Global War (use new thread pls)

[moderation]

I agree that no death magic for good seems right thematically. Unless you feel the ends justify the means, in which case I question your goodness level!

I've been thinking, what if the Evil players had Traitors, that is secretly Neutral players within their midst? The Traitors would have to betray the Evil players at some point. However I guess you would need to include some kind of condition to make sure that they don't wait until Good is dead before acting. Tell me if this is simply too complicated though.

This would essentially make it a find the assassin game for them and you could tweak the number of traitors for balance. Not exactly sure if this will work, but I'm just fishing around for balancing ideas.

[moderation]

Tuidjy said:
I'm out. Not gonna work. If you let Evil communicate, Good is doomed.

An evil player must be retarded to attack any other evil nation or
a neutral nation that is not attacking their alliance. By the same
token they must come to each other's aid or let the organized good
nations kill them one by one.

As long as you allows them to say "I'm in province #X, good nation #Y is NW"
you have given them 99% of the communication needed to stomp Good. You may as
well allow trade and balance teams.

Okay, here's another crazy idea. Now I'm thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Suppose you only allow 6 or 7 of the 8 Evil players to win? The idea being that there are a limited number of victory points for Evil players and that they must compete amongst themselves for them. Just another variation on the infighting among Evil idea. I'll be quiet now so that we don't drift too much.

[CUnknown]

Hehe, cool idea moderation.. you could actually count the capitals of good and neutral as victory points for evil. There will only be 6 or 7 of them (depending on how many we decide).

[IndyPendant]

I think the Secret Enemy thing would cover that. I mean, think about it: if one evil player gets eliminated early, then another evil player has met one of its conditions. But which one is it?

The six evil players remaining that have *not* met the kill-their-target condition are going to try to make sure the Good Team is not killed--at least, not until they kill their target, because they lose if that happens!

Meanwhile, the seventh evil player, the one whose enemy is dead, is going to have to play a bit carefully to keep from giving away that he's the safe one...all the while concentrating on killing the Good Alliance before any other evil players are eliminated. Perhaps he would even be forced to come to the aid of another evil player about to be eliminated, because he would then have to 'share' his win! --All the while wondering "Am I saving the guy that wants me dead?"

It's just too perfect. ; )

[Hoplosternum]

IndyPendant said:
I think the Secret Enemy thing would cover that. I mean, think about it: if one evil player gets eliminated early, then another evil player has met one of its conditions. But which one is it?

The six evil players remaining that have *not* met the kill-their-target condition are going to try to make sure the Good Team is not killed--at least, not until they kill their target, because they lose if that happens!

Meanwhile, the seventh evil player, the one whose enemy is dead, is going to have to play a bit carefully to keep from giving away that he's the safe one...all the while concentrating on killing the Good Alliance before any other evil players are eliminated. Perhaps he would even be forced to come to the aid of another evil player about to be eliminated, because he would then have to 'share' his win! --All the while wondering "Am I saving the guy that wants me dead?"

It's just too perfect. ; )

Yes this is exactly what makes the Secret enemies idea work and 'balances' the game. All the Evils can't just knock out good unless they have fullfilled their victory condition or are close to doing so. Even if no evil players have been knocked out there is no point in a weaker evil player helping the other evils overcome good if he is not next to his secret enemy at least.

Also about balance - this is a bit of an experiment and its also meant to involve a bit more RP than the usual MP game. For those people who are super competitive or real MinMaxers then just about every other game offered on the board might be better for you? If you want allies play Good. If you want Tartarians & dabble in blood play evil. If it turns out to be a bit unbalanced and the goods go down early (or win easily) we will all know it for next time.

[Cerlin]

yes Im looking forward to fun and the experiment. Winning is not my objective. I really wish more games were like this, and im thinking up some ideas for moderation's post in the general one too. These kinds of games may be a little more work, but they are a lot more fun!

[Ylvali]

I´m in it for the roleplay too, winning is secondary. I really like the secret enemy idea.

[Rathar]

This sounds like fun. I would like to join the game and I don't really care what faction/nation.

[Fal]

are you full? if not I'd like to join as well. Neutral if possible.

[CUnknown]

We still have Evil slots available.

Rathar and Fal, you are both Evil if that is okay.