Overlords 2 concept thread
 

I wanted to wait until later to do this, when everyone had played through and we knew basically how the game had gone, but the other thread is definitely getting cluttered up with all this discussion. So please try to keep further discussion about overlords 2 to this thread. Here is the last bit from namad to kick this along:



In response to early overlord growth, maybe it could be limited by forcing overlords to use only national commanders (including mages), and requiring all troops to be lead by commanders with at least 40 leadership. I feel this has a reasonable level of thematic justification, and it would make the overlord's lives harder without completely crippling them as the current rules do. I will also probably start overlords with fewer starting provinces next game. I'm not taking them down to just forts, as again, I think it's best for their gem income to be raidable. But I could see lowering them down to 8 provinces, maybe a little lower.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

My concern with the indie/dom allowance rule blending with any altered attack rules mainly has to do with the start. Given altered starting conditions, this would be more feasible. The reason I think that change would radically shift the game in favor of overlords is if we had every overlord doing at least as well in province count as marignon/rlyeh (which would be pretty feasible), we would have a necessary reduction in the provinces left to normals without a fight. If all the normals were confined to a Pythium like state it would be pretty unrealistic to assume we could put up any sort of meaningful resistance. And having more than one force that you'd have to swat, how could we afford it?

That said, I think that is a bit of an exaggeration, but bear in mind overlords expansion this game was pretty limited. I mean 3/5 overlords only took a province or two by the time normals started getting that large. And the other overlords didn't exactly do much better than 1/turn. So yes, I think this is a huge change. I think it will drastically effect the mid game. I'd rather make 1 monumental change at a time than multiple, easier to see cause and effect relationships that way.

If everyone is hell bent on this attack expansion as well. I'd support a 1 attack increase per 10 turns after the first. That is 0 through 19 they get 1, 20 through 29 they get 2, 30 through 39 they get 3, and so forth. Though this will be difficult to manage via the rules and oversight, but I think we're all grown up enough here to play on the honor code.

All in all, I'd like the win conditions to favor 1 normal working with 1 overlord. At least with a 1:1 pairing both players can feel as if they each contributed to the victory. Anything more than 2 normals to an overlord and we might as well start giving out participant ribbons and 2nd place prizes--maybe its just me, but I feel THAT would be an empty victory.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

1 normal working with 1 overlord misses the point of the game, which is supposed to be Overlords forming coalitions of normals. As I understand it, the game should look something like the Cold War. Overlords are superpowers who use satellite states to fight proxy wars against other superpowers.

The only acceptable and playable alternatives on attacks I can see are the following:
(1) Overlord attacks are effectively uncapped, possibly with effort (forge item for a reasonable cost, etc..)
(2) Overlords and Normals are equally capped in attacks against the other.
(3) Overlords can only attack other Overlords and Indies. Normals can only attack other Normals and Indies. This probably makes the game very uninteresting.

Anything else creates a game-losing asymmetry in the attack capability of one side against the other. Of course, 2 permits asymmetry to be created by coalition, which is still a problem.

Perhaps Overlords cannot attack normals and normals cannot attack overlords unless the normal in question is formally allied (vassal) with an overlord.

Or maybe normals can only attack an overlord if they are formally allied with another overlord, and overlords can only attack normals who attack them (no limits), defined as: having had a province they held the previous turn (both attacking the same indie doesn't count) attacked by a normal (not discovering a spy) and the granted ability to attack persists until peace has been formally concluded and announced in channel.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

you know what might work better at accomplishing your goals? instead of making wars involving overlords more fair why not just make them even less likely to occur? the problem we had was that coalitions of normals were possible and powerful and obliterate overlords.... solution? A) let overlords fight back B) make overlords less desirable to attack in the first place

here is a summary of my ideas on the radical idea of: give the overlords EVEN LESS freedom to attack....


make it so an overlord cannot attack any province belonging to anyone who has not yet attacked a province of theirs...


but let the overlords start with like 10forts 10labs 1temple and like 4magical sites in every province (while leaving global % low at like 20)

... that would accomplish the goal you are suggesting... no normal or even coalition of normals could ever hope to attack an overlord and would never even wish to!

but an overlord could pay normal nations to become vassals and attack enemies of theirs (a vassal could share victory conditions with an overlord in some manner... this would encourage the overlords to give great gifts of gold/gems/items to normals so that the normal might hope to weaken an enemy overlord??)


furthermore if that isn't enough to encourage normals to team up with overlords... you could even just flat out state that the winner of the game is whatever overlord and whatever vassals he has claimed wins (so that a normal literally cannot even try to win)


clearly the specifics of entering into and maintaining and ending vassalships will be key to discuss if an idea like this is to work

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

Then one might want to consider that the reason the cold war was like that was because of the whole mutually-assured destruction thing if two atomic superpowers directly fought one another. I don't think there's a way to get that in dominions.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

I agree with Lupus that the ability of Overlords to take Indies early will radically change the game. Few Normals will get past 10 or so lands before the borders are closed, unlike in this game where 20+ before wars was possible for many of us normals. That on it's own is going to radically change the game as the Overlords will retain their large income and power leads.

I agree with Squirrel that having asymetric attack abilities is not good. And I like his idea 2.

I don't agree that it is essential that Overlords (or anyone else) be able to take out 50% plus of an enemy in the 'first strike' turn of a war in mid/late game. Regardless of how desireable it is to cripple your enemies economy in one turn, if you don't have astral or air Thugs/SCs (or serious stealth) it's not really an option anyway. So it isn't the only way to fight.

So simply the ability to attack several territories a turn later on in the game should be fine. This could simply increase as time goes on. Be that one extra per game year or whatever is considered reasonable.

Especially if all nations are bound by the rules as squirrel suggests. So normals can neither overwhelm other Normals or Overlords as they can now. You could possibly ditch the dom rules in that case too as it forces a certain sort of Pretender on everyone.

Add in some rules to formalise alliances (which multiples up the number of attacks in any case) and hopefully a wrap around map and I think that should do it.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

My original suggestion for overlords that got toned down was to give them a nice little collection of starting gate stones... doesn't help them expand but is pretty scary in it's own way.

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

Yeah. The multiple gatestone per overlord idea seemed just a tad much. Having the ability to teleport that many units around seemed like something that would make overlords almost completely impossible to fight.


Another take on squirrel's banner idea: Normals have a capped dominion. Say maximum of 5 or 6. Instead of making banners, overlords summon generals, something like a cross between a banelord and a sleeper which also spread dominion like a prophet. This would keep with the dominion idea, but also let overlords attack outside of their dominion. And prevent hammer bonuses from kicking in, but give some compensation in that the general has decent stats. I'm thinking about 20 gems for this summon. Thoughts?

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

i'm not sure i like the dominion idea at all anymore... it almost seems like an overlord that CAN ATTACK a normal will also just AUTOMATICALLY DOMKILL them

Re: Overlords 2 concept thread
 

I didn't play in the game, but I have a random idea: Overlords get multiple gatestones, but can -only- move armies to and from gatestones and by other magical teleport means. That would create a guerilla-style situation like Afghanistan or Vietnam, where the Great Powers can drop in troops anywhere but need local allies to control the countryside.