Oh, where to start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
WTF bull****. I didn't realize this was vp victory.. I had this game won. I could have taken out every one left in the game at once with no problem...
Grrrrr
|
For someone who had this game won, you were certainly a very long way from victory at the end, having just 2 out of 7 capitals.
The victory conditions were clearly stated in the OP since the moment this game was created. Please do not make excuses or blame others for you own ignorance of the rules and conditions of this game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
I had a gem income of over 1000 per turn with 3 wishers, had just cast Gift of Natures bounty and could have slaughtered Yomi at any time had I realized it was a VP control victory.
I cannot even begin to say how extremely pissed I am right now.
Calahan had completely neglected PD and I had over 12 Lich's that could have cast Ghost riders 12 times per turn not counting the 7 or 8 empowered wraith lords I had.
Hmmmm If the game is not actually over I might could actually take several of Calahan's VP's this turn if its not too late that is..
|
Well if you had such a large gem income, then you made very poor use out of it. As it wasn't until around turn 70 that you made any progress in any war. And then that was only against Atlantis, the staling back-marker.
And why would I want to waste money on PD in late game exactly? And if you had all my provinces so well scouted to know my PD levels, then surely you also knew how many capitals I had.
You had lots of GR casters. Very nice. So did I, and it is a very common thing for strong nations to have access to in the late game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
Well, its probably too late but I've sent teams to take 3 of Yomi's capitals this turn... If it is over before the battle takes place then I'm screwed. Or if it doesn't count that I have him sieged I'm screwed as well...
|
Control of a capital is control of the Fort, not the province (or the province if no Fort is present). Exactly the same way that VP's work. So you would have to conquer the province (easy) and then the fort (difficult) to gain control of a capital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
This is retarded though. To have Victory point game with No graphs is insane. About the only person who would remember it was a vp game is the admin that created the game I'd think..
|
This was not a Victory Point condition game.
Having a game with graphs off and capital victories is not retarded at all. What is retarded is having played a game for 6 months without being aware of what the victory conditions were.
And what a stupid thing to say that only the admin would remember what the victory conditions of a game is. I can't even bring myself to reply to such a comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
Hopefully it gives me the chance to take these provinces from yomi though.. Unfortunately though I only caught on to the fact that it is a vP game in the last few minutes and seeing as how only Calahan's turn remains outstanding I had to rush to change my turn without being able to put much thought into it Of course it may not matter regardless..
|
This game was not a Victory Point game, it was a Capitals game. There is a big difference. And even if the graphs had been on, it would not have shown directly how many capitals I had. This would require capitals to be marked with VP's, which is something I would never do in a game I arrange as I have posted several times on the issue that I don't believe rush nations should be aided by knowing exactly where their closest neighbour is.
So graphs on in this game still wouldn't have changed much, as you still would have had to monitor in-game the status of all the capitals. Which you either failed to do, or failed to respond to. So it is your own fault (for not reading the rules) that you only recently became aware of the victory conditions, and your own lack of intel that didn't allow you to know how close to victory I was.
Can I ask what you thought the victory conditions were? Victory by concession is always asking for games to go on indefinitely, so there has to be some "achievement" necessary to win. In almost every game that "achievement" is to gain control of capitals. Why did you think this game was not that type of game?
And you seem to be a very competitive person, which is absolutely fine, but given this, it does make it very hard to believe that you can play any game, not just dominions, without knowing exactly what is required to win that game. So surely at some point over the past 6 months and 87 turns you must have thought "hhhhmm, I wonder what I need to do to win this game?". I can not believe this thought didn't cross your mind.
May I recommend fully reading the rules and conditions for any game you sign-up for, and re-checking during the game if you have any doubts about anything. Or even just simply asking what the victory conditions are if you are unable to find the information yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
Of course if Calahan wanted to have a real show of it without achieving some sneaky underhanded victory we could always roll back a turn and I could demonstrate my real power...
|
I take extreme offence at any claim of a 'sneaky underhanded' victory being made against me. I was not handed this win, I had no long-term allies helping me, and every capital I captured had to be fought for and won. I won this game by a slow and steady accumulation of the 7 capitals I needed to gain victory. In fact it was too slow and steady, and probably allowed myself to be stopped had things gone differently.
And why the hell would I want to make a show of it? I was in the lead in this game from about turn 40 onwards, and it was only recently that you caught up on the power curve IMO. But I had nothing to prove against Agartha, and Agartha had nothing I wanted, as you only owned a paltry 1 capital until very near the end when that figure went up to 2. So why exactly would I want to attack you and "make a show of it"? It was up to you to stop me not the other way around. And you failed to stop me.
You had the perfect chance to stop me though, as you could have attacked me after arranging your Caelum cease-fire. But you decided to go after extremely small prey in the shape of Atlantis instead, allowing me the time I needed to wrap up the victory. So it is you that avoided the Agartha-Yomi showdown, not me, as it was up to you to prove you could stop me getting the 7 capitals I needed. If you think otherwise, and that it was up to me to attack you, then maybe your skills in reading a game need to be improved.
So please do not throw accusations at me, or try devaluing my win, just because of your poor game reading and management skills. It was a capitals victory, I got the capitals, you didn't stop me, meaning that I won. If you are looking to lay blame then blame yourself for not attacking me when you had the perfect chance, and for not knowing what the victory conditions are for a game you are investing so much time and effort into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
Bahh I just read back over the posts... guess it doesn't matter what I do taking Calahan's vp's this turn anyways.. This is just gay.
I just think a requirement of the win should have been to announce your intentions to declare victory on the first turn that you believe you hold 50% of the province's and give everyone 3 turns to take them from you. ESPECIALLY with graph's off.
|
I do not understand at all why this should be a condition for a graphs off game. It is up to each individual player to gather intel on the state of the capitals in a capitals victory game, and use that intel to judge how close someone is to claiming victory. (as you say)
It is a very illogical requirement to have in any game that when someone is close to victory they have to openly announce it, and in doing so instantly invite everyone to attack them. It is NEVER up to the winning nation to stop themselves, as that is always the job of those wishing to stop them. Games could go on forever if any player trying to win had to instantly ask for a dog-pile to stop them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
Because it is most certainly NOT the case that he could have held said province's if I had known the situation.
|
So maybe at fault was your poor intel in that you didn't know how many capitals I controlled. But I don't see why the blame for this is being placed at the door of the victory conditions, or for the game having graphs off. Or why it is making you try to devalue my win. I was at more-or-less constant war in this game from around turn 6 onwards, so if 80+ turns of fighting doesn't gain a merited win then I can't see how anything ever will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
Of course the case could be made that it is everyone's responsibility to know the victory conditions but like I say the graphs were off so they could not serve as a reminder and most games are NOT vp games .
|
Once again, this game was not a VP game either, so I don't understand your point here at all.
And yes it was everyone's responsibly to know what the victory condition were, as that is a blindly obvious requirement of every game ever played. I do not believe for one moment that players need to be reminded on a regular basis what the victory conditions for a game are, as I don't see how you can plan anything in a game like dominions without knowing what your overall aim is. ie. What the victory conditions are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
and this late in the game so long from when we started it is just not something easily remembered. And of course in the beginning I was too distracted by the fact that it was a randomly assigned nation game with no graphs to even have ever noticed the victory condition in the first place. It was just a screwy game altogether. I honestly don't think I ever even realized at any point even at the beginning that it was VP control.
|
One word springs to mind.............Excuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgbob
I demand a clam count!
|
About 250 and currently forging 17 per turn and summoning more Naiads to forge another 5 thanks to the new wisher I had just added. So it would have been 22 clams per turn within about 3 more turns.
Nearly as many blood stones as well. As you found out from the 20+ Earth attacks I could cast per turn.
And of course with Gift of Natures bounty up my Income would have been a little over 40,000 per turn. |
Very impressive, but the victory conditions were not based on who had the most clams. Maybe some of your Astral income should have been spent on casting Astral Window so that you could have gathered the intel required to see how close I was to victory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiSoldier
I suppose in the end it will have to be enough for me to know personally that Calahan could not have actually beat me in a war and rather I could have taken him out in very short order about as quickly as I killed Atlantis. It was definitely a hollow victory for Calahan.
|
Yes of course. Taking down the long-term leader would have been just as easy as taking out the nation that had been in last place for most of the game, and during your war was staling 50% of the time while under the control of a completely green noob. Easy to see why those two wars would be directly comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archaeolept
....With graphs off and this sort of condition, having some sort of announcement would be a preferable method.........
|
I had been wondering for a while how I should announce or claim any victory should I get the 7 capitals, and it came down to two choices.
A) Wait until I had held the 7 capitals for 3 turns, and then claim the win (as I did)
B) Upon capturing the 7th capital, make an announcement "Hey everyone, I'm just about to win the game, but if you all attack me now you can probably stop me"
I rejected B) because I saw absolutely no reason why I should do the intel work for the other players, as that is an important extra requirement of any game with graphs off. If players don't like the added burden of needing to do increased intel gathering with graphs off, then they shouldn't play in games with graphs off (and graphs being off was clearly stated in the OP when this game was created)
The OP has also always clearly stated since its creation that this game is a capital victory, so everyone who wanted a shot at winning should have known every single turn who held what capitals. I have known exactly who held which capital since around turn 40, so any excuses being made by others not to also know this info is exactly that in my books, an excuse.
For a long time I have believed that players blindly sign-up for new games without bothering to first read the rules and conditions of that game. And now this recent experience has only served to confirm my opinion.
All the essential info for this game has always been clearly on display and easily obtainable in the OP since this game was created. So making excuses now about the differences the graphs being off makes, or not having friendly reminders every few turns as to what the victory condtions were, or convenient game-wide air-raid like warnings when someone is about to win, all smacks of very poor sportmanship to me.
EDIT: What I do find funny though is that when Executor was in this game, he knew exactly what the victory conditions were, and very quickly identified me as the biggest threat from the moment he worked out I had the Chalice. So there was no big mystery or conspiracy here, just very bad game reading by several nations. But again the OP clearly stated experience was to be preferred at sign-ups, so maybe lack of experience can be an excuse, but this game was never intended to be one aimed at players with little experience. Especially in the game reading department (as graphs were off)
I'm certain I could ask any vet at any time what the victory conditions are of every game they are playing in, and I'd get an instantly correct answer. I'd also bet they could tell me how close every nation was to victory in those games as well.
Re: CarCrash - EA Game - CBM - (Running)
Linear Mode
