# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## [Dom3]Patience Problem

Discussions and debates about video games

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

125 posts

- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next

koz
  Duke
  Posts: 1585
  Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:39 pm
  Location: Oz

### [Dom3]Patience Problem

- Quote

Post by koz » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:37 am

Hi folks. It seems I cannot wait enough to get my Dom3 hit. So with this in mind, I'm starting an LA game.
I'd ideally prefer this to have 5 players in it, for a 100-province map. In the interests of not having the whole game force a gank of any players, please could nobody pick LA Ermor or R'lyeh. For the children.
Otherwise, settings would be as normal.
My preferences:
1) Bogarus
2) T'ien Ch'i
3) Pangaea
Current lineup
Mister_Sinister: Bogarus
MisterDee: Midgard (how do you pronounce an 'a' with a circle on it anyway?)
Orion: Ulm
Korwin: C'tis
Drago0661: Marignon
Awaiting decision on map and VPs.
Last edited by koz on Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Everything I learned about DnD, I learned from Frank Trollman.

> Kaelik wrote:You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.

> souran wrote:...uber, nerd-rage-inducing, minutia-devoted, pointless blithering shit.

> Schwarzkopf wrote:The Den, your one-stop shop for in-depth analysis of Dungeons & Dragons and distressingly credible threats of oral rape.

> DSM wrote:Apparently, The GM's Going To Punch You in Your Goddamned Face edition of D&D is getting more traction than I expected. Well, it beats playing 4th. Probably 5th, too.

> Frank Trollman wrote:Giving someone a mouth full of cock is a standard action.

> PoliteNewb wrote:If size means anything, it's what position you have to get in to give a BJ.

Top

MisterDee
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 816
  Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:40 pm

###

- Quote

Post by MisterDee » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:19 pm

I can join that one - I'll get my nation preferences in later today.
Top

MisterDee
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 816
  Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:40 pm

###

- Quote

Post by MisterDee » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:54 pm

Allright, so
1-Midgard
2-Caelum
3-Arco
... unless one of those is particularly terrible and I haven't realized it yet.
Top

Orion
  Prince
  Posts: 3756
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Orion » Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:31 pm

- Ulm
- Marignon
- Ctis

Last edited by Orion on Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NEW STUFF
Social Actions
Context
OLD STUFF
A Broken Sky Identity Crisis
Top

Korwin
  Duke
  Posts: 2055
  Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:49 am
  Location: Linz / Austria

###

- Quote

Post by Korwin » Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:16 pm

Late age and no Ermor and no R'ley... Hmm...
C'ties
Gath
Arco

> Red_Rob wrote: I mean, I'm pretty sure the Mayans had a prophecy about what would happen if Frank and PL ever agreed on something. PL will argue with Frank that the sky is blue or grass is green, so when they both separately piss on your idea that is definitely something to think about.

Top

koz
  Duke
  Posts: 1585
  Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:39 pm
  Location: Oz

###

- Quote

Post by koz » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:16 pm

Drago0661 said that he'd like me to reserve a spot for him playing Marignon. Since that makes five, time to think on a map. Any ideas? I'm partial to anything, as long as it's wraparound.
Also, opinions on VPs? I'd rather this game not drag on too long, even though as Bogarus, that probably favours me if anything.
Everything I learned about DnD, I learned from Frank Trollman.

> Kaelik wrote:You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.

> souran wrote:...uber, nerd-rage-inducing, minutia-devoted, pointless blithering shit.

> Schwarzkopf wrote:The Den, your one-stop shop for in-depth analysis of Dungeons & Dragons and distressingly credible threats of oral rape.

> DSM wrote:Apparently, The GM's Going To Punch You in Your Goddamned Face edition of D&D is getting more traction than I expected. Well, it beats playing 4th. Probably 5th, too.

> Frank Trollman wrote:Giving someone a mouth full of cock is a standard action.

> PoliteNewb wrote:If size means anything, it's what position you have to get in to give a BJ.

Top

MisterDee
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 816
  Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:40 pm

###

- Quote

Post by MisterDee » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:11 am

Anything's fine by me - it's my first MP Game so I don't really have an opinion on maps and stuff.
A link to the map chosen would be nice, though.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 am

If you want a less draggy game, I would suggest 60-75 provinces instead of 100 (12-15 per player as opposed to 20 per player).
15 VPs total (3 per player), first to 6 wins.
Top

Akula
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 960
  Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:06 am
  Location: Oakland CA

###

- Quote

Post by Akula » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:58 am

First to 6 is kinda ridiculous, play a thug nation and recruit scouts, drop in on the unforted vps that are sure to come up in a newbie game in year 2, win.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:46 am

True, but if players are going to incompetently leave VP provinces unforted then it won't matter much in the long run either anyway.
Assuming competent play however, this setup assumes that one player annihilates one other enemy completely; which is good for a not-draggish game. If people think that's too quick, then make it 9 VP out of 15 so you have to obliterate two other guys.
It really depends on how you define "dragging" anyway.
Top

Akula
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 960
  Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:06 am
  Location: Oakland CA

###

- Quote

Post by Akula » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:00 am

> Zinegata wrote:True, but if players are going to incompetently leave VP provinces unforted then it won't matter much in the long run either anyway.

The key here is that it really doesn't matter what any one player does, if every player takes 3 vps in expansion and some people leave a combination of 3 unforted vps on the map, the game can end at any moment to airdrop. Also, I highly doubt you build 3 forts in year one on average which is basically what you are demanding from every player in this game.

> Assuming competent play however, this setup assumes that one player annihilates one other enemy completely; which is good for a not-draggish game.

That is dumb, even blitz games tend to have higher victory requirements. What you are saying is that one nation can win the game in year one or two by expanding well and rushing another. What you are proposing is a recipe for a game where a good chunk of the players never fight or interact in any way.

> If people think that's too quick, then make it 9 VP out of 15 so you have to obliterate two other guys.
> It really depends on how you define "dragging" anyway.

Since Mister_Sinister wanted a game where people didn't feel forced to gank other players because of nation choice, I think he doesn't want settings that force early constant warfare.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:17 am

> Akula wrote:The key here is that it really doesn't matter what any one player does, if every player takes 3 vps in expansion and some people leave a combination of 3 unforted vps on the map, the game can end at any moment to airdrop. Also, I highly doubt you build 3 forts in year one on average which is basically what you are demanding from every player in this game.

It's actually very doable to do three forts on year 1-1.5. You already start with one fort; you just need to build two more.
Moreover, again, the issue of unforted provinces will remain an issue regardless of how many VP there are on the map. For instance, I won OldestProfession on something like Turn 50 with a mass VP drop operation. The risk of someone winning with a mass thug drop suddenly will always be there as long as it's a VP game and as long as the players aren't responsible enough (or are way too busy doing other things like fending off a three-way invasion) to properly protect their VP provinces.
I would even go as far and say that having more VP provinces actually increases the chance of someone winning via a mass VP drop - because while it's generally easier to remember that you should fort your 3 VP provinces; people tend to start forgetting to fort their 4th, 5th, or 6th VP province and giving other player a chance to steal them. A lot of nations don't even necessarily want a 4th fort at all.

> That is dumb, even blitz games tend to have higher victory requirements. What you are saying is that one nation can win the game in year one or two by expanding well and rushing another. What you are proposing is a recipe for a game where a good chunk of the players never fight or interact in any way.

Not really; you've already got 15 provinces per player and no bless rush nations among them. Yes, the game might end if someone kills just one other player. But that the hell do you expect? There are seriously just five players in this game and the breakpoints are either conquer 2/5s of the map or 3/5s. Otherwise, you might as well just play a non-VP game.
Your complaints are thus pretty silly when you consider the VP numbers I proposed are a function of the number of players on the board. Heck, if someone wins an early rush in a non-VP game in this setup, they will likely win the game already anyway, because there are seriously that few players to contend with and having 2/5s of the map is a serious advantage.

> Since Mister_Sinister wanted a game where people didn't feel forced to gank other players because of nation choice, I think he doesn't want settings that force early constant warfare.

Early constant warfare is not a function of map or VP settings. It is a function of player decisions. Thinking that you can tweak map or VP settings to make early constant warfare less likely isn't a realistic goal.
For instance: Moving the map size from 15 to 20 provinces per player doesn't actually make early warfare less likely - because you'll probably just add 1 or 2 to the distance between your capital and an enemy capital; not by 5. Having to march 4 spaces instead of 3 is not going to prevent an early war from being waged by someone who really wants one.
The best you can do to prevent an overly aggressive game is to pick nations which aren't good at rushing. Which is already accounted for in the setup - there ain't any fearsome bless rush nations in the mix.
Last edited by Zinegata on Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top

Drago0661
  Master
  Posts: 197
  Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:28 am

###

- Quote

Post by Drago0661 » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:41 am

Yea, as Mister Sinister said, I'm after playing Marignon. I wasn't watching the threads as I expected the game to be posted later in the week. The title says it all.
I'm not too fussy on the number of provinces and VP, i'll let more experienced players figure that out.
However due to lack of LA experience and well never playing LA Marignon other than that one game that got cancelled, I would like to open a discussion on the pretender design.
The way i see it there's 3 categories of options:
F9S9 blessed sacreds
Take a dormant pretender with good paths and scales and rely on crossbowmen, pikoneers and cavalry for expansion. (many variations on this)
Take an awake Wyrm with some astral and dominion9 to use that to expand.
Any other categories that I'm not aware of?
As I said, I don't have much experience with LA Marignon, so any advise and tips would be welcome.
Top

Akula
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 960
  Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:06 am
  Location: Oakland CA

###

- Quote

Post by Akula » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:42 am

> Zinegata wrote:It's actually very doable to do three forts on year 1-1.5. You already start with one fort; you just need to build two more.

If capitals aren't vps then you have to build 3. I actually do know how to do early infrastructure, and mid year two is too damn late for a VP fort if it only takes 6 to win. You have to actually start forts on all your VPs in year one if you want to be safe.

> Moreover, again, the issue of unforted provinces will remain an issue regardless of how many VP there are on the map. For instance, I won OldestProfession on something like Turn 50 with a mass VP drop operation. The risk of someone winning with a mass thug drop suddenly will always be there as long as it's a VP game and as long as the players aren't responsible enough (or are way too busy doing other things like fending off a three-way invasion) to properly protect their VP provinces.

Winning on turn 50 isn't a problem, winning on turn 15 is. Also this entire paragraph doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.

> I would even go as far and say that having more VP provinces actually increases the chance of someone winning via a mass VP drop - because while it's generally easier to remember that you should fort your 3 VP provinces; people tend to start forgetting to fort their 4th, 5th, or 6th VP province and giving other player a chance to steal them. A lot of nations don't even necessarily want a 4th fort at all.

I can think of exactly 0 nations that don't want more mages.

> Not really; you've already got 15 provinces per player and no bless rush nations among them. Yes, the game might win if someone kills just one other player. But that the hell do you expect? There are seriously just five players in this game and the breakpoints are either conquer 2/5s of the map or 3/5s. Otherwise, you might as well just play a non-VP game.

Here is a hint, your settings don't require a player to be killed. Not one player has to have a capital taken for your hypothetical game to be won. Actually finishing a player off can take a huge amount of effort and resources long after the war is a foregone conclusion, but this game requires none of that. All you need to do is expand well and steal 2 vps off of someone.

> Your complaints are thus pretty silly when you consider the VP numbers I proposed are a function of the number of players on the board. Heck, if someone wins an early rush in a non-VP game in this setup, they will likely win the game already anyway, because there are seriously that few players to contend with.

Are you seriously suggesting that an all out rush couldn't collapse under its own weight or lose to an alliance of the remaining players?

> Early constant warfare is not a function of map or VP settings. It is a function of player decisions. Moving the map size from 15 to 20 provinces per player doesn't actually make early warfare less likely - because you'll probably just add 1 or 2 to the distance between your capital and an enemy capital; not by 5.

This isn't hard, if one player decides to be aggressive then all of them have to be just as aggressive if they want a shot at winning, because the first person to win a war probably will win the game. While a player could decide to play passively, it would be tantamount to deciding to lose in your hypothetical. Thus you have early and constant warfare as everyone races to get an extra VP or three.
Top

Akula
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 960
  Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:06 am
  Location: Oakland CA

###

- Quote

Post by Akula » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:54 am

> Drago0661 wrote:F9S9 blessed sacreds

I don't like that option, flagellents are lame and massing sacreds doesn't work without better scales than you can get with F9S9, and the bless does nothing for your mages or summons, but if you really like blesses and gimmicks you could try it.

> Take a dormant pretender with good paths and scales and rely on crossbowmen, pikoneers and cavalry for expansion. (many variations on this)

This would be my personal choice, I like scales. I would probably take something that let me get clams in a larger game, but in a game like this I might just take a moloch with dom 10 and some extra fire and blood. Also expansion is almost all crossbows with arrow decoys, cavalry is too expensive outside of CBM/FF/DE/whatever mod to be really useful.

> Take an awake Wyrm with some astral and dominion9 to use that to expand.

Wyrms are mostly taken pathless for good reason, also mari really wants dom 10 if you can get it. Astral on an SC god is asking for trouble if it is not 6-8 at least.

> Any other categories that I'm not aware of?

I have a specific build that I would favor for a larger game, but an awake moloch would probably work well here.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:08 am

> Akula wrote:If capitals aren't vps then you have to build 3.

I'm pretty sure caps are always VP provinces.

> Winning on turn 50 isn't a problem, winning on turn 15 is. Also this entire paragraph doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.

Yes, because you're off talking about impossible theoreticals like how a cap can't be a VP province. Again, two forts on year one is EASY. If you have 6 VPs on Turn 15 it's likely not because you thug-dropped, it's because you actually conquered someone.
And again, if you add more VPs you just increase the chances of having a lot of non-forted VPs on the map - making a surprise VP jump win just as likely anyway even in the early game. Adding VPs makes a surprise VP win MORE likely, not less. The best you can do is to make the requirement 3/5s of the map instead of 2/5s, but again 3/5s may end up pretty "draggy" already. Alternatively, have only 1 VP per player (their capital) and make the requirement 3/5, but I suspect some will find the cap-focused objectives a bit boring.

> I can think of exactly 0 nations that don't want more mages.

That's fucking retarded. Forts do not equal mages.
Sure, being able to recruit 6 mages per turn sounds great and all, but if you're Vanheim and you pay 280 each for your usual mage then you probably won't be able to afford the 1,680 gold cost for those 6 mages. There comes a point when gold production is the limitation, not recruitment capacity.
Each nation does, in fact, have an "ideal" number of forts depending on the gold production and recruitment capacity. I can totally understand wanting 6 or more forts as MA TC, because you can probably afford 6 Ministers of Magic per turn, but if you're Vanheim and you're building 6 Forts for additional recruitment capacity then that's fucking retarded.

> Here is a hint, your settings don't require a player to be killed. Not one player has to have a capital taken for your hypothetical game to be won.

Here's a hint: THat's always gonna be a problem in any VP game wherein players don't take the minimum precautions to protect their VPs, from Turn 15 to Turn 50. Having 6 VPs per players for instance to prevent a hypothetical Turn 15 stealth win by thugs will look completely idiotic and useless once someone just wins an actual fucking war by Turn 15 and takes the 6 VPs (mostly non-forted, because again not everyone wants 6 forts) the old fashioned way.

> This isn't hard, if one player decides to be aggressive then all of them have to be just as aggressive if they want a shot at winning, because the first person to win a war probably will win the game.

That's the nature of the game when you have five players. Again, the issue you are raising is a function of the number of players on the map. It has NOTHING to do with your useless complaints on VP numbers.
The fundamental issue that is the root of all of these "problems" you keep raising is that there are just 5 players in the game. Not the number of provinces. Not the number of VPs needed to win. Because when one player wins a war, they get to control 2/5s of the map. No amount of shuffling VPs is gonna change that.
Last edited by Zinegata on Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:38 am, edited 5 times in total.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:20 am

> Drago0661 wrote:The way i see it there's 3 categories of options:
> F9S9 blessed sacreds
> Take a dormant pretender with good paths and scales and rely on crossbowmen, pikoneers and cavalry for expansion. (many variations on this)
> Take an awake Wyrm with some astral and dominion9 to use that to expand.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to take good paths and scales as Mari tends to need some late-game diversity, but with fewish players an early game Wyrm might be better.
Top

Akula
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 960
  Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:06 am
  Location: Oakland CA

###

- Quote

Post by Akula » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:41 am

> Zinegata wrote:I'm pretty sure caps are always VP provinces.

Go to the create game page on llamaserver, scroll down, learn something new.

> Yes, because you're off talking about impossible theoreticals like how a cap can't be a VP province. Again, two forts on year one is EASY. If you have 6 VPs on Turn 15 it's likely not because you thug-dropped, it's because you actually conquered someone.

Ignoring the fact that I am talking about the default assumption of vp games and you are blowing smoke. You really don't know how hard it can be to conquer someone actually good at this game, do you? While you can take territory by turn 15 you will not crack their capital if they know shit.

> That's fucking retarded. Forts do not equal mages.

uh, yeah they do.

> Each nation does, in fact, have an "ideal" number of forts depending on the gold production and recruitment capacity. I can totally understand wanting 6 or more forts as MA TC, because you can probably afford 6 Ministers of Magic per turn, but if you're Vanheim and you're building 6 Forts for additional recruitment capacity then that's fucking retarded.

If you are running up against gold limitations then you need to conquer more territory. Simple as that.

> Here's a hint: THat's always gonna be a problem in any VP game wherein players don't take the minimum precautions to protect their VPs, from Turn 15 to Turn 50.

Turn 15 is like 3 turns after expansion ends, there is a strong possibility that you CAN'T have a fort on at least one of your vps at that point.

> That's the nature of the game when you have five players. Again, the issue you are raising is a function of the number of players on the map. It has NOTHING to do with your useless complaints on VP numbers.

No, because if getting aggressive and killing one person wasn't a win condition in and of itself the remaining players could actually just make an alliance, or the aggressor could collapse under the weight of losses and poor infrastructure/scales. The fact that raiding one person can win you the game is a direct consequence of your dumb suggestions on the number of VPs required to win. That you are doubling down on your own stupidity is absurd, and that you are trying to make it look like a function of game size is laughable.

> The fundamental issue that is the root of all of these "problems" you keep raising is that there are just 5 players in the game. Not the number of provinces. Not the number of VPs needed to win. Because when one player wins a war, they get to control 2/5s of the map. No amount of shuffling VPs is gonna change that.

I guess you just call games when someone is bigger than you then?
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:57 am

LOL, drama before the game where we're not even involved because Akula is too fucking retarded to realize that this ain't a game about who has the bigger dick.

> Akula wrote:Go to the create game page on llamaserver, scroll down, learn something new.

And how many games have we ever actually played without making caps a VP province? Oh yes, never, thank you for pointing out an irrelevant feature because you just want to wave your dick around.

> Ignoring the fact that I am talking about the default assumption of vp games and you are blowing smoke.

Oh, look at the big strong Dominion expert waving his dick around.

> You really don't know how hard it can be to conquer someone actually good at this game, do you? While you can take territory by turn 15 you will not crack their capital if they know shit.

Actually, I'm quite confident about my knowledge of how hard it is to take an enemy cap from a competent enemy (which is again just irrelevant dick-waving on your part).
And that's why my alternate is to have ONE VP province per player - one per cap - because that completely eliminates your neuorotic paranoia over thug drops. But due to the way the last thread went, I'm assuming people would prefer to have VPs outside their caps.

> uh, yeah they do.
> If you are running up against gold limitations then you need to conquer more territory. Simple as that.

And this is just you refusing to admit you're wrong.
Needing to conquer more provinces to support more forts does, in fact, demonstrate that nations do in fact have an "ideal" number of forts based on gold production. Forts do not equal mages. Forts are merely one of the elements you need to get mages, and you are a fucking retard if build 6 forts in the early game as Vanheim when you know damn well you aren't gonna be spending 1,680 gold a turn.

> Turn 15 is like 3 turns after expansion ends, there is a strong possibility that you CAN'T have a fort on at least one of your vps at that point.

On average, your capital makes 300 at a minimum unless you do something incredibly retarded. That's 3,000 gold by turn 10, without counting any money gained from expansions. That's more than enough to build 2 forts from the money you earned from your capital ALONE, 5 turns before turn 15.
Again: Two forts is INCREDIBLY easy.
Players think it's too many? Make it 1 more VP per player rather than 2. Players think it's too few? Make it 3 VP per player. Sheesh, it's that fucking simple and you want to make drama over it .
The lesson remains that players should fort their VP provinces, because that is what actually prevents sudden drop-wins.

> No, because if getting aggressive and killing one person wasn't a win condition in and of itself the remaining players could actually just make an alliance,

And again, it's really fucking simple: You don't want a one-player kill? Then make the VP requirement to win 3/5s. It was only 2/5s because I'm taking "no dragging" into account. If you wanna bump it up to 4/5s, then VPs lose most of their sense and you may as well play a non-VP game. Again, WHAT'S THE ISSUE WITH THAT?
But no, you want to wave your fucking dick around and babble stupid shit instead of actually giving a proper VP suggestion.

> I guess you just call games when someone is bigger than you then?

No, I'm pointing out that ayone with 2/5s of the map is probably gonna have a major advantage and I am fulfilling the requirement of the game not "dragging". if you feel 2/5s is too quick, then make it 3/5s.
It's that fucking simple, but you're off too busy trying to prove your Dom3 props instead of actually fucking listening.
Last edited by Zinegata on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top

koz
  Duke
  Posts: 1585
  Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:39 pm
  Location: Oz

###

- Quote

Post by koz » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:25 am

Zinegata and Akula: Fascinating though this discussion is, if you want to deliberate your imminent hatefuck, could you please do it elsewhere?
To everyone else: Map suggestions are very welcome, since I'm a bit lost for which I'd prefer.
Everything I learned about DnD, I learned from Frank Trollman.

> Kaelik wrote:You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.

> souran wrote:...uber, nerd-rage-inducing, minutia-devoted, pointless blithering shit.

> Schwarzkopf wrote:The Den, your one-stop shop for in-depth analysis of Dungeons & Dragons and distressingly credible threats of oral rape.

> DSM wrote:Apparently, The GM's Going To Punch You in Your Goddamned Face edition of D&D is getting more traction than I expected. Well, it beats playing 4th. Probably 5th, too.

> Frank Trollman wrote:Giving someone a mouth full of cock is a standard action.

> PoliteNewb wrote:If size means anything, it's what position you have to get in to give a BJ.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:30 am

> Mister_Sinister wrote:To everyone else: Map suggestions are very welcome, since I'm a bit lost for which I'd prefer.

I think you prefer wraparounds, but I've always wanted someone to try this out, as it looks pretty balanced:
http://dom3maps.wikidot.com/system:fivelands
Top

Akula
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 960
  Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:06 am
  Location: Oakland CA

###

- Quote

Post by Akula » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:38 am

> Zinegata wrote:LOL, drama before the game where we're not even involved because Akula is too fucking retarded to realize that this ain't a game about who has the bigger dick.

Well this has taken a strange turn. What's with the penis envy bro?

> Oh, look at the big strong Dominion expert waving his dick around.

Seriously, see a therapist.

> Actually, I'm quite confident about my knowledge of how hard it is to take an enemy cap from a competent enemy (which is again just irrelevant dick-waving on your party).

It directly relates to acquiring the number of VPs needed to win under your proposal not meaning a player was eliminated or even that a war was won.

> And that's why my alternate is to have ONE VP province per player - one per cap. Instead of this bullshit idiocy of yours involving MORE VP provinces.

I never suggested more VPs, learn to read. You should present your alternate proposals more clearly, and not as a subparagraph in one of your rants, because I never saw it until I reread all of your posts.

> And this is just you refusing to admit you're wrong.

No, this is me not wanting to talk about specific strategies you can use to get more gold, suffice it to say that you should be able to support 6 forts even with nations that have expensive mages. Also, conquering provinces is easy for a raiding nation like van, but taking forts can be more difficult, so you build forts and take gold.

> On average, your capital makes 300 at a minimum unless you do something incredibly retarded. That's 3,000 gold by turn 10, without counting any money gained from expansions. That's more than enough to build 2 forts from the money you earned from your capital ALONE, 5 turns before turn 15.

If all you buy for mages are the very cheapest ones, and upkeep wasn't a consideration, you might have a point, as it is you don't in any general sense. Specific nations and strategies lend themselves to more early forts, for others it isn't an option.

> And again, it's really fucking simple: You don't want a one-player kill? Then make the VP requirement to win 3/5s. It was only 2/5s because I'm taking "no dragging" into account.

This is the most important thing I will say this post: In a five player game it is unacceptable that the actions of only two players can determine the outcome of the game. It is stupid for everyone to start one capital away from winning as well. For a game to be something I would even consider playing in you would need to actually involve a majority (at minimum) of players in deciding the outcome of the game. The number of VPs on the map is irrelevant to that, the number to win is what matters and it needs to be at least 1/2 and more ideally 3/4 of the total. Capital vps and 3 to win would probably be best if you are set on going that route. But with a smaller game you could probably wrap up about as fast with concession.

> But no, you want to wave your fucking dick around and babble stupid shit instead of actually giving a proper VP suggestion.

Your the one babbling about dicks man, I kept my shit on topic.

> It's that fucking simple, but you're off too busy trying to prove your Dom3 props instead of actually fucking listening.

I have nothing to prove to the community here about my ability in dom3. You can all think whatever about me for all I care, I just don't want your bad advice to ruin a game for 5 people.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:41 am

Akula->
Dude, what part of "take it elsewhere" did you not read? PM me if you want to continue this pointless dick fight of yours.
I gave a suggestion. You raised an objection. I gave an alternative. You didn't listen and tried to turn it into a dick fight.
So really, stop this fucking nonsense about how you're just trying to prevent 5 people from not enjoying the game. It's about your ego. Take it to the PMs.
Last edited by Zinegata on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Akula
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 960
  Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:06 am
  Location: Oakland CA

###

- Quote

Post by Akula » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:46 am

Realm of Rampaging Roachs would work. Download link is here. It was the map I was going to use for a 5-6 land nation game so it be alright. The llamaserver version might have preplaced Victory Points though if you go that route.
Top

koz
  Duke
  Posts: 1585
  Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:39 pm
  Location: Oz

###

- Quote

Post by koz » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:18 am

Akula: I don't think that map is wraparound, which automatically makes me a bit against it. I prefer wraparound, but if we don't find another map by the time my exam ends tomorrow, I'll just use something wraparound of roughly the right size.
Zine: While the map is wraparound, it's a bit small - 12 provinces per player is gonna be pretty fast. I'm still keen for about 20/player.
Last edited by koz on Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Everything I learned about DnD, I learned from Frank Trollman.

> Kaelik wrote:You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.

> souran wrote:...uber, nerd-rage-inducing, minutia-devoted, pointless blithering shit.

> Schwarzkopf wrote:The Den, your one-stop shop for in-depth analysis of Dungeons & Dragons and distressingly credible threats of oral rape.

> DSM wrote:Apparently, The GM's Going To Punch You in Your Goddamned Face edition of D&D is getting more traction than I expected. Well, it beats playing 4th. Probably 5th, too.

> Frank Trollman wrote:Giving someone a mouth full of cock is a standard action.

> PoliteNewb wrote:If size means anything, it's what position you have to get in to give a BJ.

Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

125 posts

- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next

Return to “I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS