is feeding acceptable or not

[Mozkito]

I think of it as acceptable, just picture this. You are a cop, with no arms, and your gun is next to you. Are you going to kick it over to your "friend" or just let it go to waste? A rough comparison, but fitting nonetheless!

[Endoperez]

Mozkito said:
I think of it as acceptable, just picture this. You are a cop, with no arms, and your gun is next to you. Are you going to kick it over to your "friend" or just let it go to waste? A rough comparison, but fitting nonetheless!

A cop would help his fellow cops, of course, but Dominions is everyone against everyone with temporary exceptions. Here's a counter-example:

You're a hunter caught between an angry bear and an enraged lion that has already killed and eaten several humans. Your pistol won't be able to take either one down, but it might slow the one you shoot enough for the other to kill it as well. Are you going to help the bear, who only kills people when they get in their way, or the lion, who actively seeks to kill anyone nearby? You're dead, either way.

[sector24]

Thematically, I don't think Dominions is an everyone vs. everyone game. To me it seems more like an ambitious pantheon. Yes you're trying to become the God of gods, but it gets lonely at the top without other deities to pay homage to you, sleep with, and cause shenanigans in the mortal world.

Think about it this way. The world won't function without a fertility god or goddess. So if you banish all the fertility deities to Tartarus, the world will wither away and die. That might be ok for a select few pretenders, but the rest of them are going to have to force at least 1 fertility deity to submit to his/her divine authority.

As the winner of a game of Dominions, you get to decide which pretenders get banished, which ones get released from a previous imprisonment, etc. I don't think you sit on your divine throne all by yourself destroying anyone who attempts to gather any power, like some kind of immortal Stalin figure. Even the pankrator needs his celestial general and lord of war.

In an ambitious pantheon it makes perfect sense to send your resources to a rival in the hope of helping him defeat your sworn enemy. If your sworn enemy wins, he's definitely going to chain you up against a rock where an immortal vulture eats your liver every day. But if someone else ascends to godhood you may be given a position as lord of all janitors or the god of biscuits.

[Omnirizon]

sector24 said:
...But if someone else ascends to godhood you may be given a position as lord of all janitors or the god of biscuits.

or perhaps the god of armless security personnel.


"Billy, your on the beat with O'Reily ta'night."

"O'Reily! Not that guy again."

"Ok look. I know he ain't got no arms, but he's a good cop with a lot of heart, an' if y'all get in a sticky situation, he can kick his gun over to ya; then maybe run up and bite the guy or something."

[atul]

Hm. In one game I received bucketloads of gems and items from total of 5 nations when they were about to go the way of dodo during the game. Each time, the gift was accompanied by a message:

"Avenge me."

And so I did, to best of my ability. So no, I wouldn't consider throwing away stuff after it's clear one's dead unthematic.

[Xietor]

this poll is a bit silly. If you play much mp, you know revenge is a powerful motivator. Defeated players typically give away gems/gold and even allow units to be charmed to either help a friend or to hurt an enemy.

Trading items/gems is a part of diplomacy. And the mechanism exists to do do trades. Giving away stuff when all
hope is lost is part of diplomacy as well. If you are dead set against diplomacy, you can play 1 v 1 mp games, or try to start a no diplomacy mp game.

But the reason mp games are more fun than sp, apart from the higher challenge of facing humans over ai, is diplomacy.
Diplomacy is a great equalizer. A player not as good in strategy, even with a weaker nation, can defeat a better opponent with a stronger nation with help. And that may be his only hope.

Not giving away your items/gems in defeat is a bad tactical error. Giving away your stuff builds goodwill toward the player you give the stuff to, and you may get some reciprocation down the road in another game.

[Jazzepi]

Xietor said:
Not giving away your items/gems in defeat is a bad tactical error. Giving away your stuff builds goodwill toward the player you give the stuff to, and you may get some reciprocation down the road in another game.

I think this is very bad tact if you're attempting to influence later games with a current one.

Jazzepi

[Fal]

absolutely yes, the gems/gold/items should go to the player(s) who have the potential to avenge your defeat. It is, in fact, an important part of the game, and part of your strategy. That is to say, if I can't win, I will certainly not let you win either.

Therefore it is a critical factor that one should always take into consideration before he makes the final kill to his enemy.

However I have seen a case where the player A gave his hundreds of gems to the player B who defeated him, simply because he believes the game is over and no one would be able to defeat play B...a rather cynical move, I'd say.

[DonCorazon]

Reading Tyrant's post reminded me, I have actually given my gems to an enemy. In that case, I knew our war had led to both of our stagnations. When I knew I would die, I sent him my stash and so in that case, I think it actually may have helped balance the game.

But I think it is fine whatever your motive. You earned it, you can spend it how you like.

[Sombre]

No diplomacy games make sense to me. If you don't want to go that far, make a 'no giving items, gems or gold' game.