MP game - "Pantheons" Started

[The_Tauren13]

low indys would be good imo

i think the whole point of this allied game would be that as soon as you see an enemy, you are at war and have no reason not to fight, but making multiple teams would change this, thus, imo, defeating the point of the game

[The Panther]

I thought about this idea of more teams of fewer people.

But even if there is only three teams, you are back to the FFA concept. In other words, you are not automatically at war with a nearby enemy because of the possiblity of the third team swooping in after a big fight and taking the spoils from both sides. You said it yourself, it is more like the usual way of playing the game.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Pickles idea was to try something different, more of a rush type concept. Hence, only two teams.

[The Panther]

just a thought (everything that follows is just IMHO):
In reguards to Indy strength, I've tried to think of an arguement for why we should have Indy3: Because we have to rely on military support from other nations, it would be better if there was Indy3, cos this would allow everyone to move into position where they can join a war. cos people far away from a battle front would need to forge a path around friendly kingdoms. I think we should encourage that. Especially since it would then be possible to cut off reinforcements from a particular battle front. This encourages team members to get involved (rather then justify staying out of the war because of their location. I just think that using Indy as terrain isn't as important in a team game cos you're gonna be hit from multiple directions anyways.. you can't rely on Indy to create choke points. And IMHO its much more important to have each team member control the right provinces in order to be effective at striking in unison. This means lots of provinces being used as supply lines (which might even be exchanged between team members).

This is what I was thinking when I suggested low indys, but you put it FAR more eloquently, Lex.

Putting 6 or 7 indys just because it is 'normal' does not make any sense to me. After all, this idea of allied play is much different than 'normal'. The idea is to fight your enemy, not the neutrals. I would think you need to clear them out quickly to establish communications with your partners.


The main purpose of high neutrals is because the basic game is an FFA and you can frequently use the indys to help your situation.

[Aku]

My vote is for indy 3 because we already know who our enemies already are so we can fight them once we see them.

Two teams want to go at it as soon as possible and indy 3 will fill this nicely.

[Aku]

Also about the nation selection. It may be best with two captains taking turns choosing nations that way each team can try to form a theme they want or balance out their teams playstyle.

[Pickles]

My vote is for indy 3 because we already know who our enemies already are so we can fight them once we see them.

Two teams want to go at it as soon as possible and indy 3 will fill this nicely.

I think Indep 3 will actually have the opposite effect as you will feel compelled to get them all.

But we will see - well we will see how one indep strength works out.

12 players is more than I really wanted & will surely be unwieldy but we will see how it all plays. I think if I do this again I would make sure I had arranged one team in toto then challenge people to get together another team.

hmm irrelevant musing
wibble

Pickles

[Agrajag]

Two more things:
1. I think that just for the sake of order, it would be a nice idea if everyone added their team number (and perhaps their shrapnel name) to their pretender name, for easy identification and to avoid confusions.
2. If you go random - Ermor (and if we intend to use inland - Atlantis and R`lyeh as well) shuold be Banned, Im pretty sure there's no one who wants to play default Ermor and without any deathscales whatsoever (or being forced to play with a really low dominion to avoid friendly-scale-fire.

[Sheap]

Though I do not plan to play in the game, I don't think deathscales should be Banned, just the population-killing themes. There are many nations (Abysia comes to mind of course, but they are not the only ones) that can do well with a death scale of 1 or 2 points, which even if it spreads a little, isn't really going to be the end of the world. It's really the destructive dominions and not the death scale that hurts.

[Pickles]

First more comment

Thanks to Sheap for offering to host & Zen for offering his map choosing talents I am sure we will take you both up on this. (& I was being a bit ingenuous* & relying on the Boards good nature posting like that).

I think I may have sounded a bit harsh to JJ Colorado - a bit of trash talk in there. My apologies I respect your opinion it is just not mine.

I am pretty conservative & so want a game as close as possible to the usual MP so Indep 6 & no extra rules like Zens Emperor suggestion. If this game works then we can try variations (or maybe if it doesn't work!)

I think a wrap round map has gained popular approval and a slightly larger size than my initial thoughts seems OK. In a game like this we will probably start fighting one another before clearing all the indeps unlike standard MP so the map is kind of shrunk. Also I like tough indeps as they form "terrain" that will change over the course of the game I am open to being converted though.

With the themes I do not see the need to ban death themes unles nations are given out randomly in which case banning Ermor is probably a good idea (noone has ever played BE AFAIK). Looks like the water themes are out too as the map will be pretty dry.

Pickles

*or maybe disingenuous I can never figure out which is which.

[Pickles]

There are a number of areas that need finalising

Choosing nations
I think there are two proposals - I am discounting FFA!

A) Random allocation to teams then free allocation to players within teams. (corolary Ermor Banned)
B) Teams alternating picks - to be picked probably by a captain but with the others input

I can live with either so choose to abstain.
I prefer the idea of choosing but it could be hard work! While random could shaft you with unbalanced sides. With 5 nations random is less likely to give an unfair match up plus there is more likelyhood of finding a nation you like.

Independent Strength

A) Low 3
B) High 7

Low will mean they get cleared quickly so allowing concentration on the other players. High means they form terrain & fit the usual MP experience.

I vote for high as this will canalise people and give more decisions - clear them or not which with L3 is not a decision. Plus low will "grow" the map size.

Score graphs
I did not mention these before (forgot)
A) On
B) Off

I do not care either way. The information is less relevant as you cannot do anything about it - you are already picking on your opponents.

Please expresss your preferences

Pickles