Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Backdrop: When I designed Alamaze, a kingdom was eliminated when it had either no population center, or no political emissary (so no king).
In North Carolina, sometime this got changed so that a kingdom was never eliminated, unless the player stopped paying turn fees by declaring his drop.
Meanwhile, I'm not convinced it makes sense in Alamaze. Each player starts as King, not as a wandering character. How is there a kingdom if not a single small group of people (a village) are loyal? If no one is capable of being declared King?
The counter argument has been, "Why force them out if they are having fun?" So, if I am say, the Sorcerer, and down to a couple PC's, or maybe down to none, don't really care about territory or kingship, I just want my six Power 6+ wizards to torment the player(s) that essentially eliminated me, is that really what the game should provide? I think not, but am polling here.
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 42
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
7
02-12-2015, 01:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2015, 01:27 AM by Jumpingfist.)
The Poll
I believe kingdoms should be eliminated for no PC but not for no emissaries.
Jumps two cents
With no emissaries the kingdom is effectively being ruled by the military. No king actions allowed other than 510 until a new king is made. I also do not think the kingdom should be removed instantly they should be given two full turns after being "eliminated" to take a new PC to become the capital. During this period they should only get maybe 5 orders, this is mostly me thinking about an UN or wizard who could careless about the PCs.
Posts: 2,257
Threads: 228
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
8
How about eliminating them if they have no pcs for two turns? Give them a chance to find a home.
Once they have no king, I'd say eliminate them. As long as they have a king, even if he is in exile, he has a chance of coming back.
Not to brag, but I was pretty good at eliminating kingdoms in Fall of Rome. I remember eliminating LT's Alamamn on turn 5 by blockading all his pcs and attacking his capital. He was not amused.
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: 3,027
Threads: 39
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
9
I would say if there is no population center AND no king, then there would be no kingdom. If there's some backwater village somewhere, they'd be able to call someone king. It wouldn't be impressive, but that's what 8 influence and only a single village gets you. Maybe a mechanism to reduce their influence below the minimum of 8 (but still have 10 orders) to reflect that their political clout was in the dumpster.
-The Deliverer
Posts: 1,968
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
6
I think there has to be a way to eliminate a Kingdom. No PCs works for me. So does no political emissaries in addition to that, although it seems as though that is a less settled opinion on this thread.
Under the current system I have been the victim of 3 on 1, 4 on 1, and even 5 on 1 attacks. None of these occurrences were in team games. If the rules are modified to allow kingdom elimination I foresee even more of these types of situations. Unless anonymous becomes the standard for individual games this could spoil many games for players. I vote to allow a kingdom to be active as long as a player is willing to participate.
Posts: 243
Threads: 9
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
I think that kingdoms should never be eliminated. If someone wants to continue playing because they find their position viable still, or they wish to play the spoiler, that's part of the game in my opinion.
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
I just wonder if a strong kingdom with lots of gold and in a near win position then has ambition to gain a puppet, a wizard kingdom maybe, "Just stay in, I am happy to fund your research. Do take out those capitals, old boy." I don't know if that's fair to the other players, if a kingdom has no population or no king, to be propped up so.
Posts: 1,968
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
6
I agree. Since we're not paying per turn any more, eliminations ought to be possible.
Posts: 2,297
Threads: 82
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
18
I kind of see both sides.
I am in a game where I have virtually eliminated someone and they have no chance of winning, but they are sticking around to punish me  . Not offended, as someone pointed out, without a fee per turn, there is no reason not to get a little payback for the damage I did to him. So here I would argue he should be eliminated.
On the other hand, the UN won a game recently with no pop centers. He was the status leader every single status point turn, was probably the most dominant force in the game, but his pop centers were taken from him around turn 37. He chose not to take back a village or town, because his position worked well with his court in hiding/camp. He was still the dominant force and finished in the lead. That argues against elimination. After all, pop centers are just one asset. Could just as easily argue that if this is a military game, then losing your armies means you are out.
In the end, I agree with gkmetty here. Elimination possiblity would just encourage the gangbangs. I only play anon and warlords games now to avoid that.
|
Buddy/Ignore List
