MP Land Rand - Jotunheim Wins!

DonCorazon · #1 February 23rd, 2010, 09:34 PM

I like the idea of no NAPs.

Was also thinking of a game where everyone had a predetermined enemy, kind of like the NCAA brackets. Zeldor's map was kind of like that - I don't recall the name of the game, but where we started in valleys and had to duel at least our first enemy. Maybe a map with a series of closed valleys. Geography would force more one-on-one wars. Though now that I think about it, that's probably too formulaic for my tastes.

WraithLord · #2 February 24th, 2010, 06:11 AM

Getting stuck with crappy, significantly weaker, nation in a RAND game is not fun. You know from the starters the game holds 0 promise for you. It's not fun the first time it happens, less fun the 2nd and gets worse for me - having had a bad luck streak with RAND nation assignment. When skill level is homogeneous there's no way to compensate for a weak nation. The nation selection element needs to be addressed.

As for diplomacy leading to excessive dog piling why not attack the bad angle instead of diplo as a whole?- like, say, Prohibit more than 2 nations attacking a given nation at a time.

vfb · #3 February 24th, 2010, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WraithLord

Getting stuck with crappy, significantly weaker, nation in a RAND game is not fun. You know from the starters the game holds 0 promise for you. It's not fun the first time it happens, less fun the 2nd and gets worse for me - having had a bad luck streak with RAND nation assignment. When skill level is homogeneous there's no way to compensate for a weak nation. The nation selection element needs to be addressed.

Or you just have fun with what you're dealt, do what you can, and when you die, you die happy.

Quote:

As for diplomacy leading to excessive dog piling why not attack the bad angle instead of diplo as a whole?- like, say, Prohibit more than 2 nations attacking a given nation at a time.

I don't think this is going to work. What if three nations want to attack? They have a lottery? How do they even know they are all going to war that month? How do you even know when a war is starting? You'd have to declare all wars in advance. What if secretly allied nations collude to have a 'pretend' war, preventing themselves from being attacked? What if your only avenue of expansion is through a nation that is already at war with 2 other nations?

WraithLord · #4 February 24th, 2010, 09:25 AM

"Or you just have fun with what you're dealt, do what you can, and when you die, you die happy."

Hey, I've no problem with that but it's not fun. Fun in a TBS game is derived from ability to nurture your investment (nation, state, space colony etc) and see it evolve. It's ok to fight wars, it's ok to lose them but it's not ok to have significantly less chance to see your nation grow from the start. A RAND game played with a weak nation sees you getting pounded from early on and usually from many directions. The problem is not to die happy it's how you suffer all the way there. Usually I end up wishing my nation's death would come all the sooner since at that state my turns seem futile. I keep playing out of obligation for the other players not to create a power vacuum.

"
I don't think this is going to work. What if three nations want to attack? They have a lottery? How do they even know they are all going to war that month? How do you even know when a war is starting? You'd have to declare all wars in advance. What if secretly allied nations collude to have a 'pretend' war, preventing themselves from being attacked? What if your only avenue of expansion is through a nation that is already at war with 2 other nations?
"
Yeah, the idea is not good. However I still think that the direction for a remedy is not to totally ban diplo but rather find a way to limit it's abuse. I'll give it more thought, maybe I'll come up with a better suggestion.

namad · #5 February 28th, 2010, 10:08 AM

I had an idea once where wars could not be joined...
this is how it would work...

no one may attack anyone period.

If you would like to attack someone else all you have to do is post publicly a declaration of war. you may then attack them as much as you want.

Anyone who wishes to ally with you against that nation may do so. A full turn later though that war get's locked in on your side. That means no one else can attack the other player until either the other player wins the war, gets you to agree to a truce, or gains his own ally. (once a truce is joined the status goes back to how it was before... or some such)

If you have been attacked by another player you may call upon allies to assist you... however you again may only declare allies on one specific turn. (just like starting a war) these allies may then attack the enemy allied group and vica versa until the war is won or is over or is halted publicly...

so under these rules no one can ever sneak attack anyone and no one can ever dogpile onto someone.... (you can still make a sneak attack in that the person will only ever have one turn of warning... which is still a lot less than 3turns everyone is getting nowadays)

This will also prevent people from just randomly joining a war as it continues... however you can still create a large (or small) alliances designed to dogpile others but you have to do it well in advance... (things could be changed so that all wars are duels that may only be 1on1 but that would be stupid and boring and totally remove diplomacy all together)

under these rules there would be no point at all in a nap3 because all nations everywhere always have a nap1... so the main diplomatic agreements to secure would be ally-ship in publicly posted wars which were nearly locked into position for quite some time...

It sounds like it might work but I am sure anyone with half a brain could pick a thousand holes into it

WraithLord · #6 February 28th, 2010, 12:59 PM

KISS

The solution needs to be simple to understand and follow or else it won't work.

After giving this more thought I now hold that RAND concept is sound at it's core. The main issues are:
a- subs, specifically newb subs in a vets RAND. The situation is all too familiar. The vet player is replaced by a newb. His nation, whether a strong empire or a humble kingdom is either quickly devoured or is extremely passive. Both ends unfairly impact the game result.
b- nation selection should be semi random.

namad · #7 March 1st, 2010, 10:55 AM

i don't think my idea is inherently complex... as far as i can tell it could be implemented in such a fashion that it would be SIMPLER than the current system...

if anything the only flaw I see in the system i proposed is that it is far too simple in every way by disallowing nearly everything and turning diplomacy into a boolean operation

i'm just inarticulate and long winded ... you know what might work well? RAND games with HALF the total player count.... smaller games end faster

PashaDawg · #8 March 2nd, 2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WraithLord

KISS

The solution needs to be simple to understand and follow or else it won't work.

After giving this more thought I now hold that RAND concept is sound at it's core. The main issues are:
a- subs, specifically newb subs in a vets RAND. The situation is all too familiar. The vet player is replaced by a newb. His nation, whether a strong empire or a humble kingdom is either quickly devoured or is extremely passive. Both ends unfairly impact the game result.
b- nation selection should be semi random.

Good points, me thinks.

Burnsaber · #9 February 24th, 2010, 05:11 PM

I really don't play RND games at all, but this discussion caught my eye.

DonCorazon;

Ditto very much on all of your points. I basically just skip all games with over 12 players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WraithLord

Getting stuck with crappy, significantly weaker, nation in a RAND game is not fun. You know from the starters the game holds 0 promise for you. It's not fun the first time it happens, less fun the 2nd and gets worse for me - having had a bad luck streak with RAND nation assignment. When skill level is homogeneous there's no way to compensate for a weak nation. The nation selection element needs to be addressed.

Abot random nation selection, Gregstrom made a fine game sometime ago with quite good random nation selection. It went like this;

Each player, upon sign up, selects a nation. Once all players have selected a nation, the players are assigned RND nations from all of the nations selected by players.

Basically you likely end up with all weak nations or all strong nations depending on the first pick, but with healthy variation.