Dominions 3 Middle Age "GROGHAMMER" game [running]

Started by JasonPratt, April 03, 2013, 10:16:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

elitesix

As we are about to enter endgame soon, I think now is the last chance to reconsider whether we want shared alliance victory. Once endgame starts, I think decisions will be made based on the type of victory conditions allowed that would make it too unfair to change.

I'm ok with a vote, or maybe it's already a consensus that we should only play one nation takes all.

Does anyone still even want a shared victory alliance condition? Or shall we just say only one nation can win if it holds half of the capitals (rounding down) + 1 for three turns?

JasonPratt

TBH, I'm feeling a bit overloaded on Dom3 at the moment anyway. I'd like to spend my bits of free time playing something else for a while. And my corner of the world is quite covered in mutually assured peace of various sorts.

So if it's time for a shared victory, I have no complaints: I'm probably in the bloc. ;)

If it's time for the allies to consider splitting up into subfactions or whatever, then Atlantis is almost certainly going to win, as E6 can hit hard at a lot of players without us being able to hit back very feasibly. Someone else may want to deal with that challenge, but I don't.
ICEBREAKER THESIS CHRONOLOGY! -- Victor Suvorov's Stalin Grand Strategy theory, in lots and lots of chronological order...
Dawn of Armageddon -- narrative AAR for Dawn of War: Soulstorm: Ultimate Apocalypse
Survive Harder! -- Two season narrative AAR, an Amazon Blood Bowl career.
PanzOrc Corpz Generals -- Fantasy Wars narrative AAR, half a combined campaign.
Khazâd du-bekâr! -- narrative dwarf AAR for LotR BfME2 RotWK campaign.
RobO Q Campaign Generator -- archived classic CMBB/CMAK tool!

elitesix

#1067
If you post for a sub in desura, I guarantee you'd get one in less than three days.

I'd offer to admin, but I have a bar exam coming up on July 30th. Maybe someone else can step in and volunteer.

Huw the Poo

Quote from: JasonPratt on July 11, 2013, 10:50:42 AM

So if it's time for a shared victory, I have no complaints

It's nowhere near time for a shared victory; I think Elitesix was just saying that we should decide before the game progresses much further whether we want to allow them.

elitesix

Quote from: Huw the Poo on July 11, 2013, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: JasonPratt on July 11, 2013, 10:50:42 AM

So if it's time for a shared victory, I have no complaints

It's nowhere near time for a shared victory; I think Elitesix was just saying that we should decide before the game progresses much further whether we want to allow them.

This.

JasonPratt

Quote from: Huw the Poo on July 11, 2013, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: JasonPratt on July 11, 2013, 10:50:42 AM

So if it's time for a shared victory, I have no complaints

It's nowhere near time for a shared victory; I think Elitesix was just saying that we should decide before the game progresses much further whether we want to allow them.

I understood that, but if we vote to allow them (we already voted to allow them long ago before the game started, but I take this to mean deciding whether we'll end the game with them or go for the split that would presumably happen eventually), there's a huge bloc in the west which will very likely insta-win, or might as well for all practical purposes. Unless an eastern bloc sets up quickly to oppose. (Vanheim isn't in the bloc but Ermor is; but Vanheim/Ubercat is about to go on vacation for a couple of weeks at the end of the month and is looking for a sub in his games, here and elsewhere.)


I would post on Desra, E6, but I don't have an account there. Maybe I should post here... (But if someone else wants to post on Desra pointing back here, that's perfectly okay!)
ICEBREAKER THESIS CHRONOLOGY! -- Victor Suvorov's Stalin Grand Strategy theory, in lots and lots of chronological order...
Dawn of Armageddon -- narrative AAR for Dawn of War: Soulstorm: Ultimate Apocalypse
Survive Harder! -- Two season narrative AAR, an Amazon Blood Bowl career.
PanzOrc Corpz Generals -- Fantasy Wars narrative AAR, half a combined campaign.
Khazâd du-bekâr! -- narrative dwarf AAR for LotR BfME2 RotWK campaign.
RobO Q Campaign Generator -- archived classic CMBB/CMAK tool!

elitesix

#1071
If you are using a shared alliance victory standard with this victory condition: "Victory Conditions: Whoever reaches 14 victory points first." from the OP, winning is determinate based on capitals.

I'm not in a shared victory alliance, but based on intelligence ingame and from diplomacy, I know your bloc can't mathematically have 14 capitals. I know this by simply adding up the capitals of the people I know are outside your bloc.

I'll post on desura for you.

Desura post: http://www.desura.com/games/dominions-3-the-awakening/forum/thread/sub-needed-for-groghammer

Oh, and I think we need to add some sense into the shared alliance victory. No secret alliances. Your alliance has to be publically declared at least 10 turns prior to being recognized (so if you want to keep it secret, plan on announcing it exactly 10 turns before you have 14 capitals.) Otherwise, the game just doesn't make sense. This change is effectively immediately, barring any consensus against it. It's a necessity for enjoyment of the game.

I'm also still open to revert to a normal win condition, but if we stay with SVA, we have to add a notice provision to prevent the game from ending anti-climatically in a secret SVA win.

mkivcs

#1072
" there's a huge bloc in the west which will very likely insta-win, or might as well for all practical purposes. Unless an eastern bloc sets up quickly to oppose. (Vanheim isn't in the bloc but Ermor is; but Vanheim/Ubercat is about to go on vacation for a couple of weeks at the end of the month and is looking for a sub in his games, here and elsewhere.)"



Umm If Ermor is part of a massive bloc then someone must have forgotten to tell me about it!

JasonPratt

#1073
Well, that depends on how exactly the various alliances end up being practically interpreted.

You (Elite6) have an ongoing non-aggression alliance recognizing the independence of how many players? I can't recall if our early alliance was posted publicly or not, but I agree it's important not to have secret alliances for this purpose. So let's make a tally.

I'm in an actual SVA with T'ien Chi (where we're teaming up directly to fight joint wars), and I'm in an indeterminate non-aggression pact with you and Eiru, where we share information and maybe help one another as we feel like it but aren't obligated to team up on someone else. Jotunheim is about to go on vacation and has set up a temporary non-aggression pact with TC and I for a few weeks; unsure where that will go when he comes back, but until then we're basically allies. (I think -- I'm a bit unsure how that will work out, but for meta-game chivalry purposes TC and I have agreed not to attack Joten while he's under stewardship so long as his steward doesn't attack us.)

I know you had a mutual independence pact with Vanheim (and I think Eiru if I recall correctly, the same pact), which was basically the same thing. Vanheim went AI (partly over the diplomacy thing), so they aren't an issue anymore, but Eriu definitely is.

You have a mutual defense pact with Ermor, where if someone attacks one of you that results in a war with both of you, but you and Ermor aren't necessarily working together to expand.

Those are the ones I know about; T'ien Ch'i has a number of NAP3s but those don't count. Same is true for Eiru. I know for a fact T'ien Ch'i has no other serious alliances, not sure about Eiru, not sure about you.


Now, unless we decide to break those alliances (by mutual agreement or otherwise), what is the result? A shared peace has broken out on the western side of the continent. How many of the VPs are currently held by all of us together? (I don't know, I'm at the office for a few more minutes.)

More to the point, so long as we don't break our alliances, we might as well be a contiguous bloc operating against nations eastward, precisely because by default we have agreed not to operate against each other. For all practical purposes we might as well be in a mutual SVA (though a prickly and not entirely cooperative one. Rather like real life. ;) )

If we decide not to break up and fight one another, are we going to team up to fight the eastern nations together, or just kind of sit around developing ourselves? And even if it's the latter, will the eastern nations bloc up, or do any of them feel strong enough to oppose us?

If not, it doesn't matter whether we have the 14 VPs collectively, we still effectively win. Yay game, that's a diplomatic victory built by the players.

But that's why it's time to work out how the game will go from here.


(Edited to fix my west/east references, since I am retarded.)
ICEBREAKER THESIS CHRONOLOGY! -- Victor Suvorov's Stalin Grand Strategy theory, in lots and lots of chronological order...
Dawn of Armageddon -- narrative AAR for Dawn of War: Soulstorm: Ultimate Apocalypse
Survive Harder! -- Two season narrative AAR, an Amazon Blood Bowl career.
PanzOrc Corpz Generals -- Fantasy Wars narrative AAR, half a combined campaign.
Khazâd du-bekâr! -- narrative dwarf AAR for LotR BfME2 RotWK campaign.
RobO Q Campaign Generator -- archived classic CMBB/CMAK tool!

JasonPratt

Also, thanks for posting at Desura; I posted at Wargamer, too.
ICEBREAKER THESIS CHRONOLOGY! -- Victor Suvorov's Stalin Grand Strategy theory, in lots and lots of chronological order...
Dawn of Armageddon -- narrative AAR for Dawn of War: Soulstorm: Ultimate Apocalypse
Survive Harder! -- Two season narrative AAR, an Amazon Blood Bowl career.
PanzOrc Corpz Generals -- Fantasy Wars narrative AAR, half a combined campaign.
Khazâd du-bekâr! -- narrative dwarf AAR for LotR BfME2 RotWK campaign.
RobO Q Campaign Generator -- archived classic CMBB/CMAK tool!


elitesix

#1076
Quote
I can't recall if our early alliance was posted publicly or not, but I agree it's important not to have secret alliances for this purpose. So let's make a tally.

We never had an alliance. We only have a NAP-3 with borders divided up and we haven't messaged each other for like 2 months. I did say that my relationship to the previous Ulm was very close to becoming an alliance.

QuoteYou (Elite6) have an ongoing non-aggression alliance recognizing the independence of how many players? I can't recall if our early alliance was posted publicly or not, but I agree it's important not to have secret alliances for this purpose. So let's make a tally.

I'm in an actual SVA with T'ien Chi (where we're teaming up directly to fight joint wars), and I'm in an indeterminate non-aggression pact with you and Eiru, where we share information and maybe help one another as we feel like it but aren't obligated to team up on someone else.

Bold is wrong. I think the last time I messaged you or Eriu was months ago. I only am in one defensive pact, with Ermor.

Quote
I know you had a mutual independence pact with Vanheim (and I think Eiru if I recall correctly, the same pact), which was basically the same thing. Vanheim went AI (partly over the diplomacy thing), so they aren't an issue anymore, but Eriu definitely is.

I have a mutual defense pact with Eriu? This is news to me!

Quote
If we decide not to break up and fight one another, are we going to team up to fight the eastern nations together, or just kind of sit around developing ourselves? And even if it's the latter, will the eastern nations bloc up, or do any of them feel strong enough to oppose us?

I'm constantly at war. I have been at peace maybe like 8-9 turns in this entire game. First Oceania, then Shinuyama. When you sub'ed in, I encouraged you to continue your war against T'ien Chi or to go to war against Machaka. If you want to sit around and develop your nation, that's up to you, but that is a pretty bland way to play dominions 3.

War rages the continent. Your information, as the above inaccuracies would indicate, is inaccurate. As Ermor said earlier, your information is all wrong man.

Going back to the SVA Issue: No one has posted in support of SVA yet. Let's wait and hear back, but unless there are objections let's turn this to a standard 1 nation takes all victory on 7-14-12 12:00 GMT.

Huw the Poo

For the record, my stance hasn't changed.  I recognise that temporary alliances are beneficial with regard to early-mid game expansion, and preventing disappointing early exits.  This is about everyone having a fair crack of the whip...an enjoyable game in other words.

But I think that a shared alliance victory involving several nations is a bit silly and goes against the spirit of the game.  I fully expect any ally of mine to eventually stab me in the back - whether that's done gallantly or not is up to them.

The game is designed for a single victor, and the manual also says as much.

That said, I recognise that the rules for this particular game do not state that there can be only one winner so I won't complain if everyone votes for a shared alliance victory.  But for what it's worth, I favour the single victor outcome.

elitesix

Quote from: undercovergeek on July 11, 2013, 05:42:13 PM
Slow hand clap

Undercovergeek, I'm sorry about what happened to you this game. Since you joined Aprilshowers before this game with a different definition of newbie, I didn't realize you were a sp newbie and I wouldn't have asked others to attack you.

My apologies mate. 

undercovergeek

Lol, its not that - although I appreciate it - my comment was simply to indicate that with all the secret alliances, secret secret ones, public secret ones, public public, mutual defences pacts in secret and public any poor sod that joined this newbie game to learn how to cast fireballs or forge a hammer is well and truly fkd - the game looks to be all over the place and that many devious plots have been plotted the devious plotters don't frikking know which side they're on  :P