Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

no

0 (0%)

No

0 (0%)

noooo?

5 (38.5%)

YES!!!

8 (61.5%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

Okay, you WILL have to vote again. Had to reset the vote

[Jilladilla]

We played that map for game 426. It's not a bad map, although it's worth noting that all the water provinces are connected; so there's quite a bit of territory that our water nation will have pretty much uncontested.

We have two - Agartha is fully amphibian.

EA Agartha is the one that's fully amphibious, this is MA. I'm not fully amphibian.

Still, I like the map. It gets my vote.

[etgfrog]

Would it be too late to join in as ulm? I'm sort of expecting I'll end up losing horribly in the first war which put me off about requesting to join earlier.

[Marmaduke]

Statistically, we are going to lose. But, to win, you must play!   

I'm glad an 8th player showed up. If OP can decide about the map and create the llamaserver game soon (before about Thursday 8AM GMT), I may be able to upload a pretender before I get started on the fake-sword-wielding. After that, I will be back online only on Sunday evening.

What are you going to play, Akhier?

[Il Palazzo]

Welcome etgfrog.

I just wanted to note that if the Ragnarok Comes map wins the popular vote, we'll be able to accommodate at least two more players.
So it'd be perhaps better to wait until Sunday before we proceed.

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

Map will be Ragnarok Comes as it can't not win. Also I noticed that in round 27 they used Worthy Heros 5.5 and it looks like there is now a Worthy Heros 5.9, was there a valid reason for this or should we just use the newest version?

Also we have one person for waiting for potentially more and one for start now. Do anyone else have an opinion on this?

[AlStar]

Map will be Ragnarok Comes as it can't not win. Also I noticed that in round 27 they used Worthy Heros 5.5 and it looks like there is now a Worthy Heros 5.9, was there a valid reason for this or should we just use the newest version?

Also we have one person for waiting for potentially more and one for start now. Do anyone else have an opinion on this?

Looks like 5.9 just came out in June, so that'd be why they didn't use it. It looks like it's mostly bug fixes.

I'd say leave it open till Sunday and start with whatever we've got by then - it's taken this long to get 8, I'd rather not wait even longer to get two more.

[Jilladilla]

Yup, just start when everyone gets back from there things and is ready for this. If we happen to pick up another person or two or none at all then so be it.

[Il Palazzo]

In the meantime, I'd like to discuss thrones.

I like how in round 27 you basically need just 3 thrones to win, if you go for the highest-scoring ones. It makes it less tedious, more anxiety-inducing, and leaves options if you're far away from lvl 3 thrones. I actually feel like the game might end by somebody winning rather than general malaise and absenteeism.

So, I'd like to propose something like 3 thrones of each lvl and 7(9?) points to win. If we go with 7 victory pts, it needs 2 best thrones and at least one other; or all lvl 2 thrones and at least one other.

[AlStar]

I feel like the thrones are set a bit too low in 427 (although 426 definitely went too far in the other direction) - I especially feel that the 3-point thrones make things too swingy and liable to finish the game before anyone even realizes that the game's in danger of ending.

If you're going to do a low throne limit like we've got in 427, I think you should only have level 2 thrones as the highest ones.

[Il Palazzo]

I feel like the thrones are set a bit too low in 427 (although 426 definitely went too far in the other direction) - I especially feel that the 3-point thrones make things too swingy and liable to finish the game before anyone even realizes that the game's in danger of ending.

If you're going to do a low throne limit like we've got in 427, I think you should only have level 2 thrones as the highest ones.

Ok, let me ask you this: how many games have you been in where the game ended by throne victory? Because I've been in exactly zero.

Low limit keeps everyone on their toes, and if you don't know if somebody's at risk of winning - it's your own fault for neglecting your scouting network.

[AlStar]

Ok, let me ask you this: how many games have you been in where the game ended by throne victory? Because I've been in exactly zero.

Low limit keeps everyone on their toes, and if you don't know if somebody's at risk of winning - it's your own fault for neglecting your scouting network.

Well, given that I just recently won 426 with a throne victory (a hard fought one, at the end there, too!) I'll say there's at least the one.

All I'm saying is that with 7 points needed and there being 3-point thrones around, all someone has to do to win is get even just a single 2-point throne, then angle things so that their pretender grabs a 2-pointer on the same turn their prophet grabs a 3-pointer (or a 1-point throne and grab both 3-pointers, although that's less likely) and boom - game over. Scouts can't tell you how many points any given throne is worth, so unless you already know what a certain throne is, you have no real way to be able to tell if someone is sitting on a 1-point throne (like say, Pestilence) or has a 3-point ace-in-the-hole ready to sweep the game.

[Il Palazzo]

Ok, let me ask you this: how many games have you been in where the game ended by throne victory? Because I've been in exactly zero.

Low limit keeps everyone on their toes, and if you don't know if somebody's at risk of winning - it's your own fault for neglecting your scouting network.

Well, given that I just recently won 426 with a throne victory (a hard fought one, at the end there, too!) I'll say there's at least the one.

And you did not find this hard-won victory preferable to the game just petering out, maybe with a half-arsed concession issued by remaining players?

Scouts can't tell you how many points any given throne is worth, so unless you already know what a certain throne is, you have no real way to be able to tell if someone is sitting on a 1-point throne (like say, Pestilence) or has a 3-point ace-in-the-hole ready to sweep the game.

If you've ever wondered what is the utility of scrying spells - this would be one of the reasons.

[E. Albright]

Well, given that I just recently won 426 with a throne victory (a hard fought one, at the end there, too!) I'll say there's at least the one.

And you did not find this hard-won victory preferable to the game just petering out, maybe with a half-arsed concession issued by remaining players?

4.26 was 18/6/0, with 16/30 for victory. It was necessary to have sustained momentum to win; there would not have been a hard-fought victory if less than a handful of thrones were all that were needed. Being able to with with 3 or 4 provinces encourages throne blitzing.

For all its other possible faults, the Dom4 meta on B12 is usually fairly stubborn in playing on.

[A part of me is tempted to sign up, but for once I'm showing a modicum of restraint...]

[ThtblovesDF]

I agree with Il Palazzo, as my past game hosting have shown, I love the idea of lvl 3 thrones. There Armys are always so big that you can't even think about taking them withhin the first 10 turns-ish and even then you are left with very little to defend them - I'd dare wager that it's impossible to take 3 lvl 3 thrones in 10 turns especially.

Just to be silly, I suggest 6x lvl 3 Thrones, with 3 (9 points) needed to win.

They do focus the action nicly.