Global War (use new thread pls)

Cerlin · #1 March 28th, 2008, 02:53 PM

I really love this idea! I am totally in!
This is really fun theme. I would be a Evil or Neutral faction...Still thinking which one I want. With all the moral discussion recently this one seems really great.
I will get back to you on which faction. You probably want a better player than me being the Neutral but if no one will do it I will.

Tuidjy · #2 March 28th, 2008, 03:32 PM

I think that the evil races will win easily on a small map, so please
make a bigger one. I would like to have Pythium.

By the way are you playing? If you are, I'll be very glad to have you as
Ulm on our team... but I am sure the good races will lose.

CUnknown · #3 March 28th, 2008, 03:36 PM

It will be around 15 provinces per player, or about 210 provinces is what I am thinking.

Is there any way you can think to balance it out? Should we have 5 Good races, or 3 Neutrals? Actually, having more Neutrals may even help Evil.. they'd have more trading partners, and they can eliminate some of them and still trade.

In the beginning, it will likely be 6 (good + neutral) v 8 (evil). And the neutrals will be super-factions in the beginning. Is that so horribly unbalanced? I'm afraid that 7 v 8 might make it hard for Evil to win.

Is your Pythium MA or LA? Good, Neutral, or Evil?

Yes, I was thinking about playing unless people think we need an offical officiator. Then I can just referee.

Cerlin · #4 March 28th, 2008, 03:41 PM

Which Pythium? just curious

quantum_mechani · #5 March 28th, 2008, 03:36 PM

I'm not sure how this will pan out, but I'll tentatively claim one of the neutral slots. I would suggest loosening the diplo restrictions on neutral players, I think so long as they don't do any mutual attack agreements/coordination, they should be free to spread what ever (mis)information they want.

EDIT: Evil factions should be able to use bogus orders and mist of deception/damage enchantments.

Kristoffer O · #6 March 28th, 2008, 03:37 PM

Cool idea!

I'm in another game now, so I'll pass, but it sounds very interesting. I'll check in and see how it goes.

CUnknown · #7 March 28th, 2008, 03:41 PM

Okay, QM, Neutrals will be able to talk about whatever they want -except- for coordinating military strikes. I just thought that it was simplier to limit them than tempt them into saying too much.

I mean, can they say: "I am at war with so-and-so. He's got this. I have these forces here with this objective." That is tantamount to military coordination, imo.

In fact, I think I am changing my mind again.. I don't think Neutrals should be allowed to discuss their forces or military objectives. Maybe trading battle screenshots should be okay?

quantum_mechani · #8 March 28th, 2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

CUnknown said:
In fact, I think I am changing my mind again.. I don't think Neutrals should be allowed to discuss their forces or military objectives. Maybe trading battle screenshots should be okay?

I don't think they should be able to discuss their plans, but anything they want to about the current situation, or what they think other nations might be up to.

Cerlin · #9 March 28th, 2008, 03:45 PM

Just hearsay and musing? May be interesting, you would have to trust the neutral player to limit it though...

CUnknown · #10 March 28th, 2008, 03:47 PM

Okay, sounds good QM. Let's make discussing military forces (anyones) off limits, and giving battle screenshots is also off-limits.

But, if you want to say "Hey, I think Ermor is researching to Tartarians, we should gang up on him."

Wait, is that okay?

See, I don't think that is okay, either.

Maybe just as long as all military plans are off limits, including yours. Like, is saying "Just thought you might want to know, Ermor is probably researching like crazy. I think he wants Tartarians, he'll probably get them in 5-10 turns." that okay? Thing is... if the person you are talking to knows you are attacking them currently, then that is almost an attempt at military coordination, imo.