Some ideas: raiding, seiging, spell AI and more..

[alexti]

Kel said:

Yes, if 17 players all started hoarding and hoping noone attacked them, then the ones who didn't get attacked would have a head start. Much like they would probably be more powerful if they were just researching or site searching or taking indies or any other part of the game. If you are left alone and noone messes with you, you will probably be stronger than people who engaged in early wars and it has nothing to do with clams.

That's not always true. Quick and successful conquest is very beneficial in the early game (especially if the graphs are off). And good players often go to war with exactly that purpose if they see they can crush the neighbour quickly. Typically, because they've reached their target research or troop production before the neighbour has counter.

In all games I've played, the winner was somebody who has successfully (and quickly) conquered 1 or more neighbours in the early game.

[Kel]

alexti said:
In all games I've played, the winner was somebody who has successfully (and quickly) conquered 1 or more neighbours in the early game.

I find it hard to believe that all your games were like that, no offense. I would certainly say that has not been my experience, though all of my games haven't been absolutely one way or the other.

- Kel

[alexti]

Kel said:

I find it hard to believe that all your games were like that, no offense. I would certainly say that has not been my experience, though all of my games haven't been absolutely one way or the other.

- Kel

There were few blitzes on a small maps where things were different (usually because somebody was able to conquer enough VP's without totally conquering anybody) and there were few MP games that were never finished, because of uncurable game crashes (in 2 of them which were in later stages it was very likely, that one of early conquestor would won). I don't know the result of my first MP (because I was quickly eliminated). There was also game won by Norfleet (I'm not sure if he has conquered somebody in the early game or not, but all his games are under question now anyway). In all other games the game was won by somebody who had successful early conquest (plus a couple of still going games, where one of the early victors is very likely to win).
So it would be more correct to say that I'm yet to see the game won by somebody who have stayed out of wars and {something}-hoarded.

I've faced clam/fetish hoarders several time myself in the late game. In one case the real war Lasted about 5 turns before hoarder conceded. In another case the hoarder conceded the game even without trying to fight. Of course, I had much larger empires at that time. And if I didn't have a large empire in the late game, that was usually because my lands got added (contrary to my wishes) to somebody else's large empire, which wasn't making things any better for the hoarder.
Concerning the size of the maps, they ranged from Aran to Orania. Nothing super huge, though I've found even Orania to be too much micromanagement for my taste.

[Chazar]

Soapyfrog said:
I like larger maps, but I dont like the way they devolve as they do under the current setup, where essentially you must hoard to survive, and failing to hoard is a death sentence.

I wonder how people determine that the clam-hoarder has won because of clam-hoarding, especially since everybody else hoarded as well?
I've yet to see that clam-hoarding is a successful strategy at all, but on the other hand I do not play maps with more than 150 provinces, which are already way to large for me.

I also wonder why people like larger maps if they do not like the way the game behaves on such maps...

[Soapyfrog]

If everyone hoards then "great". However NOT hoarding is not a viable strategy. That's bad.

You might maybe get away with it on a small, crowded map... games that don't Last much past (or get called at) 40-50 turns will probably not see hoarding as a serious problem.

Large maps are fun becuase they are large, there is more opportunity for give and take, the game is more epic, more sweeping. But it loses most of it's allure as you are forced into a few narrowly defined strategies revolving around hoarding. So as you can see the things I find fun about large maps are mostly cancelled out by the devolution of the game caused by hoarding strategies.

It's like any game that has a shortcoming. You fix that shortcoming and you have a better game. It's not complicated.

[Endoperez]

I am on the same boat with Chazar. I don't understand why a hoarder should be able to win someone who has not hoarded but instead conquered twice or thrice as much provinces AND searched them for sites. Sure, if the hoarder is left to be for 30+ turns he will have beter income, but if he is attacked *now* with armies almost twice as large as his he is in great trouble.

Has this been tried, has it worked? If not, why? I don't see any reason for it to *not* to work... ...with all my experience I got solely by reading this forum and playing SP games.

[Soapyfrog]

Alright lets look at the game I am currently getting smashed in, Faerun Folly.

One player I know for a fact has something like 400 fever fetishes and 250+ clams.

How much of Faerun do you have to conquer before you can compare to that?

Another empire, who is smashing me, overran me with endless castings blackhawks, followed up by armies of mechancial men and multiple doom horrors. And this was circa turn 70... AND he had already been fighting several other powers. I do not know for sure but his astral income is surely in the hundreds. He was territorially probably twice as alrge as me, but he was also fighting two other people.

5 turns into the war I was OUT of gems... completely cleaned out and of course my gem production was insignificant by comparison so while he was able to keep slinging masses of remote spells every turn and generate new armies of mechanical men, I was reduced to a minimum of ritual magic and a desperate scrabble for resources. From there on in it was a downhill slide.

The only thing which has kept me, very feebly, alive is... you guessed it... soul contracts, and some infusions of cash and gems from another hoarding nation. Of course, I am doomed anyway but it just goes to show.

[Tuidjy]

Whine, whine, whine, *****, *****, *****.

There are too many strategies in Dominions II, and I cannot deal with most
of them! I especially cannot deal with more than one applied at the same
time. Lets change the rules we know to something completely untested, and
hardly making any sense! Lets remove any magic strategy that has been used
against me with any success! I wanna play with knights, archers and
groundpounders, although I think that knights should lose the charge bonus,
and the attack rear command should be disabled.

Whahhh!

Guys, if you do expand quickly, you will lose the game. If you do not build
reaction forces, you will lose the game. If you do not make alliances that
benefit both parties, you will lose the game. If you do not have some
hoarding strategy you will lose the game. If you do not have a good idea
about what your opponents are doing, you will lose the game.

If you do all the above, you may still lose the game.

And if all of the above are removed, the people who are kicking your *** will
adapt, and still kick your ***. Only, Dominion II will be a lot less fun...

[Soapyfrog]

Pardon me but it is certainly MORE fun with no hoarding. More possible strategies, less micromanagement. its a NO-BRAINER.

But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd. I'll bet you thought the VQ was dandy.

You seem to think that Illwinter have created the perfect game, perfect in all respects, in no need of tweaking/modding whatsover. Ah yes, truly, ignorance is bliss!

[Arryn]

Soapyfrog said:
But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd.

By definition, someone who believes "nothing is broken" is a conservative and thus the opposite of a reactionary (someone who feels a need for change). You really ought to understand the meaning of the terms you sling.