Global War (use new thread pls)

Hoplosternum · #1 March 28th, 2008, 04:34 PM

I would like to play as one of the good guys. I haven't decided which one though yet....

CUnknown · #2 March 28th, 2008, 04:40 PM

Okay, you are in Hoplosternum.

I am also jumping into the Good team as MA Ulm.

I think the Good team should be raised to 5 players, does anyone have any objections?

I do think that the ban on death magic should remain for them, though. Unless other people agree with Tuidjy that death isn't all bad? Death-rebirth cycle kind of thing?

Edit: I will continue hosting if I am eliminated early, don't worry about that. Rush me if you like, I don't take offense.

Cerlin · #3 March 28th, 2008, 04:42 PM

I would agree with 5, sounds ok to me. Though it does make the coordinations of the evil nations more glaring. I assume you will put th good nations in proximity and the evil may be more random?

Ylvali · #4 March 28th, 2008, 04:42 PM

I�d like to be evil as Sauromatia.

Ylvali · #5 March 28th, 2008, 04:46 PM

I think I�d really enjoy roleplaying evil. I suppose the evil players are supposed to really act evil in the game.

I understand the rule about no communication, but it kind of hampers the evil roleplaying possibilities. Like lying and stabbing allies in the back and other very evil things, but I guess it might be necessary.

CUnknown · #6 March 28th, 2008, 04:47 PM

Maybe we should raise Neutrals to 3 players as well? That doesn't hurt evil too bad, because they might even fight amongst themselves at some point.

Also, we could raise Evil to 9 players. Then it would be 8 (5+3) v 9 in the beginning. Good would really rely on the neutrals to not be overwhelmed. Of course we should maybe wait to see if we get that many players.

moderation · #7 March 28th, 2008, 04:54 PM

I'd like to play if there are any slots left. I prefer the good guys but am okay with the other factions.

I like how CUnkown balanced out the Good vs Neutral vs Evil factions with different advantages and victory conditions. Of course we can all talk philosophically about what good and evil mean forever, but it looks like it will be an interesting gameplay element.

Cerlin · #8 March 28th, 2008, 05:14 PM

Moderation! It is good to see you here! after all your strong defense of honor and "right" on these forums its thematic!

IndyPendant · #9 March 28th, 2008, 05:56 PM

Ha! I had logged back in to check to see if I could change my nation from Neutral MA Ermor to Good MA Ulm. Doh! If you ever change your mind, CUnknown, I'd like to switch. ; ) Otherwise, I'll stay as I am.

Suggestion: Allow good nations to trade *away* any death gems and/or blood slaves to the neutral nations?

quantum_mechani · #10 March 28th, 2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

IndyPendant said:

Suggestion: Allow good nations to trade *away* any death gems and/or blood slaves to the neutral nations?

Slave trading sounds a bit evil.

The idea for evil nations is interesting, but I think it might be a bit to complicated, on top of the current game system. I'm also not sure neutrals really need a bunch of watchers.