppose I should punish them for conquering my vassal Agartha, but then, Agartha was never much of a vassal. They never paid me anything, and would hardly even talk to me. Good riddance, I suppose.

Just don't come any farther north, R'lyeh. The mages of Ashdod would not take kindly to that.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

do we have a clear description of the victory conditions? and with the abolishment of rules does that include the normals cannot cast globals rule as well?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

I believe so. If you are an overlord, you must capture and hold as many capitols as you were supposed to have to hold from the start of the game. i.e. 10 capitols, or 5 if all the other overlords are dead. If you are a normal, you must own 4 capitols and one of the forts that an overlord started with.

The abolishment of rules does indeed allow a normal to cast globals now.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

wtt water and pearls and fire for air

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Burden of Time? Really, Baalz?

OK, who wants to dispel it? I can do it if no one else is willing. I'll need copious amounts of astral gems donated to me though. No telling what R'lyeh cast it at.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Oh, giants last a long time don't they? If you wait a few turns to dispel it there will be a lot less humans around....

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

And so the shadow of death spreads across Ermor... seems oddly appropriate for a MA game. Stupid nation comprised entirely of venerable senators!

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Yeah, I'm pretty good overall. But the Talmai Elders don't seem to handle it too well. And, considering they are 600 gp a pop under the current CBM, I don't really like losing them. So yes, your newest global is a direct affront to me.

Send those Astral gems to me nations. I assure you they will be used for nothing other than the dispelling of the Burden of Time. And, I don't mean send a handful... send all you have.

I can patch up the Talmai Elders with rings of regen and whatnot. But it must be really horrific for other nations, such as Ermor. Not to fear though. I can dispel the calamity. I just need the gems to do so.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

does atul need a sub?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

:(. I'll ask.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Wow. The silence was deafening on my request for Astral gems to dispel the Burden of Time. Not a single donation. Well, I guess it will stay up then. I'm a little dense... I am just now realizing that spell was cast specifically at me.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Ling - I have two astral gems I could chip in with :p It's killing me but I was dead anyway. Which of the big powers are really affected? Vanheim, R'Lyeh and yourself should be OK. Marignon has gone AWOL. So who would help who could? This is just hastening the end thank god....

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

R'lyeh: now accepting concessions 24 hours a day!

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Atul hasn't responded to me yet. If he stales again when the turn hosts just say something here and I'll go looking for a sub. Or has he already staled since it was brought up?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

It looks like he has staled 3 turns in a row now, and 4 of the last 5.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

WTB commanders from my neighbors... transfer made with charm

my need is for diversity, especially interested in astral mages...

willing to negotiate interesting trades for gold/gems/items/mycommanders/etc

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Umm, wait a second, I thought the normal victory conditons were upped to 6 capitals (one must be a previous overlord fort). Is that not the case?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Not unless you can find a post where I said that, since I cannot for the life of me recall having done so.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

oh I see, I mixed up win condition 2 and 3, good to know.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

want to trade for air gems

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

sure, I could use air gems--what would you like?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

I want to trade my non-air gems

for someone else's air gems...


that's what i meant

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

want to trade for air gems

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Hmm, AI Jotun seems to require some more troops. Thought I would have quite a few allies there. Seems I was wrong. ahh, well, I guess I can do it myself.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

if vanheim storms abysia and wins the storm does that instantly end the game? or is he one short even with that one?

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Victory conditions have to be satisfied for 3 turns according to the rules.

Re: Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)
 

Yeah, VPs have to be held for three turns, so no instant victories.