Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
09-27-2014, 02:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-27-2014, 02:43 PM by Ry Vor.)
Causus belli may sound a bit pretentious, but a cause for war has almost universally been the standard. Even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't really that secret - the USA kind of forced their hand by cutting off their oil supply and there had been negotiations for months. Anyway, not trying to argue that case, just saying if you look at wars through history, there is always some sort of back and forth before it comes to blows.
I see Alamaze as closer to Diplomacy than to Risk. Of course, its a lot more complicated than either. Meanwhile, I'm also trying to make Alamaze a bit bigger game, oddly by maybe first making it 12 kingdoms instead of 15, and having ways to win that don't involve knocking players out. Also looking to have some victory conditions that (also strangely) don't end the game. So you might win by throwing the Ring of Power into the Fire of the Void (I forget if I talked to JRR about that awhile back or if he came up with that on his own) but it doesn't end the game, which would fall under Game Ending Conditions. Enough for now.
Posts: 685
Threads: 44
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation:
3
09-27-2014, 06:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2014, 12:40 AM by Jumbie.)
The problem with a casus belli is that everyone already has one. We're trying to win the game and we need your region. If the game had more non-violent ways of winning a la Civilization, then casus belli would work for creating wars since wars would be unnecessary. But you can't win without war in the current setup.
We could have trade sanctions (a new job for the HC!) and blockades etc.
I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make though. Sure, you can avoid a 3-1 war by refusing to declare war on the folks who are giving you grief, but the price will be having to endure denigrations, regional effect spells, HC downvotes etc from 3 directions and that's probably just as crippling considering you can't retaliate.
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Such has been my recent discourse. Bigger map, more stuff to find and win by, less need to knock players out. Victory possible without ending the game - had anyone done that before?
Posts: 2,257
Threads: 228
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
8
(09-27-2014, 09:31 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: Such has been my recent discourse. Bigger map, more stuff to find and win by, less need to knock players out. Victory possible without ending the game - had anyone done that before?
I want to hear more about how you can have a victory without ending the game. Does that mean that more than one player can win?
Lord Diamond
Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Yes, this introduces the concept of individual victory. New thing.
So an event can occur that provides an individual victory, without ending the game. This stuff is 3rd Cycle or KoA.
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
If Dragons make it into the next scenario, look for a max of 4 Red Dragons per brigade. A future possibility is a new kingdom as, say Kingdom of Smaug. The Dude himself, maybe 4 agents, a baron, a couple wizards.
This Red Dragon can take out a town on his own.
Posts: 981
Threads: 33
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
1
(09-28-2014, 04:44 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: If Dragons make it into the next scenario, look for a max of 4 Red Dragons per brigade. A future possibility is a new kingdom as, say Kingdom of Smaug. The Dude himself, maybe 4 agents, a baron, a couple wizards.
This Red Dragon can take out a town on his own.
One possibility to limit 3:1 in a game is to require kingdoms to declare a kingdom an enemy to issue 110, 150, 170,180, 190, 320, 330 etc...
You could limit the number of kingdoms that could declare someone an enemy at the same time.
You could also introduce an order called peace treaty which forces a king to declare you neutral for a few turns. Hyborian wars has an order like that.
Just brainstorming ideas...
Posts: 2,257
Threads: 228
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
8
(09-28-2014, 04:44 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: If Dragons make it into the next scenario, look for a max of 4 Red Dragons per brigade. A future possibility is a new kingdom as, say Kingdom of Smaug. The Dude himself, maybe 4 agents, a baron, a couple wizards.
This Red Dragon can take out a town on his own.
I see where you are going with this and it is cool. Smaug would never conquer an empire, but he would be a pretty big deal in his neighborhood.
Lord Diamond
Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Yeah, we talked in KoA of Greater and Lesser Kingdoms. A Lesser Kingdom would have therefore, different victory conditions, and again, might not be game ending.
Posts: 51
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
0
Another possibility would be to have a couple of NPC kingdoms in the game that can be influenced, allied with, maybe even conquered (for a big penalty?) by the players. Something along the lines of CIV 5, with their city state model.
|
Buddy/Ignore List
