Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Just was reviewing the new Valhalla. Didn't realize how many of the top honors were split between VballMichael and Jumpingfist. So a little personal rivalry is to be expected.
Posts: 224
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
1
So I’ve been having some random thoughts based on this game and some of the conversation that has taken place. I thought I would share them.
Thought #1 – I wonder if the nature of the information we receive in our turn results tends to bias us toward seeing more coordination among opponents than may actually exist. Example: We wouldn’t know that two other kingdoms tried to usurp the same PC – we’d only get a message about the first one that was successful. I also tend to scout while attacking, which means I can adjust my moves if I see someone else there – this could certainly look like coordination to an observer.
Thought #2 – I’m wondering if the limitation of agreements should extend beyond just the first six turns. Things started off with the tenuous diplomacy that Ry Vor was looking for, but now it feels like battle lines are permanently drawn. However, I’m not sure this is something that can be addressed with any sort of “rule”. We shouldn’t prevent two kingdoms from working together the whole game if it remains in their best interest the whole game. But maybe extend the limitation of agreements to the entire game instead of just the first six turns?
Thought #3 – I’m wondering if the limitation of agreements should apply to hostilities as well as alliances. One thing I’ve noticed is that is seems like any attack creates a permanent enemy relationship. I don’t quite see why that should be – no victory condition requires the elimination of a kingdom, nor are any status points awarded for eliminating a kingdom. And it seems possible the permanent nature of hostilities and the need to eliminate anyone you attack is part of what leads to game-long alliances and 3v1s.
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Interesting points, Thudargh. I have seen occasionally players break off attacks, as a long war usually doesn't help either one, but its true, once its "on", it generally stays on.
I'm proud of our player base for not violating the terms the code cannot enforce, but I don't know how many of those can be added as agreements, even the typical NAPS, are subject to interpretation, as we've seen here on the forum. For example in Independence, if a player says on turn 2, "subject to extension after turn 6", is that fair, or is that a wink and a nod?
Anyway, the main point for this Independence game was to eliminate pre-made alliances or early game-long NAPS, and I believe it succeeded there.
Posts: 261
Threads: 14
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
I was actually going to rub out the UN stuff the same turn DW took his village. I even killed one of the UN agents (sorry) and arrived to find the DW. Worry was my artifacts being heisted. Anyways, I read this thread and felt sorry for the UN situation and thought I'd equalize the playing field a bit. I was unawares the UN was in dire straights…
Ranger
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 42
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
7
Hmm now the ranger has evened out the sides to 3 vs 2 perhaps someone would like to unbalance them back to 3vs3, while we wait for the red dragon to win
Posts: 445
Threads: 24
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
4
Since I can not tell how sarcastic people are, do most people not like this game 173? My only complaint is that the 2 portals I found involve water so they became useless for my slow troops.
Posts: 445
Threads: 24
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
4
Is having 2 of the portal chains tied to water just bad luck on the random placement for portals? To move a force with any size, i need to build navy's which is not cheap. I could also go the wizard path, but with a soft cap of 5, it becomes tough to forecast troops use beyond 5 brigades. Any advice would be most welcome here.
Buddy/Ignore List
