Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[Lingchih]

Those rule changes are really well thought out Squirrel, and I like them for the next game. If we want to finish this one though, I think we should look at just making a few changes to the rules in this game. Specifically, allowing the attacking of normal caps at any time (though Pretender has to be present in the attack), and allowing Overlords to take indies at any time, regardless of Dominion in the indie prov.

[rdonj]

Okay, so all those in favor of continuing this game with, say, 4 turns before restrictions on attacking normal nation capitols are lifted say aye.

[Lingchih]

Aye

[LupusFatalis]

Aye: the Rule change to continue this game sounds good.

-- I like the vassal concept to drag this more toward co-op, but think it was ill posed. (i.e. the penalizing bit I dislike, I think a free trade of provinces between vassal and overlord is good, and the vassalage should be for life--so as not to allow ninja-victories). Similarly I don't think all normals should be able to be vassals, i.e. a cap of 2 vassals per overlord or something, further when your vassal dies you cannot replace him.
-- You already have my thoughts on the indie idea
-- I think the other modifications far too much.

[LupusFatalis]

I'd be interested to hear atul's thoughts.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by LupusFatalis

Aye: the Rule change to continue this game sounds good.

-- I like the vassal concept to drag this more toward co-op, but think it was ill posed. (i.e. the penalizing bit I dislike, I think a free trade of provinces between vassal and overlord is good, and the vassalage should be for life--so as not to allow ninja-victories). Similarly I don't think all normals should be able to be vassals, i.e. a cap of 2 vassals per overlord or something, further when your vassal dies you cannot replace him.
-- You already have my thoughts on the indie idea
-- I think the other modifications far too much.

That vassals can actually back out while Overlords cannot eject vassals means its actually more power for the vassal. A vassal should be able to look for a new lord if they're willing to sever their ties. They have to pay for the privilege to make it inconvenient, but that they even have the option is a power for them.

Vassals and Overlords can freely trade provinces - no limitations were laid between the interactions of allies. There's merely a restriction on attacks when a Vassal severs ties with an overlord.

I'd rather give Overlords enough Vassal slots to make some vassals early, and still have slots left for later use. Its a more interesting diplomatic game if the Overlords have more latitude to reward allies. Why do you think 2 is superior to 5?

Why do you think the other changes went to far? Its hard to respond to 'gone too far'. Why are the rules as proposed a bad idea?

[LupusFatalis]

To me I see (0+2)/5 dead&dying overlords and (4+4)/16 dead&dying normals... either way your looking at about half the people are dead or dying and there is no statistical difference between those groups.

Overlords have a unique set of restrictions that requires unique workarounds. Throwing out that concept because it was too difficult for 2 people (who had other factors going against them as well) is kind of absurd.

So yeah, I'm all for tweaking the victory conditions and some screwy restrictions like the capital bit (which I too for some reason read as no storming). I'm definitely for making dom nuetral/indie provinces always viable targets--and this is a huge boon, probably more than they need. I'm not for essentially what would amount to a complete change in concept, i.e those suggested items.

Anyhow, that's why I'm interested to hear from the more successful people in this game and see what the deal was. i.e. did they actually overcome it, was it a gimmick or based on the map, maybe it was the result of some fancy bartering? I don't know.

[rdonj]

No changes are set in stone yet. I do like some of squirrel's ideas, though not necessarily all of them. I am pretty much planning on putting everything up to a vote (when the game is over or nearly there). I am against certain core changes to the concept myself but I will present all suggestions for review.

[LumenPlacidum]

I'm fine with relaxing the overlords' restrictions after 4 turns. Gives us some time to consider how to counter what might happen then.

The vassal concept is, I think a fine idea for a similar-but-different style of game. Personally, I think it would be fun to have a way to force your way into vassalage as a normal nation (such as by defeating and consuming a vassal someone already has). Of course, this opens the door to a liege lord conspiring with an extra party to remove one of his vassals in favor of a new one, which could be a problem. However, since the new vassal doesn't have to (and *can't*) be declared until the previous one is dead, there's always the possibility that they are going to declare for someone ELSE after having destroyed that nation.

Basically, each overlord is able to have 2 vassals. They cannot take on a new vassal if a previous one is killed off. Except, that the player who kills off a previous vassal has the option to declare HIMSELF the new vassal of the overlord, or to allow that vassal slot to close permanently on the overlord. Of course, there would have to be some way of determining who it was who actually killed the vassal state, in cases where it's not obvious or there were multiple attackers.

Seems like it would open the door for a variety of political maneuvers and decision-making.

[Squirrelloid]

The politicking i was more interested in was the Normal-Overlord interactions. Your system basically can essentially remove the Overlord from the politics of the game, because it removes virtually all interesting political choices the Overlord can choose as an initiator.