RAND REDUX - ASHDOD WINS (Calmon)
 

Hello:

This is the thread for the second Dom 3 RAND game. This is a RAND game because:

1. Nations will be randomly assigned;
2. Players will be anonymous until they are defeated (the non-playing host will know the ID of players); and
3. There will be no diplomacy of any kind.

One player once described a RAND game as like playing single player but with human AI�s.

This is a PBEM game (that is, Play By Email).


The Settings:

Era: Middle Age
Map: Rim of Darkness
Victory Condition: VP's in player capitals; Need 7 to win.
Conceptual Balance Mod (Full Boat) Ver. 1.21
Indies 7
Site Frequency 50
Money 100
Resources/Supplies 100
Random events common
Score Graphs on
Hall of Fame 15
Standard Research
Renaming Off

Hosting schedule: Daily turns through Turn 15, and then switch to a Sunday / Tuesday / Thursday schedule. Deadlines will generally be at 9:00 p.m. Boston time.

Here is a link re Boston Time for your convenience. Boston Time



The nations in the game are:

Abysia (Wraithlord)
Ashdod (Calmon... who lead them to VICTORY!!)
Caelum - Played by Don_Corazon; Dead Turn 16
C'Tis - Played by Quantum Mechani / Baalz; turned AI on Turn 37
Ermor - Played by Zeldor, and then Anticipatient; Turned AI on Turn 40
Jotunheim - Amhazair
Machaka (Moderation)
Marignon - Lingchih
Pythium - Played by Ramshead; Went AI turn 43.
R'lyeh - Atul
Shinuyama - Played by Micah; Dead turn 24
Tien Chi - Zensei
Ulm - Shmonk


The players:

1. Micah (Shinuyama)
2. Moderation (Machaka)
3. QM (C'tis)
4. Wraithlord (Abysia)
5. Calmon (Ashdod = Winner)
6. Amhazair (Ulm)
7. Atul (R'lyeh)
8. Don Corazon (Caelum)
9. Zeldor (Ermor)
10. Zensei (Tien Chi)
11. Ramshead (Pythium)
12. Lingchih - Marignon
13. Shmonk - Ulm

Pasha

Re: RAND REDUX
 

Ano bumped the old thread, i think he's also interested.

Whats up with Jurri?

Wasn't it ironhawk who was late to join in the last game and we promised to ask him before starting a new one? (i'm not sure it was RAND)

I would really like to see a big amount of experienced players in this game! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: RAND REDUX
 

Is this game open to anyone or are the players already selected(the list in the OP)?

Re: RAND REDUX
 

I really like the old victory condition. 50% of the capital only VPs. I mean the game was far away for being too long and non-fortified VPs can really lead to a frustrating teleport/cloud trapeze attack win. Do you remember our last RAND game? Fomoria (Micah) had won this far earlier by just sending his blessed trapezing giants to any unprotected VP.
Sure he won anyway but it was decided in the endgame.
This game is without fomoria but pythium/marignon angels or just stupid beaming tartarians aren't much better!

And last but not least... thanks for hosting pasha. You do a really great job! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: RAND REDUX
 

@ Zenzei: The game is currently full, but I will put you on the waiting list, Zenzei, if that changes.

@ Calmon: Jurri is taking a break for now. Ano was originally going to play, but it's my understanding that he'd rather not play if the CB mod is used. I don't think Ironhawk likes RAND games (it was the Alexander game that he was late for).

Pasha

Re: RAND REDUX
 

Yeah, just yeah! I just hope I get some decent nation that time, not Atlantis http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Hmm... I would be really happy with some resource heavy nation for a change, never really played them.

Re: RAND REDUX
 

I am happy with any victory condition, because I am just hosting. We'll got with whatever the majority of players prefers, if there is a clear preference.

VP's in capitals is a good way to go, of course. Or, we could do a % of provinces with no VP's, etc. Whichever.

Re: RAND REDUX
 

@Pasha: Okay

Re: RAND REDUX
 

I'm gonna put in a vote for Cap-VPs. They're important enough provinces that doming them isn't unreasonable once it's late enough in the game where a teleport strike force could happen, and they'll come with a fort unless someone goes crazy with the whole scorched earth thing. Unforted VPs just beg for aerial assault.

A province % would also be fine, though I'd prefer to see a "take and hold for 3 turns" condition with a reasonable % instead of having to set the % artificially high to make a teleport scenario impractical. Obviously this means there would have to be some hand-counting going on since the game ends immediately otherwise.

I like the cap idea best though, it's more fun having actually important provinces to protect instead of just getting hit by 10 ghost riders and teleporting raiders a turn as the whole world tries to keep your prov count down late game =)

Re: RAND REDUX
 

Would something between 60%-70% controlled provinces work?

Re: RAND REDUX
 

I think that might result in just a different kind of teleport grab. Capital only VPs have their flaws, but I think they are probably still the most reasonable way to go.

EDIT: I also think 160 provinces is fine for 13 players, so I hope we do end up using Rim of Darkness.

Re: RAND REDUX
 

Same victory conditions as before is fine with me, 50% Capital VPs (7 of 13).

Re: RAND REDUX
 

Capitol VPs seem fine. I also like the idea of 3 turn hold to make it count, but that is not really necessary with forts...

QM:
12 provs per player?

Re: RAND REDUX
 

I vote for a Cap VP game.
They seem to end before getting too bogged down and are more interesting by having critical provinces.

Thanks for organizing this Pasha, especially since you are not even playing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: RAND REDUX
 

Sounds about right.

Re: RAND REDUX
 

12 prov per player is good, but with the round map... somehow it might be hard to fit people in without sticking someone in the middle. It would be better if folk started near the edge.

Re: RAND REDUX
 

I would vote for capitol VPs.

Map Choices
 

Hi:

QM has suggested playing on the map from the Dom 2 Shepherds of Creation scenario. I'd be happy to use that map, but it looks like it has a fair about of waste and swamp, which could give certain players a serious disadvantage. What do other players think? Link to map site

We need a good map for 13 players.

Pasha

Victory Condition
 

Okay. It looks like most players want a victory condition based on VP's in capitals. How many should be controlled to win the game? 5 out of 13?

Nation assignments
 

Hello:

Nation assignments have been emailed. Remember to keep your national identity strictly confidential unless and until you are defeated.

The nations in the game are:

Abysia
Ashdod
Caelum
C'Tis
Ermor
Jotunheim
Machaka
Marignon
Pythium
R'lyeh
Shinuyama
Tien Chi
Ulm

Thanks.

Pasha

Conceptual Balance
 

So, players know, I believe the latest version of the CB mod is 1.21. Be sure to design your pretenders with the correct mod.

Feel free to email me your pretenders. Please include "RAND" in the subject line so that my email program will send your email to the right folder.

Thanks.

Pasha

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

1 water nation?

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Yep. That's because I was expecting to use the Shepards of Creation map that could only fit 1.

If it turns out that players think that 1 water nation is a bad idea, then we could pick a map for land nations, and I will replace the water nation with another land nation.

Re: Victory Condition
 

7 out of 13 (50%) is good i think. We had similar in the first game and it wasn't too long.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

I'm good with Shepherds of Creation.
Just curious how ppl regard any of the following three maps:
1. Glory of the Gods. MP version.
2. The eight gates (connection gates).
3. The all favorite Orania.

My vote goes for 7 capital VPs. In my experience 5 tends to end game preternaturally (for my taste).

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

7 as well

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Fine with 7.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

I'd just like to check with the experienced crowd (that would be you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ) as I've nevered gotten around to using CBM before: I don't suppose any of the magic paths of summonable mages are changed in it? Everything else I can figure out in the game, and I've seen an item forging reference floating around somewhere I can dig up, but I'd rather not face nasty surprises when I summon certain creatures to expand my magical diversity. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Edit: I'm fine with 7 too.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Nope, I have made an effort to not change magic skills of any mages. I also have not made any items harder to forge, only easier, to avoid 'why can't I forge X' problems. Probably 90% of all changes are simply making things cheaper.

Also: 7 sounds good to me.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Okay. Sounds like 7 is the magic number for victory!

If folks aren't strongly against the Shepards of Creation map, then I will look into tweaking it for staring positions. Just no one can whine about their starting position.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

But Pasha, who would do such a thing? =)

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Shepherds of Creation is a nice map. Never played it before, but it's easy on the eyes.

I'm a big fan of Parganos myself, but it's too small for this game.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Just a reminder for those unfamiliar with CB, the magic scale is much more important than in base game. I'd hate to see someone totally crippled by not realizing it is back to Dom2 levels.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

where do i get the map again ?

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

The map is here: Map site

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

I'm not playing, so you might think this impertinent, but why is renaming off?

I'm a SP but I'll rename mages who pick up a random so I can find them, rename my scouts to "scout" because the sprite is too similar to that indy N mage, etc. This makes things easier for me, so why don't you allow renaming in MP?

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

normally it is allowed, but since we want to keep the nation assignment hidden and diplomacy turned off, it makes more sense not to rename

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Thanks.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Yeah. Renaming is off to make sure that no one accidentally reveals his/her I.D. by using a quirky naming style.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Just waiting on a few players to submit pretenders. I sent out an email about it. Looks like we'll start on Thursday.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Hmm, I don't quite understand... how is having renaming off more important with no diplomacy and hidden nations? Is it to prevent people from changing the name of units to mind hunt with perhaps?

I ask this because I'm a heavy user of renaming my mages after my random picks. Otherwise the micromanagement becomes so much more work, but I suppose I could live with it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

edit: Oh i see now. Perhaps I gave my style away, but I have a feeling a lot of people rename their mages after random picks don't they? I suppose we could all adopt the same style, though perhaps that would be too weird for some people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

It's exactly for the reason of renaming things like random picks- some players do, others don't, it's a pretty large hint.

Also, every time someone renames a mage to his random picks, it makes KO cry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

This is why the game needs a private 'notes' field where we can scribble what we like while keeping it secret from others. Like that will ever happen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif

Why does this make KO cry? If it makes him cry, he should add in a feature to display a mage's random picks more prominently. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

I usually don't rename mine, for thematic reasons, but sometimes I will rename a particularly good random pick mage, so I don't lose track of him. I don't go all the way on the name though, I'll just do HorzaN4, or something like that.

There. Now you know my naming style. Good thing we are not renaming.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

I just give em a gem for marking purposes. No way I'm letting someone else see what paths I have without a battle.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Actually, Micah, it would take a battle for the enemy to know your mages names, would it not? And then they know all about them anyway.

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

bad news... i have to leave home for 2days so i wont be able to get my first turns in. maybe its best if you look for a permanent replacement, since i dont know if i can handle the 24 hour schedule early on. of course ill keep my nation secret

sorry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif was really looking forward to this

Re: Conceptual Balance
 

Sorry to hear that Coobe. Perhaps, Zensai will take your slot.

Zensei
 

Ok. Zensei has agreed to take Coobe's place. I will give him a little time to submit a pretender. Hopefully, we can start on Friday night.

Pasha

Turn 1
 

Turn 1 is out.

Deadline is Saturday night at 9:00 p.m. Boston time.

Have fun! Keep your nation assignments secret! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Pasha