MP: Mists of Time: Early Era Game [full]

[Firewalker]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

I'd like to try a weaker nation...I have played a few MP games but have finished 3rd as my highest.

I will take Arco which should put any thoughts of me being too good to rest..LOL!!!!

If you have a lot of nations look at the Darkhavens map...has set starting positions and is REAL easy on the eyes.

I am with the Jeff on Victory conditions but its your game...you might want to make sure you don't unbalance it, by trying too balance it.

If it would favor Certain magic intensive nations it will be a quick game.

Thanks for the map tip. I'm hoping we can get a full game.

Can you give me a second and third choice for a nation? Thanks.

[shard]

I'll play, not entirely new but haven't touched dom3 for over a year.

Sauromatia, Fomoria, Niefelheim

[Stretch]

I'd like victory points in capitals. Maybe something like 50% of the world's capitals to win, unless we get a lot of people and then 40%.

[hEad]

Perhaps victory conditions can be somewhat dynamic? For instance, once it gets to teh stage where their appears to be a winner, ask players to declare them. If it is unanamous, then the leading player wins, if not, then those who voted for the leading player join in a campaign to rid the world of belligerents - who knows, maybe these belligerents may form a counter alliance and fight against them in a war for liberty.

Victory conditions that fit the evolution of the game rather than an arbitary number, would in my opinion, breath a bit of new life into the end game still with out it requiring a individual total conquest.

[Firewalker]

Originally Posted by hEad

Perhaps victory conditions can be somewhat dynamic? For instance, once it gets to teh stage where their appears to be a winner, ask players to declare them. If it is unanamous, then the leading player wins, if not, then those who voted for the leading player join in a campaign to rid the world of belligerents - who knows, maybe these belligerents may form a counter alliance and fight against them in a war for liberty.

Victory conditions that fit the evolution of the game rather than an arbitary number, would in my opinion, breath a bit of new life into the end game still with out it requiring a individual total conquest.

My experience is that standard victory games usually grind down to a few players remaining, who concede to the one who is doing best once the game becomes more of a chore than fun. So it is usually an informal version of what you've described. What about deciding a given turn ahead of time -- 50,60, whatever -- that a vote is taken and then a sort of sudden death war ensues like you've described? That could be interesting, but it would depend on where the game was at.

I like VP games because it sets a goal for everyone. It does shape the way the game goes ahead of time. Decisions get made based on VPs needed. But, it also places a definite end point to the game.

[thejeff]

You could also put a "hold 50% of the VPs for 3 turns" conditions. I don't think there's any way to automate that. Someone would have to verify it manually.

[Sil]

Decided to switch my second option from Kailasa to Hinnom. Updated my first post.

Or maybe not since it won't let me edit that post.

[Sil]

Oh also: why difficult research? It seems like it would just further strengthen strong blessable nations which are already very strong in EA.

[Firewalker]

Originally Posted by Sil

Oh also: why difficult research? It seems like it would just further strengthen strong blessable nations which are already very strong in EA.

That can be true, on the other hand it makes them have to survive longer before they can get the high level magic that they will need towards the middle/end game, and do so with horrible scales more than likely. Overall, I don't like how fast some nations can get to level 9 research on easy. The map will be 20 provinces per player, so we'll have some breathing room.

[OoohSnap]

Still accepting sign-ups?

Ermor, Helheim, Marverni