MP Game - Artifact Game - running 48hr qh

[Cainehill]

So you do the alliances randomly, after pretenders are uploaded, making it a lot rougher to do that min-maxing : after all, what happens if _all_ your team has horrible scale uber-blesses and can't afford to buy any troops?

Actually, I'd love to see a "no-trade" option in Dom3 to prevent this - maybe "sending items good, money bad" options.

[Boron]

A new total random no diplomacy game would be cool too i think. I hate Diplomacy in Dominions too since i always think it needs the least skill. In order to keep it easy and short i prefer to do my diplomacy if i have to do it in IRC instead though because this is quicker and more reliable than via PMs.

What about a new Random no Diplomacy game with 7 or 8 players?
This way every player could get the choice to pick one of 2 nations. The host would offer the nations semirandom then by selecting them sane, i.e. not offering two similiar nations which are both considered weak but rather 2 different nations to each player that they have lots of choices.

Like player a would get the choice between Abysia and Caelum, player b between Machaka and Ermor, player c between Ryleh and Jotunheim etc. .
So the chance is smaller that you get assigned a nation you really dislike and with 8 players the game isn't that large neither and no diplomacy.

In the last random game i played it was on orania with 15 players and i was unlucky enough to get assigned Mictlan.
If a sane host would offer 2 nations for each of the 7 or 8 participating players such a cruel assignment could be avoided.
Such a game i would find interesting enough to break my intention to not play any more longterm games till dom3.

[Cainehill]

A bidding arrangement might be better (more so if Dom3 supported it to allow people to give up pretender points in a bid) : Instead of someone potentially getting a choice of Mictlan or Tien Chi, everyone puts in 3 bids towards nations, the first bid is worth most, but whichever bid takes subtracts points from their pretender total.

Heh. Taken to an extreme : someone is the only bidder on Ulm, they might _gain_ extra pretender creation points, while Marignon, Jotuns, etc, all lost points.

[quantum_mechani]

I would just like to say, saying that it was 'decided to throw the game to Ironhawk' is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. So, perhaps you will indulge me a quick description of events from my point of view...

As I was finishing the Marignon war I realized I was in a very precarious position, the biggest target for the two most powerful nations, but also threatening enough for minor nations to gang me. Both arch and Ironhawk were pressuring me to their sides, arch with spies, Ironhawk saying he was already prepared for an invasion. So there were a lot of reasons to choose to attack arch:

1. If I didn't, Ironhawk would be attacking right away, and I was not prepared for a war instantly.

2. Boron had already committed to suicideing vs. arch, if I let him go it alone I would end up with a big open border with arch in the north.

3. I hate fighting C'tis.

4. Arch seemed the bigger threat to winning at the time.

So once I was committed to this course of action, it was only natural that I should try to enlist as many allies as possible, and I must admit the number exceeded my expectations. But once they had joined the war, it pretty much precluded me pulling out without effectively backstabbing them.

So now fast forward to when most of my allies are dead, dying or distracted. Now I could probably pull out without to much repercussions there, but there are other factors:

1. If I stopped attacking Arch and just sat and did nothing, the game would get very boring, and I would still lose. If I instead switched sides and attacked Ironhawk, I was fairly sure he would consider that backstabbing.

2. Even at this point, I think switching sides would probably be 'throwing the game to Arch' as much as the reverse is 'throwing the game to Ironhawk'.

3. I hate fighting C'tis.

So I was stuck in a very tough spot diplomatically, no matter what I did I would be insulting Ironhawk or Arch. I very much agree with Caine and Boron that it is unfortunate diplo seems to overshadow the rest of the game, and cause so much animosity. Of all the long term games I have been in were the diplo turned sour (and I have been in a lot of those) this one is probably the worst since there is no one player like stormbinder that can be pointed to as the cause of discord.

Anyway, since as far as I can see there is not anyone still having much fun in this game, I propose we simply stop here and call it a tie among surviving players or some such.

[Morkilus]

I really can't figure out why there should be any animosity. It's a free-for-all as the game was set up, so why can't players do whatever they want in the context of the game? Having to make meta-decisions about diplomacy because you might "insult" other players is more gamey than arrow-catchers.

Diplomacy is part of the game as it is set up. There are RAND and team games for those that don't like it. You can spend your gaming time strategizing and scripting your troops, or you can spend it attempting to coax players onto your side... both are part of the game as I understand it.

I'm irritated the game had to break down because of feelings, and hoped it could go to its own conclusion without accusations and stomping off in self-righteousness. But if nobody's having fun, I'm all for spending time elsewhere as well.

Maybe in the future, easier win conditions could offset stalemates and hurt feelings. I can't even imagine how the CoW game is going to end... I'm guessing Dom3 will come out and everyone will simultaenously quit