Overlords - Game Thread. (playing) - Page 35

LumenPlacidum · #**341** December 10th, 2009, 11:06 AM

What are the interesting choices that have been lost? Seems like all I proposed was a way for a normal to have some say in the matter of who's going to be a vassal.

Actually, what incentive is there for vassals to be chosen at all? Since each side of the 'deal' only has restricted options once the deal is made, and there are no rules against working together WITHOUT the vassalage (nor should there be), wouldn't it be in the best interest of everyone involved to simply wait until victory conditions can be met and then to pick them at the end, avoiding the punishments and restrictions of the system entirely?

LupusFatalis · #**342** December 10th, 2009, 01:36 PM

5 Vassals allows for more vassals than we have normals. It also allows for ~1/4 of the players to win simultaneously? It gives no incentive for an overlord to keep all of his vassals alive, he has a spare slot even. Making it a permanent choice locks in those incentives and removes the ambiguity that they'll have with normal allies. And as I stated, if they have to fulfill win conditions together, being able to opt-out allows for a normal to fulfill normal win conditions as a vassal, opt out and win.

The swallowing a vassal to become a vassal idea is interesting, but not sure I like it--need to consider it more.

Squirrelloid · #**343** December 10th, 2009, 03:47 PM

There are no normal win conditions...

The incentives for a normal to become a vassal are so that it can win the game. A normal without a master may be perceived as particularly dangerous because he is ronin.

The incentive for the Overlords is maintaining a large set of vassals allows them to win easier (ie, I suggested reduce number of fortresses needed).

The incentives for both sides to enter a vassalage agreement are guaranteed peace - they become your ally.

And vassal agreements are permanent, even beyond death of the vassal, unless the vassal chooses to end it. (Obviously, a dead vassal can pay no indemnity, and can make no choices). That was included in my first post on the matter.

As to more total vassal slots than normals.
(1) I imagine we'll run with 5 overlords instead of 6 for next time.
(2) We want Overlords to compete for the normal's favor, so we want Overlords to have enough Vassal slots that *vassals* and not slots are in short supply.

Finally, normals should not be able to force themselves into a vassalage position by fiat. Vassal slots are something given to Overlords as a way of having something to give to normals, and an important part of their diplomacy and interaction with normals. The choosing of vassals is not something normals should be able to arrogate for themselves. The choice of vassal is the Overlords, and assuming the intended target accepts, they have to live with that choice.

namad · #**344** December 10th, 2009, 09:41 PM

so are we making a rule change and continuing? if we don't decide soon people might lose interest and we'll lose the chance to decide for ourselves (time will decide for us)...

rdonj · #**345** December 10th, 2009, 09:47 PM

Rule change and continuing, it looks like. Only one person has stated that they dislike the change, but they were also willing to play with it. I think it would be better for the sake of the game to just continue at this point.

namad · #**346** December 10th, 2009, 10:58 PM

so this turn will have no more delays and will host on saturday? can you rdonj post the rule changes specifically?

also i have an idea for rule changes for future games... how about we keep the overlords dom restricted and just make some insane rule like normals can't take dom score higher than 5-6?

rdonj · #**347** December 11th, 2009, 12:27 AM

I have no intention of adding any more delays to the current turn. Next turn (37)is the first of the 4 turns until overlords can attack capitols at will. That will be the only change. I can put this in the OP if you like.

That is one of the suggestions I liked, as it would be simple and would do a lot to enhance the offensive capabilites of overlords. So it is a definite possibility for the next game.

Hoplosternum · #**348** December 11th, 2009, 09:18 PM

I am glad we are lifting the Capital attack (I didn't even realise it was a rule after the first 10 turns!) so we can continue and play this one out.

I agree that changes should be made for the next game. I am not sure of the Vassal idea, it would be a massive change. Especially if there was no way for a normal to win without it. Surely it would mean that the Overlord would cut a deal with a couple of normals and kill off the remainder? This game has suffered from gang ups vs some of the Overlords (but I think the map was partially responsible for that, a wrap around would have made that far less desireable) but at least they were defensively strong. A normal being ganged up on by an Overlord and a couple of neighbouring normals hardly seems a recipe for fun. I like allied victory condition options though. But there is a danger that they spark brief early diplomacy - then we just have fixed adhoc teams for the rest of the game (and those who are not 'in' the teams are simply picked off).

I like the idea that the Overlords get more attack options, especially as the game progresses. Being able to attack neutrals without dominion seems a good change for a start. But the attack standard idea seems too cheap to me. Something else is needed to help the Overlords but I am not sure that is quite it. If the next game restricted the normals Dom strength then it allows a lot more fruitful dom pushing by the Overlords. Coupled with the ability to actually attack capitals and take indies without their dom there would make a big difference.

I think even with the existing rules the next game would play out very differently. I know I have changed my ideas on what I should have done. I certainly saw the Overlords as more of a threat than an opportunity but that was before I saw how the game played out. I don't think we should use these rules again as they are too restrictive on the Overlords. But I don't think the game format needs to be completely changed. Players would adapt their play a lot in a second game.

LupusFatalis · #**349** December 11th, 2009, 09:46 PM

@Hoplo -- Well put! If only your diplomatic messages to me were so well formed, I might have taken them seriously. Though it did provide me with a great deal of amusement, so either way, thanks!

Squirrelloid · #**350** December 11th, 2009, 09:49 PM

If Overlord attack options are not expandable by use of resources, I will not play an Overlord again. Lategame wars involve attacking many provinces simultaneously. Making the Overlord pay for the privilege against a normal is fine. Making it so the Overlord cannot even accomplish such a feat is not ok.

There's a reason i proposed giving so many vassal slots to Overlords, so that normals were the thing in short supply, not vassal slots.