MP: GotM: Gardens of the Moon, Game Over: WL wins.

[WraithLord]

good point.

And while I'm at it: Happy weekend guys, rest well and prepare for the epic battles next week will bring

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

BTW, I'm not sure I'm that fond of this setting. It ends up generating bookkeeping hassle and everyone quickly learns where all the capitals are anyway. so what's the point?

Well as a big fan of these settings myself, seeing as how I use them in all my newbie games, I thought I'd better defend them (even though I'm not in this game).

The settings themselves are fine, but there were two big errors made with this game.


1 - The map (if it's the default Asia Twist one) had known pre-set starting locations. One of the main ideas about not VP marking the capitals is that it helps stop rush nations bee-lining for the nearest crown, and forces them to actually find the capital of their nearest neighbour. (Since rush nations really shouldn't be given any extra help to crush others inside of 10 turns). This might only result in a few extra turns of delay for the rush nation, but given the likely lack of scouts in the first few turns, this could be critical. As anyone who has ever had to defend a rush knows all too well how much of a difference an extra few turns can be.

So for this 'rush-hindering feature' of these settings to work, you need to have a 3rd party arrange the start locations, and not give the final .map file used for the game to the players (as only the llamaserver needs the .map file). For those playing in the No Wankers Allowed game (or any of my newbie games), this is what I have done in these games (since I'm the non-playing admin of all these games). Of course, finding a 3rd party to arrange starting locations for hidden capitals is another matter. But one is needed for this 'rush-hindering feature' to work (unless you go with random starts, which are nowhere near as bad as some players make out. But that is just IMO of course)


2 - For some baffling reason, you are keeping a running record of the number of capitals that players currently own. Thereby punishing the players in-game who have bothered to put time, effort and resources into running constant surveillance operations on the capitals of the world, so that they always know when one changes hands, and as such if someone if getting too close to the winning line.

But doing this simply rewards the lazy players who can't be bothered to operate a proper scout network, or invest the gems into a Stone Sphere piggy-bank. As by effectively giving everyone back a VP graph in the OP, nobody has to be worried about someone suddenly capturing a load of capitals they haven't got a constant eye on, because they will now be given this info in the OP if this happens. (of course a big factor here is also a player's own view regarding 'hidden / stealth' wins, due to the other players being unaware that one player was close to winning. I think they're great personally, and a natural penalty for those players who don't pay attention to the larger picture. But others hate them for obvious reasons)


Of course, everyone has their own tastes and preferences for game settings, but as I said, being a fan of the ones in this game, I feel you are not really seeing the benefit of them because of the two mistakes that I have just outlined. Either of which on their own can seriously de-value these settings, but together almost certainly make the basic idea of "not marking capitals with VP's" pretty much pointless.

So I'd ask anyone to please not knock these settings unless you've actually tried them within the context of their proper set-up, and when they are WAD which is not the case here unfortunately (which is in no way a criticism of Wraithlord the admin, as a lot of game settings require both trial and error and experience in order to find out what is required to get the best out of them. And I've admined a lot of games)


Sorry for butting-in (I think it's a habit I really do have to stop )


ps. Just want to say thanks to WL and Ex for all the diplo posturing and wind-blowing on the thread. I had started to lose a little faith recently in no-diplo games, since my last few had been spoiled by a few factors that are less evident in diplo games. But seeing you two bash it out on the thread has starkly reminded me why I hate diplomacy so very very much, and as such all the reasons why no-diplo games simply rule.

So thanks for the reminder, and long live no diplomacy games!!!!

[WraithLord]

#1 is a good point if indeed turn 10 rushes are common. My personal experience doesn't suggest that this be the case.

#2 is also a good point. I put it for the players to vote and most wanted to make the list known. Please take into acct that we do play with graphs on, and VP victory condition, so the approach in this game was to feed the players with graphs info from the starters.

I played in two non graphs MP games and they were horrible b/c the assumption that all players would scout vigilantly did not hold water. What happened is that a nation would long run away with the game with scarce anyone taking note until it's too late. You could play with LA Ermor or R'lyeh and they'd become unstoppable but still most players would be unaware. It doesn't help that one or two players catch on as it's neigh impossible to convince the others. Note that I'm sure that the mix of players does make a difference here.

I think perhaps a # of provinces VC might make more sense for graphs on diplo games. Re. non graphs: I personally dislike them since they add a lot of work and allow nations to run away with the game. That said, I'd be willing to give it a retry, either as an admin or player or both.

I do agree that I absolutely like RAND game more, but then and again it's nice to enter the mud wrestling arena of diplo games and practice the tongue & finger muscles

[Herode]

Hey, I foocking KNEW you loved that

[Hoplosternum]

In this game indies were at 9 so really early rushes were not as likely.

I can see why people get jaded with the manipulation, lying, recrimination and simple time that needs to be taken on diplomacy But it is voluntary. And I suspect it helps reduce drop outs. If you are well behind in a game it is easy to become disconnected to the game and this can leads to drop outs. Especially when such a player, after dozens of quick 'at peace' turns, is suddenly faced with attacks by far more powerful opponents and has to take a long time over his last few.

Scouting depends. How many indie scout provinces do you find? Can you build stone spheres? Do you have cheap researcher options at your none capital forts?

I think Calahan's ideal settings might work well for the players who are doing well in the game. But if you aren't it makes you blind and mute. Not so good. Of course my and Calahan's preferences probably reflect that he is a good player who is used to winning or challenging for the win and I am often, well, not

[Aethyr]

I find that I like both settings (diplo/non diplo) well enough as they provide a change of pace. What frustrates me sometimes with non diplo games is the inablity to trade. Usually this is not a game changer, but it has been my misfortune to be extremely unlucky in my site searching in several non diplo games, and I felt that if I just could have worked a few trades it.would.have.made.a.huge.difference.

[Executor]

Calahan is on point about VP, tho I think I was the one who suggested this setup and I had no idea there indeed where those spots that marked capitals on this map at the time.

But still, I was the only one opposed to keeping track of current VP, as I do too think that's free info for others that have invested far lesser resources.

Personally, I prefer no score graph games BECAUSE one can run away with the win.
Even more so no diplo games, partially because I hate diplo, therefor don't bother with it much and often get stuck on the losing team.
Isn't it nice when you have a nice lead and everyone is too afraid to attack you but can't call for help as they usually do?

As for rushers, I believe they are just as likely if not even more so with higher indies. Rush nations have no problem with high indies while others will have a harder time beating them.
I myself tried to rush Ulm as soon as I realized caps were marked (tho I did not know it was Ulm at the time), and was at his capital around turn 7-8 already. Those sacred chopping infantry of Ulm made me pull back and deal.
And still I managed to invade Pang around turn 15-ish. And than there were TC and Cealum... and now Ermor and Mictlan... wow

Anyway, the reason people do run away with the win is because there are always only a hand full of nations that play aggressively enough to gain a lead. After that, it's as much as eliminating those few nations of similar power to win the game.
The rest, which is ofter the majority of players wait to long to make war.

I personally feel that you have to be out of your first war by turn 30 or so. Than it's back to research/build phase.
The sooner you attack a nation the better. There really is no point in "preparing" as with every passing turn your enemy will be preparing as well and anticipating, or planning, an attack more and more. So the only logical thing to do is hit someone before they hit you. If you manage to invade someone by turn 15 they'll always be caught with their pants down, will need time to regroup while you take that time to raid some provinces and ensure a gold lead, which in the end is all you need to rush someone, even if a non bless nation, just brute force.

[WraithLord]

And did you never experience an early rush that ended in bitter early war that no side could win???
In diplo game you have the option to negotiate peace and look 4 an easier target but in non-diplo you're stuck and most likely will lose the game.

I'd add to your suggestion that it pays to be aggressive when the expected war is not going to be fair. When you have a big advantage.

Naturally, to each his own but I personally like graphs on games with or w/o diplo. I think I'll more or less stick to those in the future

[Executor]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

And did you never experience an early rush that ended in bitter early war that no side could win???

Nope.

Interesting turn I must say. Flaming slingers a? Huh, I really expected something else with those gems sadly.
That was sure a lot of blood vines I lost this turn. And who would have expected AP, multiple attack, high strength blood vines wouldn't smack off mistform from those damn shinyas...

Btw, Ermor, it was fun watching 15 shadow vestals all trying to kill a paralyzed werewolf.

And really, Rlyeh?
You chose to attack me? I can't even begin to comprehend what a ridiculous choose that is.

[WraithLord]

"Btw, Ermor, it was fun watching 15 shadow vestals all trying to kill a paralyzed werewolf. "
Well, they're great to begin with, with gift of health and your (apparent) dom push they are neigh invisible in melee.
I got lucky in this battle but your ally has scored some hits on me