Rock the Cradle--Noob Only! (RUNNING)

[earwicker7]

Originally Posted by CthulhuDreams

This would be game three for me.

Can I join as Ryleh? It's my favorite nation for reasons that should be very obvious.

I would vote to enable score graphs.. it's pretty useful for knowing what the heck is going down, which will be more important in a newbie game.

Edit: I'm not in favour of 'binding' treaties. What does binding even mean? You're going to kick the offender out of the game?

You're in as Ryleh!

As far as binding treaties go, I was just thinking of role-playing, where it's a world where a leader's word is considered important, and treaties are only broken after months of convincing the populace your decision is just. I have no problem with "Do what you want" if that's the general consensus, I've just heard that a lot of veterans say it's not a bad idea to have binding treaties (again, you can break them, just not without three turns notice). How does everyone else feel?

I'm pretty set on ditching the graphs, though. I just don't like them.

[CthulhuDreams]

So.. what are you going to do if someone breaks it without 3 turns notice? Kick them out of the game?

That would, to be, seem pretty weird.

Anyway, from an RP history has loads of examples where people went in for the sneaky backstab. Heck, WWII has an example where both sides were planning on backstabbing each other despite a NAP.

To me, a monomaniacal dictator RP would be a weird one to exclude.

[earwicker7]

Originally Posted by CthulhuDreams

So.. what are you going to do if someone breaks it without 3 turns notice? Kick them out of the game?

That would, to be, seem pretty weird.

Anyway, from an RP history has loads of examples where people went in for the sneaky backstab. Heck, WWII has an example where both sides were planning on backstabbing each other despite a NAP.

To me, a monomaniacal dictator RP would be a weird one to exclude.

I'd send out a message (in-game, and in-character) that Player X can't be trusted, and that person would have a hard time making deals with anyone else. I wouldn't kick them out... it's just an honor system similar to what is recommended in some threads I've seen. I'm not dead-set on this, it's just a suggestion.

[Nosantee]

Oh! Also, will renaming be enabled? It makes organizing mages/commanders alot simpler but sometimes people don't like allowing renaming for some reason.

If it's up to vote I vote for renaming. Also for diplomacy, it's part of the game.

[earwicker7]

Originally Posted by Nosantee

Oh! Also, will renaming be enabled? It makes organizing mages/commanders alot simpler but sometimes people don't like allowing renaming for some reason.

If it's up to vote I vote for renaming. Also for diplomacy, it's part of the game.

Re-naming isn't a huge deal to me; on the one hand, if you don't allow it, it adds to the immersiveness, as you are able to learn some of each culture's names, but on the other hand, in my single-player game, I did name one commander "Gem Bearing Guy" for simplicity's sake. I'm good with whatever the majority wants.

[CthulhuDreams]

I vote for renaming.

[Korwin]

+1 for renaming.

I plan to keep my word... if I give it.

Site frequency standard or higher?

[earwicker7]

Ok, re-naming is in; I'll edit the original post.

I'm trying to keep things as close to "stock" as possible, since I've only finished one single-player game so far, so I'm in favor of standard site frequency unless anyone objects to it.

[fumanstu]

I'd like a spot if you'll have me? I'll take Shinuyama. Will be my first MP game and I've only played SP a couple of times, so I think this game will be a good fit.

[Korwin]

For the record: I am playing a (the first, for me) MP at the moment where I'm subing (is that a word?) for Vanheim.
Vanheim didn't get Turns submitted until turn ~8.

Luckily I got peaceable company at my borders.