Global War (upgraded to 3.20) - Page 6

IndyPendant · #1 September 21st, 2008, 12:46 PM

Well, I know that that was kind of what I was doing. Waiting to see who slaughters who of the good and evil. I would be happy to let this game go, in all honesty, but I have two personal reasons for wanting to do so: I realized literally a few weeks after I started this game that I hate Dom3 endgame, and I was staring down an extended one here. And I also have finally gotten my fill of Dom3, and need a break; after over a year and a half of playing, that is a personal record for me, out of an entire lifetime, with *any* game! I realize however that those opinions aren't shared by the majority of players, and I don't want to derail the thread. Just explaining why I'm voting 'end it'.

As to a different setup, I think the initial rules were set up quite well. There were far too many players though. If Good can make it to the end-game as a coalition, then they pretty much have it won. Even in this game, Good advertised making some critically bad decisions both in Pretender design and during the early game; if that wasn't just don't-kill-us propaganda (which I half-suspect it was), then even with all those critical errors, they are still a major power even now! Without those critical errors, we would probably now be checking if anyone wants to continue in the face of Team Good's clear victory. ; )

I think a game like this is best set up with 10 players: 5 Evil, 2 Neutral, 3 Good. Spread the Team Good out a bit, but make sure there is no more than one other player between any two of them on the map. That way they can come to each other's aid if necessary, their early expansion isn't crippled by slamming up against other Good, and they can team up on other nations if they like. And with only three in Team Good, it no longer becomes so *absolutely critical* that Evil destroy them early game, so Evil need not go after them exclusively, and Neutral may not be able to turtle up in such safety.

I did enjoy this game though, don't get me wrong. Learned a lot, had some fun, and there are a few things I would like to mention I was doing if we do officially decide to end it.

--IndyPendant.

DonCorazon · #2 September 22nd, 2008, 02:20 PM

I'd vote to end this game in favor of anyone who wants to claim victory.

archaeolept · #3 September 23rd, 2008, 12:48 PM

well, I've submitted my turn. If people are tired of the game and want to end it, that's fine with me. I was only supposed to be a short-term sub ;p

Kheldron · #4 September 23rd, 2008, 04:48 PM

Well I'd be really sad to end this game like this after so many turns.

archaeolept · #5 September 23rd, 2008, 05:03 PM

well, you neutrals should get a war going then

CUnknown · #6 September 23rd, 2008, 05:08 PM

QM, what is your opinion? The 3 Neutral votes are the ones who really matter. I say we let them decide it. I'll keep playing if people want, but I'm happy to end it as well.

Pangea says:"Keep going."
Ryleh says: "Let's end it."
Shinuyama, what is your opinion? You have the deciding vote among the Neutrals it looks like.

If we end it, the Neutrals would win as a group, I think. It's hard to pick which Neutral has a bigger edge at this point, without looking at your positions.

quantum_mechani · #7 September 23rd, 2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CUnknown

QM, what is your opinion? The 3 Neutral votes are the ones who really matter. I say we let them decide it. I'll keep playing if people want, but I'm happy to end it as well.

Pangea says:"Keep going."
Ryleh says: "Let's end it."
Shinuyama, what is your opinion? You have the deciding vote among the Neutrals it looks like.

If we end it, the Neutrals would win as a group, I think. It's hard to pick which Neutral has a bigger edge at this point, without looking at your positions.

I suppose my vote is to continue, but I'll qualify that. I think you have a good idea of letting somebody impartial look at the positions and see if it looks like there is any overwhelming edge.

DonCorazon · #8 September 23rd, 2008, 06:02 PM

How close are we goods to killing Abysia (TNN's scouts have all been wiped out over the years)? That's all we have left right? Why don't we just kamikazee him and see if we can rid the world of evil once and for all. If the neutrals want to stand by and turtle that's fine with me.

I just want to see some action in this game, or retire.

archaeolept · #9 September 23rd, 2008, 06:09 PM

we're a long long way from conquering abysia. if the neutrals weren't to interfere, over 20 turns i would think... he's still more powerful than I am, for sure, and it would take a long time to reduce his castles.

Victory conditions are not met, so there are no winners. I think the game does show that there are issues with the victory conditions as exist.

Zeldor · #10 September 23rd, 2008, 11:39 PM

Huh, good to see that Pythium survived

Too bad my plan for good team really didn't get approved.

CUnknown:

Nah, I think there were many many flaws in rules and game design. Idea was good, but some mistakes were made, including:
- water nation
- newbies allowed
- bad map
- bad win conditions
- no encouragement to attack neutrals or for neutrals to get fighting [until the end, where they have to stop good or evil from winning]
- hosting was not great, next one should be on llamaserver