Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[coobe]

can i still join this game ?

[Mithras]

If there's still space I'd like to take part as a normal nation.

[Squirrelloid]

Well, if you have more overlord qualified players than needed, some of them could possibly be convinced to play normal nations? The real problem would be if you didn't get enough overlords.

[TwoBits]

This sounds fun, or at least unusual, so I'd like to join too!

BTW, what are the diplomacy parameters to be in this kind of game?

[rdonj]

Welcome aboard, twobits I am confused though, what do you mean by diplomacy parameters?

Squirrel - I think we're doing okay on the overlord to normal ratio right now. Mostly veteran players aren't signing up for the game though, so it may be hard to get a full game with 6 overlords. I think we're probably not going past 5.

Atul - Thanks for being flexible. For the moment I will mark you down as an overlord. We'll see if we need to change things around later.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by rdonj

Welcome aboard, twobits I am confused though, what do you mean by diplomacy parameters?

Just wondering if there were any restrictions on diplomacy, like in a RAND game or something. Or whether you're anticipating groups of "normals" to try to gang up on selected "overlords", or that "overlords" might collect one or more "normal" 'minor allies' or such.

[rdonj]

Oh, no, there will be no restrictions on diplomacy. Overlords and normals may feel free to interact as they wish. As overlords will control the bulk of the gem income in the game, I strongly suspect that there will be both groups of normals who band together to try to bring them down, and normals who do business with the overlords to get things they need. Neither of those outcomes is undesirable from my point of view. And I agree with squirrel, even another overlord would have trouble taking out an overlord without normal intervention. And to do it while not being killed by whatever normals were around him? That would take some doing without effective diplomacy.

Also, I think diplomacy in this game should be machiavellian (backstabbing allowed), thematically speaking. The overlords are the devil, and if you make a deal with the devil, you have to expect he is going to betray you in the end. Besides if diplomacy was not machiavellian it could lead to scenarios where a player could take victory virtually unopposed due to standing NAPs, which would be easier than normal due to the relatively easy victory conditions of this game.

Hopefully this is not too controversial of a decision, unfortunately I forgot to mention it in the first post. Bad form I suppose, I always forget to mention diplomacy.

[Squirrelloid]

I think diplomacy is essential to this style of game. Defeating overlords is going to require normal cooperation.

[Squirrelloid]

IMHO, diplomacy is always allowed and machiavellian unless specified otherwise.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

IMHO, diplomacy is always allowed and machiavellian unless specified otherwise.

That's what I figured, but with a lot of games going the RAND route these days, I just wanted to check And yes, let's make sure it's Machiavellian - I hate having my hands tied by rules-lawyers!

So maybe that should be made clear, if that's the way we want it - deal breaking and back-stabbing are perfectly fine, should perhaps be positively encouraged, and should have absolutely no out-game consequences (so what happens in Overlords stays in Overlords ).