Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoplosternum
Well we new the conditions before we signed up so there is no point complaining about them now  Although I agree they do favour the Overlords a lot.
I am curious about the diplomacy stance. I don't have a problem with a back stabbing diplomacy game. We all know that diplomacy in this game is not binding and that betrayals don't carry over in to other games. So trust between players is not encouraged  Yet the whole set up of the game seems to require a great deal of diplomacy to work especially if the normals are to have a chance. So while I don't have a problem with this diplomacy option in games, I am surprised it was selected for this game.
This doesn't mean I want this changed. I signed up with these terms. Just wonder why this was selected. It seems to be aimed at an issue some people have with lazy napping in standard mp games. But this is not a normal mp game.... |
There are two main reasons I thought diplomatic agreements should not be binding for this game. One, it fits my thematic sense for the scenario. Two, with the victory conditions so low it would be very easy for someone to get a victory without really having to fight properly for it (without getting into that murky situation of people trying to decide whether it's okay to ignore your NAPs if the game is on the line).
Quote:
|
And if I recall, he only has to have the OL cap. he doesn't have to hold it.
|
I guess it's not specifically clear from the first post in this thread, but normals still have to control all their caps for 3 turns. However, instead of an overlord cap they only have to control any one of an overlord's starting forts.