Dominions Armageddon Edition

[Malakal]

No national summons at all. The fucked up version had some new commanders that seemed interesting. But clearly we can live without them.

EDIT: Most certainly we can DIE without them just as easily!

We could agree not to use the obviously bugged 1 gem summons.

 

[Zephyr Arsland]

We could agree not to use the obviously bugged 1 gem summons.

That sounds good. Pretender selection is another problem, though. The derpy version forces you to choose from 3 custom ones or... dragon. That's it. The custom ones are hit-and-miss, there's a pretty strong and cheap phoenix, a research mage with F1S1 and some pointless ugly mage-atop-a-dragon. Perhaps I could stick to the mage.

EDIT: Or perhaps I could shove the thing on the backburner. I just wanna play, I don't much care about the nation as such and don't want to slow things down.

 

[KoolNoodles]

Time to do some test runs. Oh god.

 

[Dreaad]

Since the vote is now a tie, I propose changing the game to FFA.

If you want, semi team rules...... we could do something simple like:

1.) Evil nations may not capture forts off one another (same thing for good nations). As in you can take territory, but you can't take forts. Could lead to some fun situations where people betray each other, letting the 'enemy' take some forts from their 'allies' so that they can 'liberate' them later .

2.) I make some complicated points system and person with the most points by the end of x amount of turns wins....... I'd rather not do this tbh.

 

[KoolNoodles]

We gonna use the World of Warhammer map or too big? Testing now.

 

[Dreaad]

It's probably possible to use it for a FFA game, though it is a bit big. I personally don't mind either way, 170 provinces for 10 maybe 9 players, what could go wrong?

 

[Dayyālu]

Since the vote is now a tie, I propose changing the game to FFA.

If you want, semi team rules...... we could do something simple like:

1.) Evil nations may not capture forts off one another (same thing for good nations). As in you can take territory, but you can't take forts. Could lead to some fun situations where people betray each other, letting the 'enemy' take some forts from their 'allies' so that they can 'liberate' them later .

2.) I make some complicated points system and person with the most points by the end of x amount of turns wins....... I'd rather not do this tbh.

Or you do it well (precise rules) or it's better to do free FFA. I would prefer (and i will defend to my last, putrescent breath Disciples) but "can't take forts" is a ... weak rule that will encourage unfun stuff. This will be already a mess thanks to POWER OVERWHELMING in the nation selection, giving weird and abusable rules will only worsen the situation.

If you want to make a precise set of rules for conquests/betrayal/diplo and the like similar to what Grimmie is doing on the Diplo Heavy game, that's good for me! Encourages creativity and non-standard playstyles. But I suggest or we do that or it's pure FFA/Disciples.

 

[Malakal]

How about points? You only win if your alignment wins BUT you can score points to win against your fellows.

Like for holding Altdorf for example for the good guys or vassalizing all the chaos factions for the evil guys etc. Some preset conditions giving points but not outright encouraging elimination.

 

[Malakal]

Here are some actual ideas:
1. Hold Altdorf, Marienburg for the good guys.
2. Get elected Emperor - all the good team players get to vote who leads team good ie is Emperor. Elections happen every set time.
3. Kill an opposing faction member.
4. Capture a specific province from the opposing faction.
5. Vassalize a member of the empire.

Sure you can fight your mates, nothing is stopping you but then you lose the points for elections and dont get points directly for that (other than holding the correct provinces).

 

[Dreaad]

I was thinking something more simple, something that's easy to prove maybe.... e.g.

1 point for killing an allied race commander
3 points for killing an enemy race commander

5 points for capturing allied fort
15 points for capturing enemy fort

20 points for killing allied god
60 points for killing enemy god
5 points every time your god fights in battle against any nation, not indies (to make people a bit more reckless with their god creation/use. After all Warhammer is all about heroic heroes)

All members of one group gain 10 points from the death of an ally nation
All members of one group gain 30 points from the death of an enemy nation

It's easy to keep track of turn by turn, makes it so that you can fight allies for points but it's not recommended as it means it will be easier for the enemy team to make more points from teaming up on you later on. You have to show proof, if you want points, as in a screenshot. Tally is kept in OP. Ideally it would mean people start out fighting the 'enemy' but as people get closer to winning, they would all turn on each other.

300 points for victory........

 

[KoolNoodles]

Eh, I'm not a huge fan of any incentive to womp on your mates other than territorial. I mean this IS supposed to be good v evil. Otherwise we'll have a situation where one nation gets OP, figure they can take on a couple enemy nations, so they just wipe out a couple of their weaker allies just to get points/more territory? Then we've got a lame game.

Only reason I was anti-Disciples, is because I think it would work better on the Warhammer map we'll probably use(for theme), and Pretender/Scale/Bless selection can be more nuanced and in line with everyone's nation for RP purposes and such. Also the fog of war aspect on a map like that will make it a bit more exciting in FFA.

I wouldn't mind a point/VP system like either of those, but no incentive to kill off someone on your "team". Ogres beating up some goblins who are in the way, just so they can roll their war party into Empire territory for maximum pillaging, makes sense. Ogres going way out of their way to sack the Goblin capital and raze all their provinces while Empire dudes laugh from across the way, doesn't.

 

[Dreaad]

Sure I mean I could remove points for doing damage to allies. There'd still probably be infighting just to be the one who gets the points from killing enemies.

3 points for killing an enemy race commander

15 points for capturing enemy fort

50 points for killing enemy god (Does not count if god was alive/imprisoned/whatever but nation died.)
5 points every time your god fights in battle against an enemy nation, not indies or allies (to make people a bit more reckless with their god creation/use. After all Warhammer is all about heroic heroes)

All members of one group lose 30 points from the death of an ally nation.
All members of one group gain 30 points from the death of an enemy nation.

Better?

 

[coldcrow]

Why not alliances instead of disciples - so there is no problem choosing the right pretender. Those convoluted point awards make no sense to me.

 

[mondblut]

Why not alliances instead of disciples

Because it makes little sense to have to conquer 2 allies just so your troops can reach the frontlines.

 

[coldcrow]

True. Would be possible with the right map and fixed placements though.

In any case, I am up for anything.

 

[Dreaad]

It's also just insurance. I'm fairly certain most people here will play by the 'rules' even if they are vague. But you can never be sure. If you give people an incentive not to kill each other and to kill the enemy instead it lessens the chance of a dramatic breakdown.

 

[KoolNoodles]

I think on the map we'd need fixed starts. I'm not really familiar with Warhammer geography though.

 

[Dayyālu]

I think on the map we'd need fixed starts. I'm not really familiar with Warhammer geography though.

The problem is that we will have a ton of Chaos/Ogre players north, an entire continent for the Dark Elves and the High Elves for themselves, an entire continent for the Lizardmen too...

I'd suggest to use a more generic map, or even if someone is willing to adapt a map of the Northern Empire to our use. Will require effort, but it's better than the Old World map we have. Failing that, even a stock map... but it's mah opinion, though.

It's also just insurance. I'm fairly certain most people here will play by the 'rules' even if they are vague. But you can never be sure. If you give people an incentive not to kill each other and to kill the enemy instead it lessens the chance of a dramatic breakdown.

Can I do a last attempt for Disciples? pleeeeaaaase look at my puppy eyes

How could you soulless monsters say no to help those poor little cute things get what they want?

 

[KoolNoodles]

Well we can use that warhammer map because it's cool for the theme. Placement doesn't have to fit exactly with the history. Just say there was some upheavel/migration to explain why Elves don't get a continent to themselves etc. Or, random starts. Too.....chaotic?

 

[Malakal]

Wait that map covers the whole world not only the mainland? Thats stupid.

 

[coldcrow]

i'd rather have a balanced map for a team game instead of warhammer map ffa. I mean, ffa games you have a dime a dozen if you'd so like, but 5v5 team games are rare. If for the better or worse I don't know.

 

[KoolNoodles]

i'd rather have a balanced map for a team game instead of warhammer map ffa. I mean, ffa games you have a dime a dozen if you'd so like, but 5v5 team games are rare. If for the better or worse I don't know.

Yeah you make a good point about there being mostly FFA games. That might sway me towards a Disciples one just to get it rolling. I don't think the map balance would be way off that way? Just use clustered random starts on the warhammer map(for some flavor, now I'm getting into this). Most maps aren't really "balanced" anyways.

 

[Dreaad]

Well as long as Malakal agrees to this, I don't think anyone else will object. Though after a few test, 1 in maybe 3 games has a nation start out in the north/south pole or elf island, with virtually no way off except through the ocean

 

[coldcrow]

By balanced I was referring to mondblut's very valid point of critisism. But the more I think about it, the more it becomes a fool's errand.

 

[Zephyr Arsland]

I'm down for disciples. I'm down for FFA. I don't very much like that WH map, but I guess it's appropriate.