MP game - "Pantheons" Started

[Agrajag]

12 players is more than I really wanted & will surely be unwieldy but we will see how it all plays. I think if I do this again I would make sure I had arranged one team in toto then challenge people to get together another team.

Hehe, I didn't expect so many people as well =P
And if you intend to make another team game, try and invite me please ^^

Im going to sleep now, the only problem is I know that I probably won't have the computer for myself until sometimes late tomorrow...
I'll see how things unfold =P

[The Panther]

I think Indep 3 will actually have the opposite effect as you will feel compelled to get them all.

But we will see - well we will see how one indep strength works out.

Pickles, please elaborate on this. Am I missing something? You will be compelled to get them all in any event just to maintain communications with your team (assuming, of course, preselected starting positions in team Groups).

I suppose if we have random starting positions where you might start near a couple of enemies, then yes, higher level indies will be more beneficial.

Also, with pre-selected starting spots, the need for a wraparound map is much less critical.

As for graphs, definitely yes for me. Since you always know who the enemies are, then the need to hide your stats when leading the game is not so important.

[The Panther]

Lex said:
My only request is that we decide the races soon, and then give a day to research/experiment first before uploading a pretender (so our choices are smart ones).

I could not agree more with this comment, as I for sure will take a race I have yet to play on MP no matter what method we use to decide races.

This game books pretty cool, but I think I'm in one too many, already (esp.as large alliances generate a lot of work)

One comment; you might want to think about the balance effect of UlM. It could easily turn into a magic item factory fed by all the gems five allies can send it. Protected by its allies, and allowed to concentrate on alchemy and forging exclusively Ulm could become very gross, and massively boost the side that gets it. I don't think any of tho other races would synergise with alliance play in quite the same way.

Mark

[Pickles]

Quoting Panther re L7 indeps.

"Pickles, please elaborate on this. Am I missing something? You will be compelled to get them all in any event just to maintain communications with your team "

I have had trouble expressing this & it is pregame analysis - something I am prone to but know may well be off the mark (though I took about a decade to figure that out)

Anyway if the independents are weak you will be able to knock them over quickly for little cost in resources & will probably clear them out before meeting your enemies.

If they are stronger you will have to commit more forces to them which is force not available for attacking/defending. Thus you are more likely to only clear a couple of weaker provinces before you have to divert forces to "defence". They will then remain as a strategic option for you later - whether to risk using forces there for future revenues or to keep forces for use against the real opponents.

Hmm not sure if it actually makes any sense - you will probably stop creeping & start fighting as soon as you meet real opposition. Whether this is after you have cleared 3-4 L7 indeps or 7-8 L3 indeps it will be around turn 10. I am not trying to convert anyone I like L7 indeps, it is what I am used to, but I am perfectly happy with L3.

"And what does the Y mean in the voting above?"

Yes to score graphs - noone has said no so they are pretty well in.

Pickles

[Pickles]

Mark the Merciful said:
This game books pretty cool, but I think I'm in one too many, already (esp.as large alliances generate a lot of work)

One comment; you might want to think about the balance effect of UlM. It could easily turn into a magic item factory fed by all the gems five allies can send it. Protected by its allies, and allowed to concentrate on alchemy and forging exclusively Ulm could become very gross, and massively boost the side that gets it. I don't think any of tho other races would synergise with alliance play in quite the same way.

Mark

OK there is now a gap in the lineup. I suggest we wait for Yvelina to see if the mysterious tuidjy is in. If not we go 5v5, if he (or she) is then we need one more.

Ulm crossed my mind too. Not just forging - which could be pretty gross though I dont see forge of the ancients staying up long but the Great Alchemist. Ulm could turn an allied Abysias fire gems into 155 gold per turn - or 80 more than Abysia can alone etc.

I had thought of this as an opportunity but it may be too
strong.

We could ban the Alchemist, ban default Ulm, ban both or live with it.

I would be inclined ban the alchemist as that is a problem from turn 1 (well 2) & so most problematic or both (plus I want to try the other themes!)

Anyone else have any ideas?

Pickles

[The Panther]

Lol, I edited my above post while you were typing this, pickles. I saw in your earlier post that the Y was for graphs and edited my other post to vote yes.

And I had another random thought. (I wonder sometimes how my brain works..)

So far, if you average the indy province levels of people who have voted, you get 5 (which is square in the middle!) Since I think we are all fishing on this because we have exactly ZERO experience with this type of game, then maybe a compromise to five gets us out of this little box.

Assuming we get started soon, then in a month from now, the players in this game can decide if indies were too high or too low. Of course, that has ample opportunity to be yet another endless argument too!

[The Panther]

As for the Ulm thing with forging, I am currently playing base Ulm in one of my MP games. Because base Ulm gets exactly ZERO random schools of magic on the master smith (the ONLY mage it can recruit), then it still has very limited selections of things to build, no matter how many gems it gets. The forge benefit for Ulm is not all that great because you can only forge the same things over and over. No luck pendant even!

Of course, forge of the ancients changes this radically and would therefore be top priority for the enemies to dispel. I could see a team putting over 100 earth gems into that global enchantment and hoping it Lasts for a couple of turns to do mass forging. Still, that is a very high cost for sure and late game only. The other team, which put those gems into powerful golems instead of this enchantment just might have crushed you by then.

Also a rainbow alchemist that never left home would definitely be advantage to Ulm, but it is easy to simply disallow.

And if the team wants to pour mass gems into empowering the Ulm master smith, well then it will take a long time for the forge benefit to break even, especially for only the level 1 skill artifacts. A viable long term strategy, but it will take a while to reap the benefit.

Also, don't forget that ANY earth magic mage from ANY race can build the forge bonus tools, like dwarven hammers, and distribute them to teammates. This actually reduces one major Ulm advantage, the one that it can make a bunch of those things quicker than any other race can. For the team with no Ulm can just pool earth gems into the proper nation and build a bunch of them. You don't have to wait to pile up the gems, only wait for the Construction research. Don't forget that Ulm is a VERY slow researching race because of the high gold cost per base research level (just 5) on its only mage, the master smith. I believe that Ulm is the slowest researching race of them all, everything else being equal.

[alexti]

I thought that looking for pro-Ulm/anti-Ulm strategy could be a fun aspect, but if Ulm is too overpowered, let's ban it. I can't come to conclusion whether it will be too big advanatge for one side or not though...

Also, I'd suggest to leave couple of days between nation assignments to the teams and the start of the game, so that each team can discuss strategies on how to extract the best out of what they got.

[Cheezeninja]

Hmm, i think i tend to agree with using 3 str indeps over high str indeps, as it will allow for quicker and better teamwork. I also favour the idea of randomly pooling all nations between the two sides and allowing people to pick from their teams pool, this will allow people to avoid nations they dont like, hopefully get a nation they do like, and possibly allow team 'themes'.

Quite a bit is possible under teams that might not seem fair otherwise, thats the whole point of teams, acting like a team instead of 5/6 individuals. For instance if your team has multiple air nations you can have 1 team member rush conjuration and then pool gems/items for a truly beefier Air Queen far earlier than otherwise. Quite a few nasty strategies become available.... imagine a whole team of clamhorders, pool gems for wish, wish for gems and distribute the flavours to whoever uses them best. Or you could have mictlan in the back providing a blood economy for EVERYONE... the possibilities for exploitation of teamplay are dependant only on how clever you are.