MP game - "Pantheons" Started - Page 5

The_Tauren13 · #41 August 14th, 2004, 01:22 PM

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 · #42 August 14th, 2004, 01:23 PM

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 · #43 August 14th, 2004, 01:32 PM

Quote:

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 · #44 August 14th, 2004, 02:12 PM

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 · #45 August 14th, 2004, 02:15 PM

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.

Lex · #46 August 14th, 2004, 02:51 PM

k, two teams then!

in order to speed up the process (if it wasn't moving fast enough already) I'd suggest having a third-party select random races for each player. Then if players don't like the race they've been randomly assigned, they can trade with their teammates. This will get the ball rolling for game hosting and start the converstations between team members reguarding playstyles and experience.

I'm all for creating "themed" teams, but we might be here till next week figuring out, post by post, what races to pick that complement our team (especially since we probably aren't experts with all the races). I personally am looking forward to playing a new race. My only request is that we decide the races soon, and then give a day to research/experiment first before uploading a pretender (so our choices are smart ones).

Pickles · #47 August 14th, 2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

k, two teams then!

in order to speed up the process (if it wasn't moving fast enough already) I'd suggest having a third-party select random races for each player. Then if players don't like the race they've been randomly assigned, they can trade with their teammates. This will get the ball rolling for game hosting and start the converstations between team members reguarding playstyles and experience.

I'm all for creating "themed" teams, but we might be here till next week figuring out, post by post, what races to pick that complement our team (especially since we probably aren't experts with all the races). I personally am looking forward to playing a new race. My only request is that we decide the races soon, and then give a day to research/experiment first before uploading a pretender (so our choices are smart ones).

Yeah 2 teams for the reasons the Panther noted.

Random allocation to player was not an option - random allocation to teams looks favourite on current voting followed by intra team haggling.

I am just not in that much of a hurry to start to need to rush things. I will give it until about 12.00 GMT tomorrow to allow those people who posted in the middle of my night a chance to comment then we can probably set the thing up. Still seem pretty precipitous to me & there is still no rush to start until everyone is happy with their nation & pretender.

Pickles

Pickles · #48 August 14th, 2004, 03:31 PM

Indeps Nations Graphs

Pickles 7 R Y
Aku 3 C -
Boron 7 C Y
Panther 3 R Y
Tauren 3 R -
????

Agrajag 7 R Y
Alexti 7 R Y
Cheezeninja3 R -
Yvelina
Lex 3 R -
Tuidjy?

Nations c= choose R = random
Here is how I believe everyone thinks - means has not expressed an opinion but has posted.
Until the others reply we cannot be sure but it looks like Random nations & graphs with indeps still to be decided. I give em 15 more hours or so.
(note I have come off the fence)

Pickles

Pickles · #49 August 14th, 2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

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

alexti · #50 August 14th, 2004, 04:01 PM

I prefer 2 sets of nations to be defined by a neutral party.Then each team distributing the nations between its players as it sees fit. Graphs are ok, considering that with only 2 teams they won't cause any usual problems. Not sure if indy strength will make much difference, though I probably prefer 6 or 7.