Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[Squirrelloid]

Diplomacy in a machiavellian game is the art of convincing your rivals that what is to your advantage is also to their advantage. A rival who believes that what you want is also to his advantage will likely do what you want or something close to it. I had an NAP last over 50 turns in Water Total War because we both understood that violating it would take us both out of the game. (I think he jumped the gun slightly in ending it, but I shall enjoy watching him die =) ).

Also, feel free to whine about being stabbed, just don't expect anyone to care. But stabbing will put a blackmark on that nation's reputation (at least in game) and other nations may be more wary about dealing with them in the future. Nations who honor their agreements will find other nations are more likely to form and honor agreements with them.

[LupusFatalis]

I'll play.

[Septimius Severus]

It is good to see so many NvV alumni signing up for this game, they are a fine group of players.

Rdonj, have all other settings been decided upon via the earlier concept thread? Map type (i.e. random with placed starts, pre-existing with placed starts, or custom with placed starts), nation selection process, etc?

It will be interesting to see who will prevail in this mixed FFA type game. Likely, one of the overlords will have a good chance with their perks and being helmed by an experienced player. Geography may play a role in deciding which players choose to work together initially but as it is FFA there can be only one winner.

If I am needed to reach a recruitment goal and no one else can be found you may count me in as a normal nation. Otherwise should someone need a sub I am likewise available, especially for any of my former teammates. Best of luck.

[rdonj]

Lumen, lupus, welcome aboard. I am adding you to the list now.

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

It is good to see so many NvV alumni signing up for this game, they are a fine group of players.

Rdonj, have all other settings been decided upon via the earlier concept thread? Map type (i.e. random with placed starts, pre-existing with placed starts, or custom with placed starts), nation selection process, etc?

It will be interesting to see who will prevail in this mixed FFA type game. Likely, one of the overlords will have a good chance with their perks and being helmed by an experienced player. Geography may play a role in deciding which players choose to work together initially but as it is FFA there can be only one winner.

If I am needed to reach a recruitment goal and no one else can be found you may count me in as a normal nation. Otherwise should someone need a sub I am likewise available, especially for any of my former teammates. Best of luck.

Unless something in this thread specifically states otherwise yeah, all the settings from the concept thread apply.

Thanks for offering to fill in if I need another player. I won't know until saturday but it's good to know I have the option.



Atul:
1) UWGIM is a mod burnsaber made to make being underwater and attacking underwater nations more interesting. It reduces the research and gem costs of water breathing items and I believe air breathing items, adds a few new spells, and makes some other minor adjustments. You might want to check it out. Link. As it so happens, QM is also adding portions of this to the next version of CBM along with unique gem gens. If the new version of CBM comes out before the game is started we will just use CBM to make creating the mod slightly less complicated for me.
2) Good question. I think my answer is that you can, but only if that player is within one capitol of winning. However this answer may change when I next visit IRC if the regulars there can convince me this is wrong.
3) Domkilling is perfectly acceptable, yes.
4) Overlord nations can begin picking as soon as I declare the signup phase over on saturday. That will probably be within two hours of this time. As for stealthy preachers, I am thinking for simplicity's sake, I will just wait and see what you guys pick. And if some of you have stealthy preachers and others don't, I am considering adding a generic, recruitable stealthy preacher to those that don't have one. If there is too much of a problem with this I will probably just ban stealth preach nations from being overlords for simplicity's sake.

[atul]

Originally Posted by rdonj

2) Good question. I think my answer is that you can, but only if that player is within one capitol of winning. However this answer may change when I next visit IRC if the regulars there can convince me this is wrong.

So, in other words, achieving the alternative winning condition (other than being last one standing, i.e. 10 capitals for 3 turns) for overlords would require either domkilling or harvesting winning neutrals and/or other domkilling overlords?

I'm fine with any way, just want to make clear that everyone's playing by the same rules.

Hm, gotta admit though, if other neutrals' capitol's were free game there probably wouldn't be much incentive for neutrals to fight each other.

EDIT: and the question about what means taking the capital still stands. But thanks for all clarifications.

[LumenPlacidum]

Sure, I'll join this as a normal nation.

[Jarkko]

Interesting to read the comments about importance of diplomacy in NAP and non-NAP enviroment. I've played mostly multiplayer games (where communication and diplomacy are of utter importance) outside these forums, and the whole concept of NAP's has been slightly alien to me. My conclusion has been this: Enforced NAP's kill the diplomacy in the game. I think diplomacy and communicating is *much* more important in games where NAP's are not enforced.

Although, I've played exactly one game where NAP's were accrding to the game rules binding; it is the exact one game where I have had the least diplomacy and contact with the other players. You sign a NAP, after that you don't have to give a hoot of what the other thinks; if he intends to attack you, he will have to inform you ages before. NAP games are the lazy mans games and not very different from single play, if you ask me

Where NAP's are not binding you actually have to *play* the game as a multiplayer game: You have to be in contact with the other players, you have to rely more on intelligence gathered (both in game and outside the game in communications with the other players. Pacts and alliances are much more fluid, becaue you know you can talk yourself out from sticky situations if you just are able to prove the alternative to your destruction is the better one (while in NAP games that is not true; how can you can you possibly take advantage of a lucrative situation where your NAP partner is doing something silly and still expect you to still let him get to a winning position?).

Without enforced NAP's you have to build yourself a reputation. Do you want to be viewed as a windmill, who rotates allegiances all the time? Do you want to be viewed as a bonehead, rigidly following agreed plans even if they mean your own destruction? Or do you want to be viewed as a reliable character who still are not totally against the idea of changing direction if the situation so demands?

Of course each of us have our own views on not only the other players, but on our selves too. It would be interesting to know how close your own views on self correlates with the views others have on you

[atul]

I pretty much agree with Jarkko on NAPs. I too feel they are detrimental to the game in general, but since they're a industry standard there's a little to do.

Just a few questions about the game, if I may.

1) "if water nations are included UWGIM"

UWGIM?

2) Overlord nations "can't take neutral capitals". Can an overlord take a former capital from a third party if the original nation is dead? (i.e. neutral Marignon kills neutral Ermor and takes his capital. Can overlord Jotunheim come and take province Ermor from Marignon now?) And does taking mean storming the castle, or does moving into province to siege count also?

3) Domkilling allowed, I assume?

4) If overlord nations are to choose first, when are we choosing and with which nations are available? No blood sacrificing nations, sure, but there's either/or mention about stealthy preachers. How and when is that decided?

Thanks.

[Squirrelloid]

Re: taking normal capitols - eventually a normal is going to get killed by another normal. Pushing your dominion onto that territory and taking *that* capitol shouldn't be nearly as difficult on pushing your dominion onto an active player's capitol.

Similarly, Overlords should be encouraged to try to kill off the other overlords as the preferred victory condition - which current game rules definitely do encourage.

[atul]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Re: taking normal capitols - eventually a normal is going to get killed by another normal. Pushing your dominion onto that territory and taking *that* capitol shouldn't be nearly as difficult on pushing your dominion onto an active player's capitol.

Yeah, that was what I was asking, whether taking those neutral-conquered capitals is kosher. And apparently as rules currently stand, it isn't allowed either. If I understood rdonj's answer correctly.