MP Game - Zap's New game with House Rules

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Yep, which makes the game fluid as provinces are continually won and lost on both sides.

This sounds like an inefficient, wasteful, whack-a-mole. It's very annoying, constantly redoing things you've already done. Better to do things properly and make sure it doesn't happen again, I say. More importantly, sooner or later, you'll annoy somebody into pillaging the province, making it useless. Better to properly lock the place down before you advance. It's like parking your car: You park it, set detonators, lock all the doors, raise the bLast shielding over the windows and tires, and then engage the discharge coils.

The way I play it, one party gains provinces, while the other loses them: We call the former party the "winning side", and the latter party the "losing side". It's nice and orderly.

Since you've never played anything but your single strategy, you wouldn't have ever seen this dynamic.

I've played lots of "strategies", although they do involve securing your property before you bother to take more. Conquering something and then not bothering to secure it for yourself is the same as conquering it for somebody else. I've played enough Tradewars to know better.

[ May 26, 2004, 01:51: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Cainehill]

[quote]Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yvelina:

[qb]Not that I am complaining, having chosen Marignon. :-)

Marignon does have a small edge under these conditions: They start with Holy Pyre, an L4 evocation. It's fairly powerful against light to medium troops, and under retarded research conditions, it'll be awhile before other nations match it.

---

Abysia of course also having a roughly equal edge via the Flare spell. Horrible aim, but it doesn't matter if they hit their own troops, and Flare does significant damage even to heavily armored troops when it does hit. Almost makes it desirable to take a pretender with high fire magic, and good aim.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Actually, there's a few loopholes there which are a direct side effect of this: Since the castled provinces can't be jacked, you simply jack all of the opposing provinces devoid of castles...and build castles in a third of them. Since the rest are completely undefendable, somebody else will then jack them....and build castles in a third of the ones that are left. Pretty soon your entire castle census will become a giant jumbled mess as you will automatically lose of all of the noncastled provinces because they're completely undefendable.

I'll let you know if this actually happens after the game. I seriously doubt it, but won't be afraid to admit it if I'm wrong.

---

I agree it'll not happen. Norf do not have a good grip on mathematics. Sure, because of territories changing hands the total perecentage of the castles _may_ increase a little. But the rule of 1/3 will always be in place for every new conquerer. There is no way the whole map will be covered by castles with this rule, it's mathematically impossible under any resonable scenario. My guess that max final percentage of the castle to not-castled provinces in our game will be 40-45% to 55-60%. And this is worst case scenario, I suspect it'll be lower than that.


Anyway, there is not much point of arguing about it now. We will see after the game. As Zap, I'll be first to admit if my predictions will be wrong, but I doubt that I'll have to.

[Zapmeister]

Just an update: so far I've had to turn away Nagot, Niblet, Nunchuck Exponent, Ninny I'm NOT, Natty Natt and Nogblot.

Sorry guys, but NO EXCEPTIONS to the house rules!!

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
Just an update: so far I've had to turn away Nagot, Niblet, Nunchuck Exponent, Ninny I'm NOT, Natty Natt and Nogblot.

Sorry guys, but NO EXCEPTIONS to the house rules!!

Hehe.

BTW how many players are you looking for Zapmeister?

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
BTW how many players are you looking for Zapmeister?

Up to 17. But at the rate we're going, we could be playing in Aran

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
BTW how many players are you looking for Zapmeister?

Up to 17. But at the rate we're going, we could be playing in Aran

---

Heh.

If you don't want to wait for 17 people, than with one more player (to make it seven total) we could very well play Karan ("dry" Version), if you, as well as everybody else, would like to. IMHO 7-8 is an ideal players density for Karan in MP.

It's you call of course though, I am not trying to push you.

[ May 26, 2004, 08:02: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]