Alamaze & Fall of Rome Forum

Full Version: New Anonymous Accelerated Warlords
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hi Folks,

Would love to put together a new Anonymous Accelerated Warlords game (please note: accelerated format takes an extra slot!). Normal rules: absolutely no discussion between players; no declaration of alliances outside of your group of kingdoms; game would run wednesdays and saturdays. Victory is though control of six regions. Anonymous draft in terms of picking via LD (if he is willing).

Drop a note if you are interested.
Might be up for this when I free up a slot, but I have two concerns developing as I play more and more Warlords.

1) Having tried it both ways, I strongly prefer the pick-by-pick drafting, rather than round-by-round... not because I'm able to figure out who my opponents are, but because I have more control over the destiny of my own team. I think JF made this comment in the recent team game, and I agree with him.

2) Having been on both the giving and receiving end of it, I'm finding the "rotating capital bash" strategy which is so fundamental to unmodified Titan and Warlords games to be a bit tiresome. Two ways of dealing with this that I see.

A) We could play a game without RD/GI/TR, although the draft picking order would probably have to be modified since going second-to-last and last would no longer be a benefit.

B) We could try the modified Titan rules I floated about avoiding group-to-group and group-to-pop center interactions among players for the first X turns, to allow for a bit more building.

Anyway, I'm just brainstorming, not insisting. Smile Could also move this to General Discussion if that's preferred.
(08-07-2015, 01:14 PM)HeadHoncho Wrote: [ -> ]Might be up for this when I free up a slot, but I have two concerns developing as I play more and more Warlords.

1) Having tried it both ways, I strongly prefer the pick-by-pick drafting, rather than round-by-round... not because I'm able to figure out who my opponents are, but because I have more control over the destiny of my own team.  I think JF made this comment in the recent team game, and I agree with him.

2) Having been on both the giving and receiving end of it, I'm finding the "rotating capital bash" strategy which is so fundamental to unmodified Titan and Warlords games to be a bit tiresome.  Two ways of dealing with this that I see.

A) We could play a game without RD/GI/TR, although the draft picking order would probably have to be modified since going second-to-last and last would no longer be a benefit.

B) We could try the modified Titan rules I floated about avoiding group-to-group and group-to-pop center interactions among players for the first X turns, to allow for a bit more building.

Anyway, I'm just brainstorming, not insisting. Smile Could also move this to General Discussion if that's preferred.

I could deal with your picking system (though I've never had a problem getting the team I wanted the old way), but have zero interest in your proposal regarding the military kingdoms. Essentially, you're suggesting changing the entire nature of the game. Either they are eliminated which limits the draft to 12 kingdoms, favors the political kingdoms (since it'll be virtually impossible to take a city/capital until mid-game via wizards or military) and assures that at least one person is screwed into the UN (horrendously bad nation in warlords).

Likewise, why on earth make a rule limiting initial group-group/group-pop center battles? Military kingdoms get progressively weaker relative to other kingdoms as the game goes on. Their major advantage IS the ability to take cities/capitals early on...an advantage which I might add has already been nerfed by the changes to brigade elimination/attrition and the huge increase in leader deaths.

Essentially, you're advocating for a certain style of play (nation building) that favors certain kingdoms over others. Totally valid, but destroys the entire balance of the game. A WI with ten turns to build uninterrupted is going to be significantly stronger than a TR constrained from attacking others...

<sigh>...seems like Warlords is destined to die.
You're definitely right in that it's a different style of play... but one that can be accounted for by making sure you select a balanced team.

I've personally found that the military Kingdoms are still incredibly useful in the later stages of the game, these suggestions just eliminate the demoralizing early-stage imbalances that can arise more as a result of the luck of where your starting PCs are and whether you find your enemy's PCs quickly or not, than skill.

(And yes you can still account for and defend against the early capital bash on some levels, but it's tough to deal with a T2 or even T3 capital assault even when trying to defend.)

Like I said, just brainstorming. If we had more Warlords players this would be less of an issue, because people could go for the Warlords variants they prefer. But as it is, you're correct, the two types described here are very different styles of play, and liked or hated per the individual player.
(08-07-2015, 04:06 PM)HeadHoncho Wrote: [ -> ]You're definitely right in that it's a different style of play... but one that can be accounted for by making sure you select a balanced team.

I've personally found that the military Kingdoms are still incredibly useful in the later stages of the game, these suggestions just eliminate the demoralizing early-stage imbalances that can arise more as a result of the luck of where your starting PCs are and whether you find your enemy's PCs quickly or not, than skill.

(And yes you can still account for and defend against the early capital bash on some levels, but it's tough to deal with a T2 or even T3 capital assault even when trying to defend.)

Like I said, just brainstorming.  If we had more Warlords players this would be less of an issue, because people could go for the Warlords variants they prefer.  But as it is, you're correct, the two types described here are very different styles of play, and liked or hated per the individual player.
I think we both are balanced players and equally comfortable in both styles Smile  The essential difference is probably a question of when we prefer to strike. Again, your points are completely valid....

Addendum: The question when to strike is also determined by the draft Smile
Warlords is an awesome format:

Anonymous
Rex only
3 kingdoms
Draft

Each one of the above elements are independently enjoyable!  Together, they make the Alamaze game even better than the original - imho.  Smile

I find Warlords is simultaneously super-fast-paced right from the beginning as well as a lengthy strategic contest.

Morgan Kane and HeadHoncho are two of the very best at Warlords format and I certainly respect both of their positions.  Also, I agree with most everything each of them have posted here.  I would add that Warlords has fewer players because of the exponential difficulty inherent in coordinating three kingdoms every turn while facing nine opponents every turn.  Not everyone appreciates the "me versus the world" type game.

The Draft makes each contest unique.  The military kingdoms create tension from turn 1 and are necessary to force the game pace so that Rex can be achieved in 40 turns.  Six regions is hellishly difficult to obtain against determined opposition.  BTW, I have won a Warlords game with the UN [AN + UN + WI].  I very much like the kingdom-by-kingdom draft that HeadHoncho advocates primarily because it allows me a better opportunity to deduce (I could be wrong) what each team is comprised of so that I have a chance (no guarantee) of not ending up in conflict with all three teams in the first couple of turns.  Yet, I also agree with Morgan Kane that the round-by-round draft has always resulted in a team I believe is capable of performing well.

The accelerated Wed-Sat schedule will add another level of difficulty to this contest.  Don't get me wrong, though; I appreciate the faster pace.  I think Morgan Kane and I did 13 turns in one of the first Titan games in a single weekend.  Smile  Just saying that some players will decline such a daunting task.

I am happy to play in this game - under either drafting option - once one of my present Warlords contests ends.  One is around turn 20 while the other is around turn 35.  Will let you know . . .

The real question is: How can we increase participation in Warlords?  I think the team games are a good way of doing this because it enables players to grasp the complexities of the format while being "led" by a player experienced in the format.  We can always change this "accelerated Warlords" thread into an "accelerated Team" thread?  I am presently on a pretty good team that I am certain I can convince to join a second team game.  Interested?
I think LT and I are the ones left standing in the Warlords on turn 35. I missed last turn and have missed 2.3 total turns in this game (7 kingdom turns) due to some very ill-timed real life distractions. I am still alive because I played the entire first 15+ turns of this game (my first Warlords) unmolested so I had a huge stockpile built up. I think we're actually at 5 regions a piece with the turn do tomorrow. Due to the missed turns I've lost a little bit of joy from the contest so would be willing to call it a tie and start a new one here. Totally up to LT of course.
(08-07-2015, 05:39 PM)Drogo Wrote: [ -> ]I think LT and I are the ones left standing in the Warlords on turn 35.  I missed last turn and have missed 2.3 total turns in this game (7 kingdom turns) due to some very ill-timed real life distractions.  I am still alive because I played the entire first 15+ turns of this game (my first Warlords) unmolested so I had a huge stockpile built up.  I think we're actually at 5 regions a piece with the turn do tomorrow.  Due to the missed turns I've lost a little bit of joy from the contest so would be willing to call it a tie and start a new one here.  Totally up to LT of course.

Well, if LT agrees to a draw, then we have three ready to go...
(08-07-2015, 05:39 PM)Drogo Wrote: [ -> ]I think LT and I are the ones left standing in the Warlords on turn 35.  I missed last turn and have missed 2.3 total turns in this game (7 kingdom turns) due to some very ill-timed real life distractions.  I am still alive because I played the entire first 15+ turns of this game (my first Warlords) unmolested so I had a huge stockpile built up.  I think we're actually at 5 regions a piece with the turn do tomorrow.  Due to the missed turns I've lost a little bit of joy from the contest so would be willing to call it a tie and start a new one here.  Totally up to LT of course.

A tie?  No, I do not think so.  I would be willing to accept your unconditional surrender, though.  Smile

I much prefer a loss on my record to a tie.
Totally fair. Maybe it wasn't even fair of me to suggest the tie. I have not looked at the last turn (the latest one I missed) except to count the regions still being 5 to 5.

I guess part of me was also excited at the idea of not having to wake up at 6am and try and figure out where I am in that game too Smile I should have had this game won on one of the turn's I missed. I woke up early in the morning and frantically got my orders done before noon, only to realize when the results came back I had rushed to complete orders for the wrong Warlord game, the one not due for four more days. I was gutted. Then one week my cat went missing (he came back after 4 nights) and so that took priority when I had left the orders for the last minute. No one to blame but myself of course. This was my first Warlords game. No one attacked me for like 15-10 turns and I had a machine built up. Now I'm sure it's even or worse for me but let's see where we land.

I'll take a look and either have my orders or my surrender in by game time LT Smile

35 turns for Warlord, is that a lot or standard?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6