MP: ANDalusian Sun: Lolomo wins after more than 2 years of gruelling competition!

[Amhazair]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

I prefer riverlands, 9VPs, marked as capitals and no hold for X turns clause.

I'm sorry, I tried anonymous VPs in GoTM and I find it to be too much of a hassle. It's my personal taste but I think the game already requires quite a lot of attention and MM. No need to force players to go crazy with scouts or severely punish those that fail to become all knowing. I have the same gripe with graphs off.

I would have rounded 15/2+1 to 8 myself, but sure. Since no one else expressed another opinion (on this or the other settings) I've removed all '?'s from my OP. (Due to this overwhelming lack of unsupportiveness I can only assume I'm the master of inventing the perfect settings on my own. Also, I really like to make up words.)

[llamabeast]

9 capitals sounds like a high bar to set, although I don't think it matters because once someone's got 6 or so I expect it will probably be obvious that they've won anyway (i.e. no objections).

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by Amhazair

I would have rounded 15/2+1 to 8 myself, but sure. Since no one else expressed another opinion (on this or the other settings) I've removed all '?'s from my OP. (Due to this overwhelming lack of unsupportiveness I can only assume I'm the master of inventing the perfect settings on my own. Also, I really like to make up words.)

Or maybe some people just like thinking long and hard about these things as some of us are getting on a bit now, and can't handle this modern quick thinking malarkey

If opinions are still allowed though, then for capital requirements I'd prefer 50%+1 rather than anything approaching 60%+, if 50%+1 is the minimum offer on the table that is. As given the field we have lined up it should probably be nearer 40% IMO, as the higher the quality of players, the more chance of a game dragging on forever if the goal posts are too high.

For the map, Riverlands looks a good choice. If all options for starts are open, then in order I'd prefer

1 - Non-marked VP capitals with preset starts done by a non-player.
2 - VP marked capitals with preset starts done by someone (note this can be a player)
3 - Non-marked VP capitals with random starts.


What should be avoided at all costs though is VP marked capitals with random starts. As then rush nations could start just 2 provinces away from a neighbour, and given the bulleyes marking, they can beeline for someone's capital and be attacking it on turn 4. [Calahan puts his broken record on again]. And rush nations certainly shouldn't be given this sort of unfair help and advantage from just the start locations. [Calahan turns off his broken record]


Also, I'd like to suggest a few further rule requests that I've found help games run smoother, especially (R)AND games. (all taken from my soon to be published book "Good Admining 101". Pre-orders currently being taken )

1 - That the admin makes it perfectly clear that nobody is to turn AI without prior notification to the admin, and only to the admin (and certainly not on the thread). And that everyone should fight until the last man unless they have a very good in-game reason not to. (out-of-game reasons are a different matter)

2 - Breaking of the no-communication rule, or revealing your ID, should result in immediate expulsion from the game.

3 - Player ID's are only revealed when a nation is defeated, and not if a player sub outs (as this makes it too easy to guess ID's by knowing which player is no longer in the game)

4 - Requests for delays and hosting interval increases are to be PM-ed to the admin only, and not posted on the thread in any way. As any thread posts relating to either makes it very easy to guess ID's.

These rules (mainly in relation to 1+2) should apply to all players, and nobody should be exempt from them in any way, regardless of who they are, or who they think they are.


Edit.

ps. @ llamabeast - Will you be able to fix the Ember Lord causing blindness before the game starts? Or if not, maybe increase the cost a bit to reflect this (since I understand you are making a unique combined mod for this game, so that change won't affect other games)

ps2. I checked the Riverlands map last night (the "crown5" version of it), and there are one or two errors that need correcting, and one or two other things to tidy up a bit. Which I will probably volunteer to do myself unless someone else does.

[Amhazair]

Originally Posted by Calahan

If opinions are still allowed though, then for capital requirements I'd prefer 50%+1 rather than anything approaching 60%+, if 50%+1 is the minimum offer on the table that is. As given the field we have lined up it should probably be nearer 40% IMO, as the higher the quality of players, the more chance of a game dragging on forever if the goal posts are too high.

Changed to 8 since you me and Llama are all of the same opinion and the three of us together trump even Wraithlords opinion.

Originally Posted by Calahan

For the map, Riverlands looks a good choice. If all options for starts are open, then in order I'd prefer

1 - Non-marked VP capitals with preset starts done by a non-player.
2 - VP marked capitals with preset starts done by someone (note this can be a player)
3 - Non-marked VP capitals with random starts.


What should be avoided at all costs though is VP marked capitals with random starts. As then rush nations could start just 2 provinces away from a neighbour, and given the bulleyes marking, they can beeline for someone's capital and be attacking it on turn 4. [Calahan puts his broken record on again]. And rush nations certainly shouldn't be given this sort of unfair help and advantage from just the start locations. [Calahan turns off his broken record]

My personal preference is to heve VP's marked, mainly to avoid bookkeeping hassle, also since intelligence gathering is harder as it is in RAND games. I don't object to fixed starting locations. If you want to I hereby give you leave to arrange start locations. (Though you might want to wait till signups are finalised.) Possibly at the same time you do this:

Originally Posted by Calahan

ps2. I checked the Riverlands map last night (the "crown5" version of it), and there are one or two errors that need correcting, and one or two other things to tidy up a bit. Which I will probably volunteer to do myself unless someone else does.

Also, while I agree that it's very scant consolation for the rushee, I can't remember the last time I've seen a nation optimized for an early rush actually win a game. So it might* be argued that rushers in fact do need an unfair advantage.

* I'm still not arguing it though. Just playing devil's advocate for a moment.

[WraithLord]

hehe, just one of you three is enough to trump my opinion

8 VPs are cool
Option 2 (2 - VP marked capitals with preset starts done by someone ) is most preferable to me though the others are also ok (if somewhat time consuming due to added book-keeping).

Calahan's rules are golden and I know from experience that he's very good at balancing and fixing maps

[Calahan]

If we end up going for "VP marked caps with preset start locations" (and it very much looks like we are), then I have no problem with sorting the map out. I'll obviously wait for recruitment to finish first though I'll probably have to wait until the final nation list is published as well, as if R'yleh or Marignon are in the game, then special arrangements have to be made regarding their start locations. (not sure if Atlantis need a coastal start as well. I think they don't, but logically they should?!?)

Also, the Riverlands map (like a lot of Elmokki's maps) has a number of provinces tagged as 'many sites' (they appear on the map as sort of white ruins/buildings/towers), which basically means is there more chance of the province containing a full set of four sites (not sure if it means higher chance of rare sites or not). I'm not sure what you want me to do with these provinces, but the likely options will be...

1 - Remove them
2 - Ignore them
3 - Try to make sure none of them are starting locations

And that's about it. I already know I won't have any chance of trying to 'balance' these provinces in relation to the start locations. So if they stay then some start locations might well be adjacent to 1 or 2 of them, and some starts several provinces away from any, as these 'many sites' provinces are not spaced out on the map.

For the starts themselves, I'll try to make sure everyone has between 4-6 adjacent provinces to their cap (if only 4 then I'll try my best to ensure 2 are mountains or forests). And that all caps are at least 3 provinces apart, ie. X-1-2-3-X (or possibly 4 on this map, as there are a lot of choke points).

Hhhhmmm, think that's about it.

Originally Posted by Amhazair

....I'm still not arguing it though.

But I like a good argument, and haven't had one in ages on the Dom forums. Guess I'll have to go start one somewhere else then, as you are no fun

[Sasooli]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Sasooli has drunk some!

For a couple of minutes I thought you were accusing me of being drunk for talking about bribes. But yes, I sampled one of the biertjes and they were heel lekker Amhazair.

[Sasooli]

Just a reminder to send in your nation choices today. The following people still haven't contacted me:

Llamabeast, Baalz, Ossa, DrPraetorius, Noobliss

If you're one of these and thought you had sent me your pick, let me know. It's possible it got lost in the PM confusion.

[Fantomen]

Atlantis does need a coastal start iirc, at least the game itself always places it in a coastal province. About the "manysites", my preference would be to remove them.

[Amhazair]

Originally Posted by Fantomen

Atlantis does need a coastal start iirc, at least the game itself always places it in a coastal province. About the "manysites", my preference would be to remove them.

I'm quite certain that's indeed the case in regard to Atlantis. As for the manysites my personal preference would be to ignore them - I'm not personally worried about perfect balance, and the occasional plum falling into your lap is allways fun - but I believe most players, competitively cutthroat as they are, will prefer to remove them, so go with that I guess.