Overlords - Game Thread. (playing) - Page 33

rdonj · #1 December 10th, 2009, 09:47 PM

Rule change and continuing, it looks like. Only one person has stated that they dislike the change, but they were also willing to play with it. I think it would be better for the sake of the game to just continue at this point.

namad · #2 December 10th, 2009, 10:58 PM

so this turn will have no more delays and will host on saturday? can you rdonj post the rule changes specifically?

also i have an idea for rule changes for future games... how about we keep the overlords dom restricted and just make some insane rule like normals can't take dom score higher than 5-6?

rdonj · #3 December 11th, 2009, 12:27 AM

I have no intention of adding any more delays to the current turn. Next turn (37)is the first of the 4 turns until overlords can attack capitols at will. That will be the only change. I can put this in the OP if you like.

That is one of the suggestions I liked, as it would be simple and would do a lot to enhance the offensive capabilites of overlords. So it is a definite possibility for the next game.

Hoplosternum · #4 December 11th, 2009, 09:18 PM

I am glad we are lifting the Capital attack (I didn't even realise it was a rule after the first 10 turns!) so we can continue and play this one out.

I agree that changes should be made for the next game. I am not sure of the Vassal idea, it would be a massive change. Especially if there was no way for a normal to win without it. Surely it would mean that the Overlord would cut a deal with a couple of normals and kill off the remainder? This game has suffered from gang ups vs some of the Overlords (but I think the map was partially responsible for that, a wrap around would have made that far less desireable) but at least they were defensively strong. A normal being ganged up on by an Overlord and a couple of neighbouring normals hardly seems a recipe for fun. I like allied victory condition options though. But there is a danger that they spark brief early diplomacy - then we just have fixed adhoc teams for the rest of the game (and those who are not 'in' the teams are simply picked off).

I like the idea that the Overlords get more attack options, especially as the game progresses. Being able to attack neutrals without dominion seems a good change for a start. But the attack standard idea seems too cheap to me. Something else is needed to help the Overlords but I am not sure that is quite it. If the next game restricted the normals Dom strength then it allows a lot more fruitful dom pushing by the Overlords. Coupled with the ability to actually attack capitals and take indies without their dom there would make a big difference.

I think even with the existing rules the next game would play out very differently. I know I have changed my ideas on what I should have done. I certainly saw the Overlords as more of a threat than an opportunity but that was before I saw how the game played out. I don't think we should use these rules again as they are too restrictive on the Overlords. But I don't think the game format needs to be completely changed. Players would adapt their play a lot in a second game.

LupusFatalis · #5 December 11th, 2009, 09:46 PM

@Hoplo -- Well put! If only your diplomatic messages to me were so well formed, I might have taken them seriously. Though it did provide me with a great deal of amusement, so either way, thanks!

Squirrelloid · #6 December 11th, 2009, 09:49 PM

If Overlord attack options are not expandable by use of resources, I will not play an Overlord again. Lategame wars involve attacking many provinces simultaneously. Making the Overlord pay for the privilege against a normal is fine. Making it so the Overlord cannot even accomplish such a feat is not ok.

There's a reason i proposed giving so many vassal slots to Overlords, so that normals were the thing in short supply, not vassal slots.

LupusFatalis · #7 December 11th, 2009, 10:25 PM

If we don't have enough overlords next game I'd be happy to give an it a whirl if the independent/neutral dominion change is put into place (whether or not any further benefits are given do them). Though, I admit, I do not meet the qualifications for "experienced" it seems like it would be both a challenge and a blast.

rdonj · #8 December 11th, 2009, 10:52 PM

The independent/neutral change is almost definitely going to be in. I favor it, everyone who's commented has favored it. It's probably in.

I like the idea of expanding attack options, personally. How exactly this is going to be handled is what I am not sure of yet. I like squirrel's banner idea, but if I used it I would put a limit as to how many banner armies you can have.

Squirrelloid · #9 December 11th, 2009, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdonj

The independent/neutral change is almost definitely going to be in. I favor it, everyone who's commented has favored it. It's probably in.

I like the idea of expanding attack options, personally. How exactly this is going to be handled is what I am not sure of yet. I like squirrel's banner idea, but if I used it I would put a limit as to how many banner armies you can have.

The whole point to the banners is they aren't limited. But you do have diminishing returns - the more you have, the lower the marginal value of the *next* one. So there's some logical point at which you stop making them. And every one is some number of gems you aren't spending on other uses. I don't see a need for a hard limit.

namad · #10 December 12th, 2009, 12:53 AM

how about every 10turns of the game you get +1max attack armies per turn?

that way early on when you are three times as big as your neighbors you are severely limited but in the end game when things boil down equally between finalists the limit is high?

also if the overlords have no restrictions on attacking indies early in the game and start with so many starting provinces i fear that they might just kill all the normals by turn 20 if not turn 12? what would be done to prevent this? perhaps if the overlords have no restriction on attacks against indies they should also not get so many starting provinces? maybe they should get 3forts with labs and temples in them and 0extra provinces between?

just rambling... i think also maybe we need a new thread? discuss ideas about overlords2 in another thread so people can still come to this thread for clear and concise and easy to find information about the current actual game?