I wanted to wait until later to do this, when everyone had played through and we knew basically how the game had gone, but the other thread is definitely getting cluttered up with all this discussion. So please try to keep further discussion about overlords 2 to this thread. Here is the last bit from namad to kick this along:
Quote:
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
|
In response to early overlord growth, maybe it could be limited by forcing overlords to use only national commanders (including mages), and requiring all troops to be lead by commanders with at least 40 leadership. I feel this has a reasonable level of thematic justification, and it would make the overlord's lives harder without completely crippling them as the current rules do. I will also probably start overlords with fewer starting provinces next game. I'm not taking them down to just forts, as again, I think it's best for their gem income to be raidable. But I could see lowering them down to 8 provinces, maybe a little lower.