Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[LupusFatalis]

If we don't have enough overlords next game I'd be happy to give an it a whirl if the independent/neutral dominion change is put into place (whether or not any further benefits are given do them). Though, I admit, I do not meet the qualifications for "experienced" it seems like it would be both a challenge and a blast.

[rdonj]

The independent/neutral change is almost definitely going to be in. I favor it, everyone who's commented has favored it. It's probably in.

I like the idea of expanding attack options, personally. How exactly this is going to be handled is what I am not sure of yet. I like squirrel's banner idea, but if I used it I would put a limit as to how many banner armies you can have.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by rdonj

The independent/neutral change is almost definitely going to be in. I favor it, everyone who's commented has favored it. It's probably in.

I like the idea of expanding attack options, personally. How exactly this is going to be handled is what I am not sure of yet. I like squirrel's banner idea, but if I used it I would put a limit as to how many banner armies you can have.

The whole point to the banners is they aren't limited. But you do have diminishing returns - the more you have, the lower the marginal value of the *next* one. So there's some logical point at which you stop making them. And every one is some number of gems you aren't spending on other uses. I don't see a need for a hard limit.

[namad]

how about every 10turns of the game you get +1max attack armies per turn?


that way early on when you are three times as big as your neighbors you are severely limited but in the end game when things boil down equally between finalists the limit is high?


also if the overlords have no restrictions on attacking indies early in the game and start with so many starting provinces i fear that they might just kill all the normals by turn 20 if not turn 12? what would be done to prevent this? perhaps if the overlords have no restriction on attacks against indies they should also not get so many starting provinces? maybe they should get 3forts with labs and temples in them and 0extra provinces between?


just rambling... i think also maybe we need a new thread? discuss ideas about overlords2 in another thread so people can still come to this thread for clear and concise and easy to find information about the current actual game?

[LupusFatalis]

@namad, agreed. The indie thing allows them to leverage the start. That's why I don't support any changes on attack rate.

[Hoplosternum]

Originally Posted by LupusFatalis

@namad, agreed. The indie thing allows them to leverage the start. That's why I don't support any changes on attack rate.

Yes it will and on it's own it would radically change the next game compared to this one. The Overlords will be able to expand much quicker. In this game only the overlords R'lyeh and Marignon got any reasonable expansion in the first year. So I think being able to attack neutrals sorts out the slow Overlord expansion at the beginning but still protects the Normals from an Overlord rush fuelled by his extra early game castles and income.

But there is also the problem overlords face now - that they cannot run a proper war at this stage. A Normal is now far more dangerous than an Overlord who can only really hit one territory a turn.

So I think some relaxation of the attack rules needs to happen in the mid/late game. I think Namads/my idea of allowing an extra attacks based on the game turn would work well as it slowly makes the Overlords more dangerous.

The problem I have with Squirrel's Standards idea is that it is too cheap rather than the idea itself. 15 gems is very little and means that the Overlords could buy several in the first year. There is little else that would be as vital to use with those early gems. That allows early game Overlord rushes very easily. And those will neither demonstrate Overlord skill or be any fun for the Normal who is rushed due to the inbuilt inbalance in their starting positions. If you made them cost say 50 per banner (make it a summonable creature and one needs to be in each attacking army) then it would work better.

Also please remember this map has really affected the game. Many Normals had effectively only one Overlord neighbour. The water too has acted early on as a map edge. I am not sure this was really the original intention. Making sure everyone has several neighbours including (for Normals) two Overlords would make the diplomacy far better.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

The whole point to the banners is they aren't limited. But you do have diminishing returns - the more you have, the lower the marginal value of the *next* one. So there's some logical point at which you stop making them. And every one is some number of gems you aren't spending on other uses. I don't see a need for a hard limit.

The main thing is I don't want overlords to be able to field too many armies early in the game, because I'm pretty sure that would just lead to them crushing everyone. Currently I can think of two ways to deal with this. 1) You can build one banner for each x time that has passed, or 2) Make these banners construction 4 or 6 so you can't make them right away.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm doing this yet to begin with.

[Squirrelloid]

Hoplo: its a sites 20 game. 15 gems is maybe an overlord's per turn gem income at the start. That's a significant expenditure of resources.

50 gems is just obscene. Its unplayably obscene. For 50 gems you can get a RoW (with hammer) or your choice of 2 good artifacts (like the chalice and the scepter of dark regency, both with a hammer).

Consider that overlords got something on the order of +10gems/turn advantage. Now, without considering the disadvantages of that gem income being spread around, you're basically saying that for each extra attack they get to make they have to spend 1/2 a year's 'bonus' gem income. Now consider that Eriu or Vanheim or Jotunheim can produce multiple thugs each turn by year 2, and probably forge sufficient gear for all of them in the same time frame by year 3. Basically, severely limited attacks means the overlord loses any raiding war instantly.

Really, 25 gems is probably too much, but anything higher than that is certainly out of the question.

It absolutely has to be an item, so teleport/cloud trapeze raiding is possible.

Making them require Constr 4 is certainly reasonable - Overlords wouldn't need them early.

Namad's proposal doesn't increase attacks fast enough unless its on an exponential scale (+1 year 2, +2 more year 3, +4 more year 4, etc...), and even then it might need to be every 6 months by year 4.

Basically, there's a fundamental disconnect between how the game is actually played and how people seem to imagine its played. How the game is actually played involves potentially dozens of attacks by year 5 or 6 in a single turn.

Consider VC3, which is on turn 52 (mid year 5). The game leaders have ~40+ provinces each. If I can't make at least 20 attacks on turn 1 of the war against one of them, its not worth starting the war, and a more reasonable estimate is 25-30. Why? Because if I don't I will not inflict sufficient damage to make victory likely, and will probably be facing a similar size retaliation.

Now imagine I was an Overlord attacking a normal in that situation. I can make an anemic 6 attacks based on Namad's theory, or *maybe* that many based on Hoplosternum's gem cost (VC3 has a normal sites setting, and I maybe could have bought 4 standards at 50 gems and have been reasonable under those settings. Sites 20 would involve fewer gems...). Then my target retaliates with 25 attacks, my empire is halved in size, and the war more or less continues in that vein until I inevitably lose.

[Baalz]

Yeah, I don't think the people playing normals really understand how handicapped overlords are. Just consider the fact that as the nominal leading overlord I would not be at that much of an advantage in a no holds barred fight with Vanheim right now other than the natural water defense advantage R'yleh always has. There is effectively no way for me to do anything to him whatsoever (good luck pushing my dominion into that blood sacrifice) - other than loom ominously ready to squish an army that goes for TC's cap. Same thing Ashdod just realized against Ermor. The way the game is set up it only makes sense for overlords to attack other overlords, and couterintuitively be at the mercy of a normal ally. The way the restrictions are work fine for the early game, but as Squirloid illustrates they're utterly crippling for late game fights.

[namad]

the idea I was having is that if the overlords are allowed to attack any indies any time they'll expand 2or3 as fast as they did in this game which was already fairly fast....


if you can only attack 6provinces a turn when you want to attack 18-24in one turn maybe that isn't so bad if you are 300% as strong as your enemy... i mean if we end up saying overlords can attack up to 24provinces per turn on turn 50 then they basically have totally unrestricted abilities to attack, and as such why did they bother being called an overlord and why did they get any advantages at all?

I guess you are saying you'd rather pay a high price for each additional army so that in theory you have the option to attack more per turn even if in practice it works out to the same or less than a fixed per year increase?

maybe overlords could get 1extra attack per year and one extra attack per vassal? encouraging them to get vassals and representing the vassal's logistical advantage to the overlord? i dunno.... we could just play a game without overlords :-p