Print

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

Early

2 (22.2%)

Mid

5 (55.6%)

Late

2 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[Il Palazzo]

I'm going to watch this, though I'm not sure at this point if I'd be able to join.

Another interesting one might be a sort of Sea-Caelum, with ducks, pelicans, and cormorants instead of the eagles, raptors, etc.

And blood sacrificing Carp. Then the ermor-esque sceletal carp. And giant carp.

As for underwater concepts, the first idea that pops to mind is turtle-people.  Considering the squishy nature of the existing underwater races, they would be pretty unique.  High protection, low speed, maybe earth magic instead of water.  Differing troups in underwater forts and land forts (sea turtles and land turtles...the land ones would be nasty [snapping turtle-men, extra beak attack]).

There are already Kappas in the game.

[E. Albright]

And blood sacrificing Carp. Then the ermor-esque sceletal carp. And giant carp.

Atlantis already has Deep Carp...

[a1s]

who has these "kappas"?

Also we could have a civilization of people who just decided to live underwater (sort of like captain Nemo, but with magic).
they could have all sorts of submarines and be good at beaching (as under their kit, they are surface dwellers). If we can make anti-rejuvenation work (so units gain a small amount of fatigue rather than lose it) we could have frogman troops who get tired and eventually fall unconscious (hell, even die) as they run out of oxygen. Their national spells would be to fashion water breath giving constructs with fire/earth magics.

[E. Albright]

Kappas are Jomon. Always summonable, or recruitable for MA. They can also exist as rather rare independents.

As far as anti-rejuv goes, I think you'd want to look at Clockwork Horrors. 0 encumbrance, but 15 exhaustion (IOW, -15 rejuv) so they wind down. I've never seen them in a long enough battle for that to get into the deadly range, but in principle it should. Give the divers a land form with neutral rejuv, and a sea form with some amount of negative rejuv.

Also: I assume, of course, when you speak of a "civilization of people" deciding to live undersea, you mean Hoburgs.

[Il Palazzo]

Also: I assume, of course, when you speak of a "civilization of people" deciding to live undersea, you mean Hoburgs.

This is the best idea I've ever heard(or read).

[EuchreJack]

Kappas are Jomon. Always summonable, or recruitable for MA. They can also exist as rather rare independents.

As far as anti-rejuv goes, I think you'd want to look at Clockwork Horrors. 0 encumbrance, but 15 exhaustion (IOW, -15 rejuv) so they wind down. I've never seen them in a long enough battle for that to get into the deadly range, but in principle it should. Give the divers a land form with neutral rejuv, and a sea form with some amount of negative rejuv.

Also: I assume, of course, when you speak of a "civilization of people" deciding to live undersea, you mean Hoburgs.

The turtle race I proposed is significantly different than the Jomon Kappas.  Well, perhaps just a bit more civilized, and no encumberance loss on land.  Speaking of which, the Kappas also have encumberance loss on land, at least according to the flavor text.

Underwater Hoburgs...hm...must really love seafood.

[Belac]

Barring any new water races being created before January, I propose:

Small game (6-8 players)
Map suitable for 2-3 water races (Edited Pangaean Earth?  Europe?)
Moderately difficult research (3/4 normal speed?)
Moderately strong indies (8?)

[EuchreJack]

Additional proposals:
Small-medium map. (General rule of thumb is 10 provinces per person)

Some map where the capital isn't renamed after the race (so we can hide our capitals).

Questions:
Do we want default victory conditions, or special ones?  Personally, I'm partial to Victory Points or provinces.  I'd suggest either be set so a person need 51% of the victory condition to win, at least.

I'm ok with the proposed settings.  What age do we want, so I can finalize my race selection?

[Belac]

Renaming can be on. 

For victory conditions, I'd say holding half the capitals (rounded down)for 3 turns, or concession.

[EuchreJack]

Hm, how do you make that forced?  Best as I can tell, neither are a programmable victory condition.  And unless the program announces victory, I'd argue there's no victory.  I, for one, would not admit defeat unless forced (or bored...or fustrated...or...).

[a1s]

look, it's a game: the victory condition is what you say it is. There is a long and rich history of people ignoring the rules of game in favor of what they think to be better rules (this includes computer games too, especially FPSes and MMOs).
Plus when playing the game depends heavily on getting the next turn sent to you, it's extra hard to continue playing after the other people have left...

edit: That is not to say that you should be forced to adopt that specific victory rule, just that if your issue is with the execution (rather than the idea itself), it's a little misplaced. I, for one, like the 51% of territory rule better.

[EuchreJack]

Good point, I guess my bigger gripe is with the proposed victory conditions.  Holding half the capitals doesn't really mean much.  Some civilizations don't even have capital-only units, several have capital-only units that are weak, and most can win even with their capital in enemy hands most of the game.

Concession should always be allowed, for obvious reasons.  Even if a player only participates for the first turn, then wants to give up, there is no way we'll be able to stop them.  Replace, maybe, but even something that seems so simple as replacement may be difficult, as a good part of the game is won or lost at pretender creation.  Certainly, pretender creation does determine effective strategies, and stepping into someone else's pretender is a difficult thing.

However, I do like the idea of the victory conditions being programmed, because it insures that the rules of victory don't change mid-game.  It's unlikely to happen, but having the game force defeat on players will avoid hard feelings and arguments of improper victory conditions.

Surrender is a totally different thing.  Surrender is an individual decision based on the current turn and subsequent turns.

[Belac]

I've looked over at the games at Illwinter's boards, and things like control of capitals are often used as VCs there.  While some empires can survive without their capitals, in practice conquering someone's capital means conquering at least half their empire, and holding it against their attacks while being ganged up on by the other players requires a truly dominant board position. 

I just don't want to play out the conquest of the board by an empire that clearly outmatches all its rivals combined.  So 'control of half the capitals for extended periods' is a good proxy for 'dominant board position,' and if all other remaining players want to surrender, that should be an option too.

Simple VC control can be achieved by a one-turn, very reversible push; holding them for several turns shows that you can't be resisted.

[Belac]

How about the Bering map?  7 players, 5 land 2 water.

[EuchreJack]

Considering my intent to play a civilization that doesn't rely on capital-only units, I'm against this victory condition.  I'm very tempted to play a civilization that has no capital-only units, and treating the capital as just another fort.  Requiring my capital to remain out of enemy hands for more than 3 turns (and considering it won't be heavily guarded, its capture is likely) will seriously hamper my abilities.

Controlling 4 capitals for 3 turns just doesn't sound like a "truly dominant board position".  Course, I'm a veteran of the LCS boards, so the idea of gurrilla warfare intruges me to no end.

The other problem is that it requires players to constantly inform others of the status of their fortress.

Just let it be said I really hate this victory condition, and hope some respect for fellow players will be had.