Scenario There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept

JimMorrison · #1 January 6th, 2009, 05:42 AM

Well, I was thinking one day about the evolution of the megagame. I was pondering the changes that have already been made, such as disallowing LA R'lyeh/Ermor, the choice of victory conditions, size of the map, etc, and I began to wonder about the setting of the game itself. My thought was, that the uniqueness of these games is only partially expressed through the game settings, but equally so by the behaviors of the players within.

Before I brooch my own concept, I'd like to make clear: This thread is meant to touch off discussion, whether you like my own idea or not, say so, and throw yours in the ring as well.

So bear with me, this is a bit unorthodox, but only as unorthodox as a 60 player game. I would call this concept "Wicked Web", and it starts with a simple premise - 1 victor out of 60 people enforces a certain dynamic in the game, and perhaps lends itself to a game where people do not interact enough to justify the size of the game. So I thought "heck, a 20 player game is still big, and has its own winner, what if we had 3?".

This was where my imagination took off..... The idea is that only 3 people will win this game, but that means that you do not have to defeat everyone to be one of those 3 victors when the game is called. But it DOES mean you will almost surely have to make some friends as you go, and cooperate with them if you wish to succeed. Mega-alliances of the "best" players should be largely mitigated by the scope of the map, and the fact that you won't likely succeed without choosing "friends" who share a border. On the other hand, fortune is a fickle mistress, and who can say that if you should slip, that your old buddy won't fall in with a rougher crowd, and you would find yourself on the end of a pike? I'm seeing a vicious and bloodthirsty game where no war is as simple as it seems, because while there is always (okay, ALMOST always) someone larger than you who wants a piece, there are also always people smaller than you, who want to peck at you until you crumble. I'm seeing a game of shifting alliances, and unlikely bedfellows, where say Lanka befriends Bogarus, not because he wants to be the baddest alliance in the world (and get ganged up on for it?), but because if he protects Bogarus, he can trade blood slaves for other gems and forged goods, and will have a very potent ally in the late game (not to mention a very grateful ally, which is not always the case).

I know that we are a ways off from worrying about organizing this game, but I just thought it would be fun to switch things around a bit, and do something that has never been done before. We've had team games, but those are intended to marry you to a teammate, I am thinking of an alliances game, where you must choose every turn who to support, and who to destroy.

Juffos · #2 January 6th, 2009, 06:13 AM

Well sure yes, actually why not?

LoloMo · #3 January 6th, 2009, 06:16 AM

From my experience, games where alliances play a big part, like the two megagames, tend to be a bore when you get into late game. To do well, you need to spend hours on diplomacy which takes the fun away after a while.

How about a mega game where diplomacy is minimized? Turns can be played much faster with less agonization. I don't know how rules can be set to minimize diplomacy, perhaps something like:

1. You have to declare war on a nation publicly before you can attack that nation. You can declare war on the same turn as you script to attack.
2. There can never be a ceasefire. War, once declared continues until one of the combatants is dead. When a nation is eliminated, the winner has to declare it publicly. A nation that goes AI still has to be eliminated.
3. You can not declare war on any other nation if you are at war.
4. You can not declare war on a nation that is at war with more than 1 nation. (So a nation can be at war with a maximum of 2 nations only).

A lot of diplomatic energy is geared towards ensuring that you fight only one nation at a time, so the above set of rules would simplify or eliminate diplomacy.

LoloMo · #4 January 6th, 2009, 06:38 AM

Oh, and NAPS are not allowed, and you can't cast identifiable hostile spells on any nation you are not at war with. (There's no way to police anonymous spells, so those are left out). And then probably a lot of the hostile global spells will have to be modded out.

JimMorrison · #5 January 6th, 2009, 08:55 AM

The same turn that you -script- to attack?

So if you can't hang out and wait for a few minutes before hosting, you might have to publicly announce your intentions maybe a day in advance of your armies actually arriving? >.>

Executor · #6 January 6th, 2009, 09:00 AM

I like that idea of not being teamed on like LoloMo said.

Gandalf Parker · #7 January 6th, 2009, 11:27 AM

Actually anonymous spells can be policed by the host. Almost anything can be policed by the host if it happens inside the game. Such as, in one game idea it was a necessary item that messages between players can be policed, but of course then messaging can be done by email or irc which is much harder to handle. But if it happens in the game then it will often appear in the game log if that option is turned on by the person running the game.

Gandalf Parker
--
Nothing is impossible. Its a computer.
Impossible is a technical term which translates as "we can do it but its probably more trouble than its worth in most cases".

LoloMo · #8 January 6th, 2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

The same turn that you -script- to attack?

So if you can't hang out and wait for a few minutes before hosting, you might have to publicly announce your intentions maybe a day in advance of your armies actually arriving? >.>

Yup, basically the public declaration is just to determine whose declaration has precedence. You can't declare war on a nation that has other people declaring war on it on the same turn. It can be viewed as a sneak attack, since there are no NAPs allowed. This simplifies things also, as there are no warning turns to keep track of.

Zeldor · #9 January 6th, 2009, 04:11 PM

I think we want few things for new megagame:

- CBM, at least pretenders part
- better map, I think Twan did some early work on a big fair map? or was it Pashadawg?
- some nation balance mod would help [just the one taking care of most obvious problems, especially created by very difficult research]

I must say I like diplomacy. I am probably much better at it than real fighting

Lolomos rules wouldn't change much though. In KM I used mostly long-term alliances, not NAPs. NAPs came mostly because of geographical situation on the map - it would be simply very hard to fight wars for me with Lanka or LA Pythium. Wars are also rarely any secret and there was no ganging on each other in the west. 2:1 at most. It woul rather harm east and conquers over there

Micah · #10 January 6th, 2009, 04:19 PM

"3. You can not declare war on any other nation if you are at war." is a terrible idea. It very much needs to be amended to "you cannot declare war on any other nation if you have declared war on a nation you have not eliminated." Otherwise a player could declare on a nation across the map and prevent them from doing anything until they could teleport a credible threat across the map.

Also, I don't like the idea of having to babysit the thread until the end of a turn for a sneak attack. Might be simplest to force a declare with 1 turn warning just to prevent out-of-game availability and hosting time from being an important factor to the game.