Warlords

[Ry Vor]

I'm just curious why the Warlords format - 4 players, 12 kingdoms, available at Commander Level Service and up, hasn't been more popular. Sometimes I get feedback that a "teammate" let a player down, but this format is not Epic (good vs. evil), it's just 4 players, each on their own, and a draft can be conducted to select kingdoms.

I understand how Titans can be intimidating, but I would think a lot of Commander + players would want to try Warlords, control and coordinate three kingdoms in a single game.

So, what am I not getting?

[DuPont]

Of course, I can only speak for myself. I did play a Warlords game, albeit when there were still 5 players. The thing is, you will still have an ally most likely - at least in the early going - and now you are trying to co-ordinate three kingdoms with your allies' three kingdoms. I rather the Titan format where I don't have to worry about coordinating with anybody. But you know a Warlords format that I would love to try?
Anonymous - each player sends in their list of kingdoms, so you don't even know what the teams are. Obviously no ally decelerations unless the players choose to make them (and you could even declare an ally who was not one of your kingdoms to confuse people). Four players bashing about the map with no idea who they are fighting - what a delightful idea. Makes me think of the last lines of Mathew Arnold's poem Dover Beach.

[Ry Vor]

But you know a Warlords format that I would love to try?
Anonymous - each player sends in their list of kingdoms, so you don't even know what the teams are. Obviously no ally decelerations unless the players choose to make them (and you could even declare an ally who was not one of your kingdoms to confuse people). Four players bashing about the map with no idea who they are fighting - what a delightful idea. Makes me think of the last lines of Mathew Arnold's poem Dover Beach.

Could be interesting. Thoughts?

[kevindusi]

I like the Warlords 4 player format, 2v2. One of my favorite formats, actually, provided the coordination is there. Basically a titan match, without the need to worry about a full 6 kingdoms.

I like DuPont's idea as well, though I have no idea who or what he is talking about regarding poetry. If he could put it into terms of songs by Trapt, Saves the Day, or Jimmy Buffet that would be very helpful. Or anything by Johnny Cash.

[Wynterbreeze]

Of course, I can only speak for myself. I did play a Warlords game, albeit when there were still 5 players. The thing is, you will still have an ally most likely - at least in the early going - and now you are trying to co-ordinate three kingdoms with your allies' three kingdoms. I rather the Titan format where I don't have to worry about coordinating with anybody. But you know a Warlords format that I would love to try?
Anonymous - each player sends in their list of kingdoms, so you don't even know what the teams are. Obviously no ally decelerations unless the players choose to make them (and you could even declare an ally who was not one of your kingdoms to confuse people). Four players bashing about the map with no idea who they are fighting - what a delightful idea. Makes me think of the last lines of Mathew Arnold's poem Dover Beach.

I like this idea.

However I love the idea from the other thread about using envoys as the ONLY way to communicate to other kingdoms.

Where an Envoy MUST be in a PC of the Kingdom you wish to communicate with, and visa a versa. With a set number of Characters for the length of your message.

I agree with most of the player base about email diplomacy and how NAPs seem to be a root problem. This game was more exciting back in the 80's before e-mail, and communication was done on 3x5 cards.

I wish every game was anonymous, with the envoy method of communication and or 3x5 cards

[Ry Vor]

Of course, I can only speak for myself. I did play a Warlords game, albeit when there were still 5 players. The thing is, you will still have an ally most likely - at least in the early going - and now you are trying to co-ordinate three kingdoms with your allies' three kingdoms. I rather the Titan format where I don't have to worry about coordinating with anybody. But you know a Warlords format that I would love to try?
Anonymous - each player sends in their list of kingdoms, so you don't even know what the teams are. Obviously no ally decelerations unless the players choose to make them (and you could even declare an ally who was not one of your kingdoms to confuse people). Four players bashing about the map with no idea who they are fighting - what a delightful idea. Makes me think of the last lines of Mathew Arnold's poem Dover Beach.

I like this idea.

However I love the idea from the other thread about using envoys as the ONLY way to communicate to other kingdoms.

Where an Envoy MUST be in a PC of the Kingdom you wish to communicate with, and visa a versa. With a set number of Characters for the length of your message.

I agree with most of the player base about email diplomacy and how NAPs seem to be a root problem. This game was more exciting back in the 80's before e-mail, and communication was done on 3x5 cards.

I wish every game was anonymous, with the envoy method of communication and or 3x5 cards

Well, maybe not intentionally, you make my case against anonymous. We cannot enforce it, but we will have been expected to do so.

I am intrigued about the Envoy (or higher, in my mind - why not an Ambassador or Duke, even, the idea being an emissary, not only an envoy)
but this is serious code change and maybe can be done down the road.

[Ry Vor]

I like the Warlords 4 player format, 2v2. One of my favorite formats, actually, provided the coordination is there. Basically a titan match, without the need to worry about a full 6 kingdoms.

I like DuPont's idea as well, though I have no idea who or what he is talking about regarding poetry. If he could put it into terms of songs by Trapt, Saves the Day, or Jimmy Buffet that would be very helpful. Or anything by Johnny Cash.

So, what I was asking about (regarding various posts on this thread) was, Warlords is a 4 player (not 5 player) game, with no predetermined teams or any victory conditions regarding 2 vs 2. It is a 4 player game with one player winning.

So, why isn't that what Commanders want?

[Wynterbreeze]

Sorry I didn't mean to hijack your thread.

I do not play the Warlords 4 format for the very reason Dupont mentioned. Trying to manage e-mail diplomacy running 3 kingdoms with someone else's three kingdoms and trying to coordinate 6 kingdoms at a time is a little much, and you would need allies in that format of a game.

[Kellenved]

I suppose it's because Warlords falls somewhere in between the full diplomacy necessary for an individual game and the full coordination/control of a Titan game. Sort of a hybrid.

That said: I LOVE THE IDEA OF AN ANONYMOUS WARLORDS GAME!!!

[Jumpingfist]

I wanted start out as commander level but your sign up sheet did not allow it. Maybe next month I can upgrade. I really want to play a warlords game 5 players or 4 player. Anonymous.

Maybe one way to help keep people from trying to break anonymous would be to make everyone enemy except your two other ally kingdoms. And make any kind of trade action not allowed between enemy.