MP: Land Rand - Jotunheim Wins!

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by Micah

Right DC, but I'm not saying that multi-front wars are a diplo-only thing, but there's a big difference between what happened to Sauro in DR and what happened in artifacts.

Sauro was a victim of heavy poaching, and had a while to actually fight a somewhat fair war before Ermor became involved (Ermor didn't attack until Sauro's cap had been captured, in fact, IIRC), in Arti nations basically imploded in 3 turns as everyone launched simultaneous attacks on them.

Micah, I agree with you - Artifacts was the worst example of endless dogpiling. Rand has been different, and as you say, there was a long-time-for-Dominions one-on-one war. But even before Sauro lost its cap, large armies were being moved up along its borders, so its demise felt inevitable even before Ermor became engaged (and a little DonCorazoncita was born) .

Zeldor, I think its premature to judge. Its not like every game on that map is going to be won by Sauro just b/c of its position and nation. In fact, its just b/c of that perception that its likely to get ganged up on, even in a RAND environment. Not to mention there are peculiar circumstances to each game (e.g. lab burn down twice, once before a siege) that impact strategy (or lack thereof). In fact, I'd argue that Atlantis as the only UW nation and with recruitable SCs is well-positioned especially in a Rand setting. Seems most Rand games are won by nations with recruitable SCs.

[Zeldor]

I never said it was destined to win. In DR there were few nations with good chances. Vanheim with extremely good starting spot. Atlantis being only uw nation + only nation with recruitable SCs. Kailasa with weak C'tis south of them [but Caelum was a threat and good position there too], Helheim, if played well could get a sweet Van's spot. Ermor got extremely rich provinces and was quite secure there, despite being in the middle [Ulm and Marv were really doomed up there, no threat to Ermor] and Sauro well... it's simply Sauro, so people expect a lot from it

There is certainly smth about SC nations dominating RAND games [Jotun here is good example].

[PashaDawg]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

btw - whatever happened to Dawn RAND - talk about a game languishing...

Ugh. I have to find another substitute. Need a player to replace shovah who had to drop out for understandable reasons. Let's see if we can find someone by this weekend so the game can end properly.

Pasha

[cleveland]

Forgive the eavesdropping, but as a participant in the Rand Dawn game I'd like to chime in.

RAND is a great concept, but diplo is really a huge part of the game. SC nations rule RAND games because SCs rule the base game...and the base game makes great use of human psychology to nerf SC nations with the tagteam bat.

But excessive tagteam sucks, as mentioned.

There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle, where diplo can be utilized as a necessary game element, but dogpiling is discouraged/mitigated.

Here's an un-thought-out suggestion: how about a "No NAP" game? Alliances are fine, but formal Non-Aggression pacts with the rediculous "no attacks for X turns" are strictly forbidden as a house rule. Why? Because more than once I've gone to war because I only had 1 vulnerable boarder, and that boarder was being eaten up from the opposite end. Eliminate the security, eliminate the dogpiling.

Thoughts?

[Micah]

It's been done, or similarly enough, with non-binding diplomacy games.

[cleveland]

Originally Posted by Micah

It's been done, or similarly enough, with non-binding diplomacy games.

Nah, I mean NAPs are strictly forbidden. In non-binding diplo games, folks still want to have a good reputation in-game, so most NAPs are still honored.

I'm talking about a game where NAP-Xs simply don't exist.

[DonCorazon]

I like the idea of no NAPs.

Was also thinking of a game where everyone had a predetermined enemy, kind of like the NCAA brackets. Zeldor's map was kind of like that - I don't recall the name of the game, but where we started in valleys and had to duel at least our first enemy. Maybe a map with a series of closed valleys. Geography would force more one-on-one wars. Though now that I think about it, that's probably too formulaic for my tastes.

[WraithLord]

Getting stuck with crappy, significantly weaker, nation in a RAND game is not fun. You know from the starters the game holds 0 promise for you. It's not fun the first time it happens, less fun the 2nd and gets worse for me - having had a bad luck streak with RAND nation assignment. When skill level is homogeneous there's no way to compensate for a weak nation. The nation selection element needs to be addressed.

As for diplomacy leading to excessive dog piling why not attack the bad angle instead of diplo as a whole?- like, say, Prohibit more than 2 nations attacking a given nation at a time.

[vfb]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

Getting stuck with crappy, significantly weaker, nation in a RAND game is not fun. You know from the starters the game holds 0 promise for you. It's not fun the first time it happens, less fun the 2nd and gets worse for me - having had a bad luck streak with RAND nation assignment. When skill level is homogeneous there's no way to compensate for a weak nation. The nation selection element needs to be addressed.

Or you just have fun with what you're dealt, do what you can, and when you die, you die happy.

As for diplomacy leading to excessive dog piling why not attack the bad angle instead of diplo as a whole?- like, say, Prohibit more than 2 nations attacking a given nation at a time.

I don't think this is going to work. What if three nations want to attack? They have a lottery? How do they even know they are all going to war that month? How do you even know when a war is starting? You'd have to declare all wars in advance. What if secretly allied nations collude to have a 'pretend' war, preventing themselves from being attacked? What if your only avenue of expansion is through a nation that is already at war with 2 other nations?

[WraithLord]

"Or you just have fun with what you're dealt, do what you can, and when you die, you die happy."

Hey, I've no problem with that but it's not fun. Fun in a TBS game is derived from ability to nurture your investment (nation, state, space colony etc) and see it evolve. It's ok to fight wars, it's ok to lose them but it's not ok to have significantly less chance to see your nation grow from the start. A RAND game played with a weak nation sees you getting pounded from early on and usually from many directions. The problem is not to die happy it's how you suffer all the way there. Usually I end up wishing my nation's death would come all the sooner since at that state my turns seem futile. I keep playing out of obligation for the other players not to create a power vacuum.

"
I don't think this is going to work. What if three nations want to attack? They have a lottery? How do they even know they are all going to war that month? How do you even know when a war is starting? You'd have to declare all wars in advance. What if secretly allied nations collude to have a 'pretend' war, preventing themselves from being attacked? What if your only avenue of expansion is through a nation that is already at war with 2 other nations?
"
Yeah, the idea is not good. However I still think that the direction for a remedy is not to totally ban diplo but rather find a way to limit it's abuse. I'll give it more thought, maybe I'll come up with a better suggestion.