Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kingdom Elimination
#11
I would argue your second point actually argues in favor of elimination. If it is impossible to take down a leader who builds up too large of a lead, that is actually a significant problem in my book.
Reply
#12
I liked the way it was in Fall of Rome:

No King and no Noble court = elimination

No PC's = elimination

But, I can see offering a turn or two to gain a PC before being eliminated, but no King should be immediate.
The Frost Lord,
Centurion in the Military War College
Pioneer of Alamaze
Reply
#13
(02-12-2015, 11:31 AM)HeadHoncho Wrote: I would argue your second point actually argues in favor of elimination. If it is impossible to take down a leader who builds up too large of a lead, that is actually a significant problem in my book.

good point. but turn 37 is a little late if someone has led the whole game Smile.
Reply
#14
What I dislike the most about having an encampment (which allows defeated players to linger in the game) is that others cannot target those in the encampment. You can't assassinate an emissary there (since there isn't a location to specify) and you can't steal artifacts that relocated from their capital that was conquered. So is it really fair to the other players if you become immune to such attacks?

I guess agents from an encampment can strike anywhere with impunity (no 10 area distance limit) since encampments don't have a location on the map.

For the new software, I followed Fall of Rome rules a bit and a kingdom is eliminated when the last pc is conquered. However, if you have at least one pc and you lose your last emissary (due to kidnap/assassination) then the program will automatically create an Envoy to act as Regent for your kingdom. The reasoning behind this is that when a kingdom is in dire straits from losing all emissaries, a common man will step up and become the leader of the realm (or it's like that in the movies).

So a kingdom is never without a regent who can issue ruler orders if necessary. I can change this in the code but this is how the new software currently handles it.
Reply
#15
(02-12-2015, 10:17 AM)VballMichael Wrote: 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 Smile. 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.

My two cents:

$.01 = no player should ever be eliminated so long as he is willing to enter orders. [Almost all the recent changes to Alamaze were made to prevent players from quitting when . . . fill in the blank here describing some cataclysmic Alamaze event . . . and now we are considering a means of forcing players to quit even when they are willing to contine?]

$.01 = no player should ever be able to achieve a podium position without both a king and at least one population center. [These positions vying for victory should definitely be able to maintain the bare minimum to be called a kingdom.  I have no problem with players trying to "eliminate" a kingdom from placing in the contest.]  I know my ideas never gain acceptance from the herd; I can live with that.
Lord Thanatos
Reply
#16
(02-12-2015, 12:25 PM)unclemike Wrote: What I dislike the most about having an encampment (which allows defeated players to linger in the game) is that others cannot target those in the encampment. You can't assassinate an emissary there (since there isn't a location to specify) and you can't steal artifacts that relocated from their capital that was conquered. So is it really fair to the other players if you become immune to such attacks?

I guess agents from an encampment can strike anywhere with impunity (no 10 area distance limit) since encampments don't have a location on the map.

For the new software, I followed Fall of Rome rules a bit and a kingdom is eliminated when the last pc is conquered. However, if you have at least one pc and you lose your last emissary (due to kidnap/assassination) then the program will automatically create an Envoy to act as Regent for your kingdom. The reasoning behind this is that when a kingdom is in dire straits from losing all emissaries, a common man will step up and become the leader of the realm (or it's like that in the movies).

So a kingdom is never without a regent who can issue ruler orders if necessary. I can change this in the code but this is how the new software currently handles it.

"So is it really fair to the other players if . . ."

Our player base doesn't care about fairness or you wouldn't have 3 v 1 and 4 v 1 occurences.  You wouldn't then have players posting about how they only join anonymous games.  If EVERY game was an anonymous game I would be happy.  But with the present size of the player base every time a "regular communication" game begins there are less players available for an anonymous game to start.  Bottom line is that so long as a customer wishes to continue playing/paying he should be allowed to.

I really like the idea that "the program will automatically create an Envoy to act as Regent for your kingdom." This mechanic should be introduced to all Alamaze games immediately.

I could also accept the idea that when a player's final pc is eliminated the program would select an empty hex within a 10 square radius where his "encampment" would be located so others could target his assets.  I could support something like this, but not outright elimination.
Lord Thanatos
Reply
#17
(02-12-2015, 11:36 AM)VballMichael Wrote:
(02-12-2015, 11:31 AM)HeadHoncho Wrote: I would argue your second point actually argues in favor of elimination. If it is impossible to take down a leader who builds up too large of a lead, that is actually a significant problem in my book.

good point. but turn 37 is a little late if someone has led the whole game Smile.

I agree with HeadHoncho on this point!

This is why I suggest no player should ever be able to achieve a podium position without both a king and at least one population center.
Lord Thanatos
Reply
#18
(02-12-2015, 01:18 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: 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.

All you are suggesting is that "to be fair to the other players" a strong kingdom who wishes to "prop up" a vassal needs to provide is a village in addition to all that gold.  I see no problem at all with what you describe.
Lord Thanatos
Reply
#19
(02-12-2015, 12:35 PM)Lord Thanatos Wrote: I know my ideas never gain acceptance from the herd; I can live with that.

I love your ideas. We really do need to figure out a way to keep individual games from being team games right off the bat. I expect 3v1 in a team game because I have my own team to do 3v1 on an opponent.
Even the 156 Championship game had a 4v1 invasion in the first 3 turns, and the same team moved on to the next victim. So, unless we all form teams immediately, we have no chance against the machine.
Reply
#20
Two separate issues here that I see.

1) Game vs. simulation. To what extent do you do things to make the players of a game happy, vs. things that make sense for the sake of internal mechanics or "realism" (as loose as that term might be in a fantasy setting). On the specific point of Kingdom elimination, it might make a subset of players happy to be able to merrily cruise along without the ability to be completely eliminated -- even as that mechanic frustrates a different subset of players -- but I think on some level a nod to "realism" might be helpful.

The reality is that Rome completely crushed Carthage, and that Kingdom faded into history. And in a number of games (although perhaps less frequently now than in the past, since a "self-esteem" and "everyone's a winner" mentality appears to have taken root in our modern society), elimination is a real possibility, and them's the breaks. I can see why that is, from a standpoint of realism (again, as limited as that term might be here). If you have a Kingdom vying for the throne, you have people supporting that claim for reasons of loyalty but also of perceived self-interest and benefit. When your troops are being paid, their morale maintains. Fail to pay, morale drops, and fail to pay too often, and you have desertions (attrition). One reason I love Alamaze is that it models these things exceedingly well. Even your own court isn't 100% loyal to you, they might drop a dime on your deepest, darkest secrets, if they're paid enough money!

If a Kingdom gets to a point of having no imperial possessions, no subjects support the Kingdom's rule or claim to the throne, that is going to have follow-on effects on the rest of the Kingdom's assets. Even if a foreign power takes over payment and feeding, troops start to wonder, why am I even fighting for this cause? Isn't it hopeless? Am I really ready to give my life just because some powerless ruler with no holdings is telling me I should? Meanwhile, individually powerful, incredibly intelligent wizards would have to start wondering, why don't I just take my show over to the next court?

It would be neat if there would be some kind of dynamic similar to the old "Marriage of State" where two Kingdoms could simultaneously order a "Dynastic Succession" or something like that, a public declaration where if one of the Kingdoms is eliminated, the remaining assets make an individual roll (maybe 50%) and the ones that succeed are transferred over to the other Kingdom, with the remainder representing desertions or individuals "going private" and bowing out of the Great Game. That way, a player on the ropes could feel as though he or she is still making an impact on the game (and perhaps even spiting his oppressors), while still accepting the reality that the particular Kingdom's time in the sun is over.

2) The tendency of gangups in diplomacy games. I know it frustrates people sometimes, but more often than not, I see this happening as a result of either an unwillingness to spend the -- at times very significant -- time that it takes to conduct diplomacy, and even more, the time that it takes to learn and develop and become an expert at it.

If there are "pre-arranged" alliances between individual players such that they always or almost always work together or similar things like that, I think that really stinks, and I resonate with the complaints on that score. But my own personal sympathy toward people who aren't willing to take the time to conduct diplomacy, my sympathy really plunges. And I do think Anonymous games are indeed better for people who don't want to spend that time.

Please note, this isn't a value judgment, in the sense that I fully acknowledge that we all have limited hobby time, and I totally respect that people might not want to spend that limited time sending out e-mails and tracking NAPs and things like that. I would just hope that on the other side of it, people who choose to enter a full diplomacy game would understand that they will be FUNDAMENTALLY AND INHERENTLY DISADVANTAGED if they choose not to engage in it, or to engage in it only very sporadically.

Anyway, I said in another thread recently that I can tend toward the geeky sometimes, and this is probably another of those times. Smile
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)