Onslaught wrote:



Onslaught,

I agree with your view on resignation. If no one has any objections, I think we should adopt the above as our "rules of resignation" - perhaps with a few clarifications.

Concerning the situation in which no replacement can be found, I think we should make a decision now whether it should be an 'AI handover' or 'resignation/raze all', so that we don't have any disagreements later on, regarding what would give an advantage to which player and so forth. I'd suggest 'AI handover' which also seems to have been the standard so far. When someone wants to resign in a team game I agree that it should be discussed within the team. If the team doesn't want to resign as a whole, then the order should be: 'a replacement player not involved in the game' > 'a team mate taking over' > 'AI'.

Like you suggest, I think it would be a good idea to establish a maximum number of days that a player has to take his turn. Perhaps one player should be chosen to keep track of this and be responsible for announcing when the maximum number of days has been exceeded. When nobody is officially responsible, other players might be hesitant to mention it, so as to not seem impatient or generally annoying.

If a player is not able to take his turn within the maximum number of turns, then it is their responsibility to give a justification. I don't know if we need to have a certain number of "extra bonus days" (it might be too difficult to keep track of) Hopefully the embarrassment of too many "late announcements" would be enough for that player to realize that it might be better for him to resign. It should always be allowed for a majority of players to throw (asking them to resign would probably be enough ) another player out based on turn delays.

An established 'max days to take a turn' would also help potential players in deciding whether they have enough time to participate in the game, before the game starts.

Lord Snow

Batz,

All I did was follow the instructions in your email. I didn't encounter any problems whatsoever.

It is hard to say no to another multiplayer game, but I am afraid denial about the burdens of a newborn can only get me so far

I hope some other players will take you up on the offer. Otherwise I'd be glad to participate sometime in the future when I'm more certain that I'll have time for it.

Lord Snow

Thanks Ian

Yes, I have a 5-year-old
Yes, I am insane

... or at least in denial . I suppose that is nature's way of ensuring population growth.

I'll do my best to live up to my Warlords commitments

Lars

KGB,

Sounds great! I'll send you my army set. And yes, I'd prefer a random map with K4SH (unlimited sets - assuming that it means that no units are banned) and no teleport.

Thank you for the synopsis of your turns - I appreciate it.

I am aware that, as you point out, any single turn will almost always look a bit jumbled when you don't know what came before it.

My primary confusion was related to all the Barbarians strung out behind the mountain range. When you say the Barbarians were supposed to join with the hero, then it makes more sense. You also explained the stack in the south which looked rather peculiar to me. It seems that it all pretty much comes down to a surprisingly aggressive playing style that I wouldn't expect to see in a team game such as this. Still, sounds like you had some bad luck in not spotting Bills armies

One last, and perhaps rather inane question. Is there a reason why your northern Ravens were grouped together in pairs rather than spread out?

Lord Snow

KGB,

Yes, I think it would be a good solution if you (in a future game) were to hand over the game to a team mate rather than resigning. Of course our opponents would have to agree to that as well.

Thank you very much for giving me your password. I have looked at your turn, and I have to say that I am totally baffled at the placement of your troops.

I also think that your overall position is way too good to justify a resignation in a team game - particularly considering that your opponents did not know that your capital was undefended. As previously discussed, this is obviously a question of gaming philosopy, past experiences and temperament.

Would you be interested in a 1v1 game? Perhaps a mirror game with two games on the same map and with reversed starting positions. I don't think I stand much of a chance, but I find your playing style very interesting and I am eager to learn. You are probably too busy, but if so, then perhaps you could keep me in mind when you feel like a 1v1 game. If you are interested, I would like to have a common understanding that the game might be quite slow due to other obligations. I probably shouldn't be starting up any more games given that my wife is "scheduled" to give birth around May 23rd, but it is just too tempting!

It has been a long time since I had my last 1v1 game, and it would be great to get a chance to dust off my primary - and largely untested - army set and learn from one of the best players - if not THE best player.

Lord Snow

... and regarding Diplomacy. I think I've got my strategic gaming needs covered with Warlords for the time being

Ian,

Obviously it would still be perfectly acceptable if 'real life issues' prevent you from continuing a game. In that situation I think attempts should be made to find a replacement player, and if not, then perhaps it would be an option for another team mate to take over.

True, true, one shouldn't play the same way every time. Still, it is often pretty clear if another player is expanding too aggressively, and playing defensively doesn't mean I won't act on perceived weaknesses in my opponents play. It can also be great fun to do something totally unexpected. Being known as a defensive player is a pretty good starting point, if you ask me.

People happily expanding and leaving their cities undefended sounds like more of a threat to them than to me

Lord Snow

Ian, +2 city combat bonus also applies when defending.

It is true about Sand Maggots lacking gold. As a substitute player in Embers I also feel like I'm struggling to balance my finances - to the point where I am considering to halt productions. Sending a bunch of units out into battle would be an even greater drain on my finances.

Your idea of each player having two sides doesn't appeal to me. It might make sense for balancing purposes, but I would prefer to keep it to one side per player.

Concerning "Event Reports". Peter and I have always played with a gentleman's agreement not to look at the "Event Reports", and ideally we would both prefer if this could be the same in multiplayer games. I never look at the events in multiplayer games - both out of fear that the game will crash, but also because it is more interesting when you have to gather information yourself. As Peter just mentioned in an email to me, it makes a team game even more interesting in that the sharing of information becomes even more important than it would otherwise be.

KGB and Arvid, at this point I think that you are really the only ones with a good enough overall picture to be able to balance everything out. As we all become more familiar with the different sides, we will probably be able to contribute more to balancing. At least for me it seems like too complex a puzzle to try to take into consideration all the strengths and weaknesses of all the different sides. I think that all the sides are good enough that they are all fun to play. Whether they are a 100% evenly matched in terms of strength is not important to me. As it is now, I would rather play Sun King that Sand Maggots or Lich King.

Playing the Wizards for only 6 turns didn't really give me a feel for how they would actually fare against other sides, so I would be perfectly happy to play the scenario as it is. However, I don't at all object to small adjustments, but it might be best that Arvid and KGB agrees on some changes for now, or else we could end up in an endless discussion between all of us.

KGB, I am probably too cautious in my playing style, but I did not split up my initial units. I prefer to attack in force and with the certainty that I will be able to hold the cities I have taken. Players who know my style will also be less likely to try some surprise attack in the hope of finding a city undefended. I know that it is a huge advantage if you can expand quickly from the beginning, but it is also at the beginning that there is the greatest risk of throwing everything away by splitting up your forces too much. In a game with two team mates I think it makes sense to play it a little more safe than in a 1v1 game.

You compare Warlords to chess and give an example of a situation in which it would make most sense for you to call it quits. Just as in Warlords, I would play out the chess game to the very end, but I also think that it would be perfectly alright for someone to give up in the face of overwhelming odds. In a team game I think that you should at least discuss the situation with your team mates before you make a decision to quit.

I have a suggestion that I don't really expect you all to go along with. How about we start a team game in which resignation is not an option? To me, 'Last Warlord Standing' implies a fight to the death - how about we make it that?

Lord Snow

Ian, you make some very good points and give some very interesting game details.

I'm glad you come out and say what many of us are probably thinking. I thought it was poor etiquette/sportsmanship when Molotov resigned in the other game, and based on what you are saying it might also be the case in this game. Still, I realize that there are several sides to any situation.

KGB, I have great respect for you and your skills, but I also find that it is reckless leaving your capital empty - or with such poor defenses that it is vulnerable to attack from a Succubus. That goes for other cities as well - though to a lesser extent. If the loss of a particular city would bring you to resignation, then that city should obviously be defended.

Again, KGB, I would like to get the password (I just realized that I obviously already have the turn). Based on what Ian is saying I'm curious to see whether you were justified in resigning.

Personally, I would NEVER resign from a multiplayer game, but I know that I might be a minority when I enjoy trying to survive with all odds against me. Besides, I believe that if you can just survive in a multiplayer game, you always have a chance. Most importantly, I belive you have a responsibility towards the other players.

In a 1v1 game I don't think there is any problem with resigning - even though I would always choose to play to the very end, or until my opponent had no interest in playing anymore. I would fully understand an opponent wanting me to resign if it is obvious that I only have a theoretical chance of turning things around. I wouldn't want to be in that position myself.

I also think that Bill and Batz deserve to be applauded for being able to take out Sun King this early in the game - or bring KGB to resigning. In all the talk about balancing the game and the desire to get the game going again I forgot to give credit where credit is due. Bravo!

KGB, in spite of all this, I really hope that you'll be willing to participate in another Myth game. We are so few players and you are such a great capacity in every respect. I am certain I have a lot to learn from your skills, and I am very grateful for the chance to participate in a game with you. I've never had the pleasure of facing you - or working with you on a team - and I hope I'll still get that chance.

On another note, I still feel that I made the right decision in abandoning my first quest. I sent my hero to take a city and search a ruin - and got an easy escort duty quest back to my capital where I got a 'find holy relic'-quest that I could complete the very same turn. At the same time I picked up the Siege Engine that had just been produced - and together with that I took my third city and got another average quest. A 'find holy relic' quest that set me on a course towards two other ruins on the way to the object of my quest. My main army group was heading towards Moon King territory where they would have taken my fourth city, and then joined with my hero to take the Moon King capital. I think I was in a good position - in spite of getting a bad starting quest. Like Ian, I was most certainly having a great time, and I know that that goes for my friend Peter as well.

Still hoping that we'll get another game going very soon!

Lord Snow

I was just thinking, perhaps we should do a 'West vs East' game instead? Could be Dark Elves, Sun King, Sand Maggots vs Wizards, Moon King/Lich King, Khuzan.

That would minimize the danger of one player getting isolated and eliminated early on, and it would also help to even out any balancing issues that any single side might be suffering from.

Lord Snow

I'm on page with Batz here - A LOT happening overnight. Onslaught, aren't you in Sweden? If you are, you must be on a crazy schedule!

KGB, I'd love to see the last turn you received. It would help me to get a better idea of what you were faced with as Sun King. Would you be opposed to sending it to me/us?

Props to both of you for acting so quickly on this unexpected turn of events. I can't wait to get going again!

Concerning the risk of starting out with an average quest that takes 5 turns (+/-). That risk is probably greater for Sun King, but it is a risk that always exists. I got a bad average quest to begin with. The choice of 'burn site'/'pillage gold'/'search ruin'. I chose 'search ruin' and I set it aside as it was all the way down by White. As Sun King you could start out with an easy quest, or take the chance on an average quest and set it aside if it takes you into the swamp. Yes, it always sucks to set aside a quest, but at least you then get to chose exactly the path you want to take with your hero.

It isn't a bad idea to add a few non-swamp squares between Sun Tower and North Marsh.

I agree that it would be nice for Sun King to have some Ravens to start out with - as it adds some possibilities in terms of questing.

Some Half Elves would be nice for air defense, and I agree with KGB that they should be 1-turners.

I think that Shadows are very useful as they are - not only for cheap attack stacks, but also for defense, in which their low str/hp doesn't matter much.

Decreasing the move of Devourers' to 14 seems like a good idea to me.

The situation is indeed different in this type of 3v3 team game than it is in an 8-player FFA game. Sun King seems to be in a difficult position given that he is in between Dark Elves and Sand Maggots who are unlikely to be attacked by others early on in the game. It would be very difficult for Wizards to attack Dark Elves - crossing the swamp towards Elven Fort or going through the strongly defended Green Citadel in the north - only to find themselves fighting in the woods where the elves have their bonuses. In the south the Sand Maggots are quite a distance from Khuzan whose natural path of expansion is north rather than west. It makes perfect sense for Maggots and Elves to gang up on Sun King in order to secure the western side of the map and thus ensure that they've got their backs free.

Lich King is in a somewhat similar situation in the east, but perhaps not quite as pronounced.

Anyway, I just want to get the game going, so I'll go with any changes that the rest of you can agree on

Lord Snow

KGB, I've taken the liberty of replying to you email by posting here.

You wrote:
-------------
I never said I wasn't aggressive. I'd say it takes one to know one

On this map, it's very hard for Yellow to be aggressive. That massive swamp by them hinders them more than any other side because there is no Swamp move bonus and thus you must pay 5 to move 1 square. That really sucks when other races are paying 2 with hills/forest move bonus. It would be nice to have a few hills/woods squares dotting the swamp so that Yellow (and other sides) could use those when they are moving through that massive swamp (I am talking about the one north of the capitol and across the river over by White. The Ice in the North is the only other such terrain that suffers slower movement but it is at least 3 instead of 5.

It's one of the DLR drawbacks that Swamp/Ice movement bonus's were never properly implemented.

---------------

KGB, I agree with you that the swamps make it more difficult for Sun King to expand quickly. However, there is one city that can be reached in the first turn - and 'Sun Dragon' on the river is only 18 squares (2 turns) away from the capital. Once on the river there's access to several cities and quick transport.

I like swamps and ice. If there was a swamp move bonus, I would be in favor of letting Sun King have it, but I like that there are some areas that slow down ground units significantly. Hill and forest bonuses are too widely available if you ask me. Deserts should have some kind of move penalty, but since they don't, we are left with swamps, ice and light rocks.

From a defensive standpoint (one that I often take ), the swamps make the yellow mainland more difficult to attack.

One could consider giving Sun King more flying units for them to be less hindered by the swamps. Still, I don't know if it is necessary - you seem to be doing just fine

Lord Snow

You're welcome Batz!

I don't think that particular game was a team game. I think the main focus was to test some units, and I suppose that is why we didn't make a new map when Mark got stuck on an island. Around the same time I think we started one or two team games on the Divine Right scenario, but I have no recollection of how they went. Perhaps we never finished those?

Well, as I see it, life's too precious to risk wasting by being too aggressive

Lord Snow

KGB,

Thanks for the explanations.

Of course, I should know better concerning poisoning units with 1str. I don't know why that slipped my mind when I've clearly read it many times in the combat guide and elsewhere. Duh!

Concerning boats and flying heroes. I understand what you are saying - or at least I think I do. However, here is what my tests show:

Test 1:
I have a hero grouped with a flying unit (no spells involved). He flies over the water and is then grouped with a boat. Grouped with the boat he only uses 1 movement point per move.

Test 2:
I have a hero using 'Ethereal Form'. He flies over the water and is then grouped with a boat. Grouped with the boat he still uses 2 movement point per move.

I'm probably missing something entirely obvious again, but if so, please bear over with me

Lord Snow

Argh!!!

I was just about to end my turn, but thought I'd just do a quick extra check of hero levels. Accidentally I clicked 'Hero Deeds' and the game crashed

Of course it had to happen at the end of one of my most eventful turns!

Onslaught, you might take comfort in knowing that my battles against you went somewhat worse for me the second time around, but fortunately not too much worse. Of course you might not take comfort in knowing that you were attacked - but don't worry - you heroes are still alive

Overall the second turn went pretty much the same way the first did, so it shouldn't really affect the game in any major way.

I learned two things in my two turns. For whatever reason, poison doesn't work on imps (I recreated that lesson the second time around). Or else all the 16 (or however many) Imps in Wringir just god lucky against my 6 Giant Spiders? All the Ice Demons got poisoned, but none of the Imps. I'm guessing it must be because they have lightning? Or because they are flying? Or just because they are pesky little creatures?

The second thing I learned. Or rather had confirmed after I experienced the same in my previous turn (well, previous from my two turns today). Heroes who use a flying spell cannot take advantage of boats, but use 2 moves over water even when they are accompanied by a boat. At least it has now happened several times to me.

Do any of you have an explanation for the above mysteries?

Lord Snow

I have just tested Batz's VirtualBox install, and it works great!

The system booted up in 25 secs (I timed it) on my machine, and within a few seconds more I was playing Warlords - with sound and everything

I see that technically there are copyright issues, but Win2000 is no longer supported, and Darlords Rising came out 13 years ago, so I wouldn't have any qualms about recommending this solution to someone - even in a public forum. I can't really see anyone caring. I don't imagine Steve Fawkner would mind, do you?

We're doing what we can to promote an old game in an ongoing (I hope ) series of games, and thereby also promoting the later games in the series. I don't imagine anyone is still making any real money from Darklords Rising itself.

Concerning Win2000 - well, the newest versions of Windows are struggling/failing to run DLR, so I think that it is a 100% ethically/morally justifiable to do this.

Arvid, it is true that we could write detailed instructions on how to install VirtualBox and everything else, but I think most people who haven't tried DLR would rather find something else to play if they are faced with having to figure out how to install VirtualBox + Win2000 + DLR + K4 heroes + Stormheim + scenarios and what not. Batz's solution is just so easy! One solution to bind them all!

I'll be more likely to recommend DLR to someone when I can just direct them to a prepared easy solution. It would be great if we could ensure that this solution is always easily available to anyone interested.

I think this could be a great tool for attracting new players.

Lord Snow

I'll start off this thread by continuing our debate on the aggressive playing style of Warlord Batz

I mentioned earlier that I had learned the hard way in the Divine Right scenario, but it was in fact in another game set up by the late Mark Lambert (Lambere) that I became acquainted (ambushed, assaulted, surprised?) with the aggresivity/impatience of Batz.


I had the great pleasure of participating in a few multiplayer games set up by Mark. Kudoz to him - he did a lot of work for the PBEM community. We could sure use some more people of his kind.


This particular game was set up with the main purpose of testing some of Mark's own units, and if my recollection is correct, it was set on a map with a big chunk of land in the south and a great ocean in the center and a small island in the northeastern corner and a small island in the northwestern corner that I had the "pleasure" of sharing with Batz. My memory might fail me on some of the details, but as far as I remember I lost my capital in turn two (!?? ) when I came under attack from Batz. A clever - but ruthless - move on his part. I'm sure Batz has forgotten all about it, but for me the traumatic experience will never be forgotten.

I think it was the same scenario in which Mark himself started on an island that wasn't any bigger than his capital and he had to ask for another player to send him a boat so that he could get off the island by attacking it. Hehe.. a memorable moment indeed!

Anyway, perhaps we should cut Batz some slack. I think it has been very hard on him to be stuck with the Dark Elves far out in the woods. Nothing to attack the first turn??? However did he survive!

Lord Snow

Great work Onslaught!

Many thanks for setting up the category AND acting on an idea so fast AND starting threads for each of our games!

I couldn't be more pleased! Now it is up to all the rest of us to really get the category and current threads going. I'll be sure to encourage everyone to subscribe to the category - and the whole Email/Online category while they're at it

Lord Snow

Onslaught, Spiderman, Molotov, thanks for the feedback.

Using this thread is a good suggestion, but I just got another idea that is a bit more ambitious. Perhaps too ambitious

How about having a board category dedicated to ongoing games? Then we could have a thread for each major game. All the players would then subscribe to that thread, and all the communication meant for all players should then be posted in the thread rather than sent by email. In that way, all the players subscribing to the thread would still receive all messages in an email, and they would only need to visit the thread when they had something to say.

It has the potential of creating a lot of life in the forum, and I also think it would encourage more banter. A place for taunts, screenshots, praise, roleplaying - and after the end of a game there'd be a good place to discuss how the game went. Regrets, unfair quests, great battles, etc.

I would find such game threads very interesting - even for games I wasn't involved in myself.

Again, it does require that players are enthusiastic about the whole concept.

What say you all?

Lord Snow

KGB,

Good to have that cleared up.

I was not aware that you could drown in a swamp (in DLR that is ) - scary!

You say that the original idea was that a hero would drown if his mount got killed, but isn't the mount always behind the hero during flight? (meaning that the hero would always die before the last flying unit in his stack)

Lord Snow