Team Game Starting - Page 8

msew · #71 March 6th, 2005, 09:51 PM

If you are the last one out you must double turn. So complete your turn. The turn generates you immediately do another turn.

msew · #72 March 6th, 2005, 10:35 PM

Also:

Please save any interesting battles and such that you have.

Both arco and vans have saved off the major battles they have had so far.

It is nice to be able to go back and look at the world and other people's nations and combat set ups after the game is over.

So please save them off.

To save them off: Just copy the game folder: GameOfThrees_v2

and name it like: GameOfThrees_v2_turn_#_nation (e.g. GameOfThrees_v2_turn_15_ulm)

Ironhawk · #73 March 7th, 2005, 08:42 PM

Wow! I thought this game was going to have more buildup, but instead its just been all-out warfare from turn 9-10 on. My apologies for not double-turning last night. I was just too spent to do another turn. Probably I will be last out when I get home from work and I will double-turn then.

As to Ulm crying about being "abaondoned by the Vans" all I have to say is: best laid plans of mice & men, etc, etc. Stop *****ing cause I am the only thing standing b/w Man/Abysia and you.

msew · #74 March 8th, 2005, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Ironhawk said:
Stop *****ing cause I am the only thing standing b/w Man/Abysia and you.

I retort: self preservation

if it were not for that my lands would have been burnt to the ground by the invaders!

msew · #75 March 8th, 2005, 09:16 PM

okie seems team B is conceding.

At least that is what I got from the IRC conversation and that no one has done their turns. or what not.

So are we up for another team game?

Same rules?

The map this time will be 100-110 provinces. That will stop the cramped capital placement and will stop massive fighting from turn 9 onwards.

Conflicts over expansion provinces should occur around turn 15 or so.

With a bigger map that will occur. Further when that occurs and one side wins, they are not just a hop skip and a jump away from the opposition's capital.

In short: 80 provinces is too small for 6 people in a team game setting.

~msew

Arralen · #76 March 9th, 2005, 03:03 AM

I'm interested playing on Parganos v2 (still), but only if teams aren't pre-made. I hate being pressed to use the kitten/feeder strategy.

Maybe my modified Chandrea Map (with or without the Steel Ovens) would be even better: It's wraparound and has lots of "ferry connections" between the islands, so hiding a week "feeder" nation behind a strong one will not work ...

Ironhawk · #77 March 9th, 2005, 05:35 PM

Your end goal seems to be a team game without team-integrated nation designs, right? If that is the case then you should just request that as a house rule. Cause you can follow an integrated strategy even without knowing your teammates or map in advance, its just more risky to do so.

Make a house rule that is like... honestly I just dont even know how to phrase it. Cause it is such a grey area. If I play a nation and choose to take no earth magic whatsoever in the hopes that one of my allies will have it and be able to feed me earth items, is that a feeder strategy? What level of limitations are you wanting to place on team interaction?

quantum_mechani · #78 March 9th, 2005, 06:12 PM

I think I would draw the line at regular gold shipments. Disaster relief or specific one time gifts are one thing, but regular gold transfer as part of a wider strategy should be outlawed (not sure on the wording myself).

Ironhawk · #79 March 9th, 2005, 06:43 PM

Yeah, its *very* hard to phrase. Because I think its just a fact of life that allies will help each other. Be it with gold, gems, items, etc. That is the purpose of the alliance. I mean, if I was playing in a team game and one of my allies was in very intense combat I would certainly funnel them as much gold/gems/items as I could budget. Cause if they die then the chance of my team losing goes way up.

msew · #80 March 10th, 2005, 04:23 AM

I think the high level goal that people want is for people to not make a team where there is really only one nation "fighting" and the other two nations are feeding that "fighter" nation.

So these are what people are saying:

a) no alchemist pretender
b) play on a wrapping map
c) no expressly making a nation that is hopeless without getting an influx of cash from others
d) no expressly making a nation that is hopeless without getting an influx of items from others
e) no expressly making a nation that is hopeless without getting massive protection from other nations (i.e. the Ulm BF that never made a single army unit and only did blood research)

Looking at the above points it really seams like: b is the only thing needed.

If you can't easily protect your "feeder" nations then they are going to get worked. In the first team game: EVERY round we were alchemizing most every gem we had to fund the vanheim war effort. We were able to do that because neither of the "feeder" nations were in danger of being attacked.

I was playing Ulm BF. My turns took maybe 1-2 minutes. I did: Alchemize for cash, buy a blood mage, set him to research, send cash to vans and/or arco now and again. Once I started getting my blood hunting up and running, I added: "move slaves to a lab" to that list.

As for the notion of utterly random teams and utterly random nations, making complimentary nation designs seems a pretty core aspect of the team game. So the purely random is flawed.

Just like in a "normal" dom2 game you see the list of players playing and you say: Oh okie there are 3 earth nations. I am not taking earth on my pretender because I should be able to trade for a hammer and other earth items.

Not taking earth on your pretender in a team game because you know your team mate has E3 already seems pretty much the same.

I think one of the CORE issues to discuss is: Should you be able to have one of your team mate be the item whore?

Ulm BF can NOT make items with any effeciency while TC is an item making machine. Why would I spend any research points in construction when I know my team mate is going to be spending?

I guess with all that said: I don't really understand where the desire to not have feeding nations exist comes from. What I think people REALLY want is: lack of untouchable feeding nations.

Who cares if Team A chooses to have a feeding nation. If that nation's only job is to feed and is militarily weak then ATTACK it and destroy it.

A wrappable map where there is no "one battle front" forces every nation to be able to defend themselves in some way. And removes the untouchable feeder nations.