Global War (use new thread pls)

quantum_mechani · #1 March 28th, 2008, 06:29 PM

I'm sure you could find someone to handle the evil nation enemies, if that's what we are using. It would be a shame to create this interesting of a game and then not be able to play it.

quantum_mechani · #2 March 28th, 2008, 06:32 PM

Another thing, any particular rules regarding water nations?

CUnknown · #3 March 28th, 2008, 06:36 PM

Okay, cool, yeah, we can just get someone else to do it. We can give them the master password as well. They can be sort of a co-host and monitor people to make sure they are obeying the rules.

Any volunteers for the monitor position?

If we do this secret enemy thing, does that mean that Evil is able to communicate amongst themselves with no restrictions? Or will there still be restrictions? I think if they can trade normally, they will dominate all opposition, regardless of this secret enemy stuff.

I think restrictions on communication should remain. What do other people think?

I mean, the other option is just to balance the frickin' teams.. but.. it loses some charm that way for me. I like the unstoppable Evil hoard idea.

Edit: Water nations have no special rules. Were you thinking of any in particular?

quantum_mechani · #4 March 28th, 2008, 06:55 PM

No particular rule ideas for water nations, I was just thinking of playing LE Ry'leh.

Assuming secret enemies, here is how I'd recommend communication should work:

Good <-> Good - Anything goes.

Good <-> Evil - Not allowed.

Good <-> Neutral - Both can trade anything but blood/death gems/items, and both can say anything they like as long as no future plans against players/provinces are discussed.

Evil <-> Neutral - Same as above, but can do blood/death.

Neutral <-> Neutral - Same.

Evil <-> Evil - Can't trade between themselves, and can't coordinate wars (same rules as with neutrals), and also can't make NAPs. Everything else is fair game (greetings, threats, rumors, real or fake information). Basically diplo between evils would boil down to just trying to feel out who is your real enemy, with the currency being information. I think it could be pretty fun wondering if some juicy/important info from another evil nation is legit, or simply trying to get you engaged in another war and then finish you off. No diplo, period, would still probably be an OK option too.

Tuidjy · #5 March 28th, 2008, 07:16 PM

I'm out. Not gonna work. If you let Evil communicate, Good is doomed.

An evil player must be retarded to attack any other evil nation or
a neutral nation that is not attacking their alliance. By the same
token they must come to each other's aid or let the organized good
nations kill them one by one.

As long as you allows them to say "I'm in province #X, good nation #Y is NW"
you have given them 99% of the communication needed to stomp Good. You may as
well allow trade and balance teams.

moderation · #6 March 28th, 2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Tuidjy said:
I'm out. Not gonna work. If you let Evil communicate, Good is doomed.

An evil player must be retarded to attack any other evil nation or
a neutral nation that is not attacking their alliance. By the same
token they must come to each other's aid or let the organized good
nations kill them one by one.

As long as you allows them to say "I'm in province #X, good nation #Y is NW"
you have given them 99% of the communication needed to stomp Good. You may as
well allow trade and balance teams.

Okay, here's another crazy idea. Now I'm thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Suppose you only allow 6 or 7 of the 8 Evil players to win? The idea being that there are a limited number of victory points for Evil players and that they must compete amongst themselves for them. Just another variation on the infighting among Evil idea. I'll be quiet now so that we don't drift too much.

CUnknown · #7 March 28th, 2008, 08:47 PM

Hehe, cool idea moderation.. you could actually count the capitals of good and neutral as victory points for evil. There will only be 6 or 7 of them (depending on how many we decide).

IndyPendant · #8 March 28th, 2008, 09:36 PM

I think the Secret Enemy thing would cover that. I mean, think about it: if one evil player gets eliminated early, then another evil player has met one of its conditions. But which one is it?

The six evil players remaining that have *not* met the kill-their-target condition are going to try to make sure the Good Team is not killed--at least, not until they kill their target, because they lose if that happens!

Meanwhile, the seventh evil player, the one whose enemy is dead, is going to have to play a bit carefully to keep from giving away that he's the safe one...all the while concentrating on killing the Good Alliance before any other evil players are eliminated. Perhaps he would even be forced to come to the aid of another evil player about to be eliminated, because he would then have to 'share' his win! --All the while wondering "Am I saving the guy that wants me dead?"

It's just too perfect. ; )

CUnknown · #9 March 28th, 2008, 07:30 PM

Yeah, what QM said, is what I was thinking as well.

IndyPendant - you chose ME Ermor as a Neutral race, so you are perfectly allowed to use all the blood and death you want. Only Good races are disallowed their use (except for certain anti-death death spells).

Tuidjy - you probably have a point... we'd have to allow something for Good to balance it out... I suppose we could allow Death magic.

I love the secret enemy idea. But there are difficulties as to it's implementation. Tuidjy is right that evil would just forget about the secret enemies until after Good was long gone. We'd probably have to even out the teams if we add secret enemies and some limited communication.

But then we are drifting further and further...

You know... let's add the Secret Enemy (because it is just so cool), but keep the complete no communication for Evil thing. It's too important, if they are communicating even a little bit, we run the risk of them acting like a team.

Edit: and let's keep the no-death for good thing.

Tuidjy · #10 March 28th, 2008, 07:55 PM

I agree that drifting is bad. If Evil players agree to no communication
whatsoever, 8-4-2 is not unbalancing. The neutrals will have to try to balance
the two sides. Their trump is that they can take out single evil nations without
the other evil nations realizing it in time. The neutrals can also try to
help the evil nations keep the good in check.

But if you allow coordination among the evil EXCEPT by going through the
neutrals, the Evil have a cake walk.