Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Next (10th) Monday(?) game Options · View
Ederon
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:31:38 AM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Monday Game IX is finished (or will soon enough) so let's start about what gonna be next. So, what's your opinions? Another Abyss or some nice Vicky? Any mod or vanilla?

I'm either for another vanilla Abyss with some extra customization in terms of what I offered last time before we started 9th game or Vicky. I don't think Felix's mod will be ready anytime soon seeing how lazy he is Big Grin (though RB brought some fresh wind in there). And that mod will need some time yet before it's really ready, so it can continue to evolve along regular game and be our next choice in few months.
Vissarion
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:02:37 AM
 Lieutenant General

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 14000th Post

Joined: 3/6/2007
Posts: 1,715
Location: Norway
Lord Ederon wrote:
I'm either for another vanilla Abyss with some extra customization in terms of what I offered last time before we started 9th game or Vicky.

I completely agree with this.

are we aiming for start this monday already, or are we waiting a few weeks? I'm anxious for my mp fixLOL

boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
peng
boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
zong
Ederon
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:42:33 AM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Vissarion wrote:
I'm anxious for my mp fixLOL

So am I :-d
Anders
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:58:02 AM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
I'm all for waiting 2-3 weeks and planning it a bit. (Also giving me time to actually join in the start, as my last night at work is August 2.)

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
Ederon
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 7:53:37 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
I hope people respond soon as I'm anxious to start some serious planning. I've looked at Abyss and I think I know who I want to play. Either Rome or Persia. For refreshment, I repost my proposal before start of game IX.

Quote:
Initial setup

As we all know, all countries start with the same (almost no) techs. Also, all countries have belligerence 50.


Possible startup options

We can start it "as is". Then war will erupt quite fast as AI nations will DoW their neighbors very soon due to high belligerence and claims. Another option could be to reset belligerence of all countries to 0. This might (I haven't tried it) delay war start and allow some pre-war setup.

My proposal I'd be for in case we go with Abyss is this:

  • reset belligerence to 0 or some lower value to delay start of war (if it applies, will have to test it). Three/six month peace won't hurt.

  • let every player choose one (two/three) techs he'll have from the beginning. This will make it more random and to some extent distinguish one country from another. I'll elaborate later.


    How to implement that "free tech" at start

    Depending on our agreement, each player would have some amount of points - let's call them research points (RP). He could then invest RP to technology(ies) he want to start with. Unspent RPs will be converted to money - 1 RP = $10.

    Now how to calculate RP value of technology. Well, simple enough, as sum of her components' difficulties. That'll be base price in RP. As you could assume, 1939 technology will be more expensive as 1936 technology consisting of the same components with same difficulties. So base value which is sum of components difficulties will be multiplied by "year modifier". That will be as follows (or something like that).

    1936 = 1.0
    1937 = 1.3
    1938 = 1.7
    1939 = 2.2
    1940 = 2.9
    1941 = 3.7
    1942 = 4.8

    Doctrines will be selectable, but their RP value modifier will be yet multiplied by 1.2.

    Additionally, player can buy blueprint for technology. Cost of blueprint is 66% (2/3) of technology price.


    Example 1

    Lets assume each player has received 100 RP at the start. Player of Australasia, as "island" country, wants to ensure his fleet is ahead of his enemies. So he decides to invest in following techs.

    Early Air Carrier (1936 tech - components 7/7/7/7/14 - total value 42 RP)
    Basic Air Carrier (1936 tech - components 7/7/7/7/14 - total value 42 RP)

    He spent 84 RP, so just 16 remains. Only other technology he can have for this is Early Static Anti Air (1936 tech - components 3/3/3/3/3 - 15 RP). So he choses it. One RP remains unspent, and is converted into $10.


    Example 2

    For the same game, player of Prussia wants to have doctrinal superiority from the start. So he decides to spend his RP on this.

    Mobility Focus Doctrine (1936 tech - components 10/10/10/10/10 - base 50 RP * 1.2 (doctrine) = 60 RP)

    As following land doctrines are too expensive and he has only 40 RP, he decides to spend them on infantry tech.

    Early Infantry Division - (1936 tech - components 6/6/6/6/6 - total 30 RP)

    Remaining 10 RP can be spent yet on blueprint for cheapest technology worth 15 RP (66% of 15 is 10). Or 10 RP can be converted to $100.
  • Anders
    Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 7:59:27 PM
     Generalfeldmarschall

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

    Joined: 3/9/2007
    Posts: 13,057
    Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
    If we do Abyss, I'd like Australasia. Austria (Austria, Australia, same thing, really.) Or Africa. (That ought to give Geo more ammo...)
    But I'd like even more to play EU III...

    Regarding editing the scenario, I believe we delayed AI wars long enough by setting "war = 0" in the current game. I think that modified save's somewhere in the Monday IX section... Otherwise there aren't that many countries to "fix" in that regard.
    The tech edits I'm sure everyone agreed to before the last startup, only we never got around to doing them. But if we start in 2 weeks, I'm sure there will be enough time to implement them this time. For possible AI countries, I suggest we just add what tech we would want if we were playing it.

    What else we need to settle are the rules, specifically regarding alliances and ingame edits.
    I think we could have alliances restricted to the Armageddon setup, but I don't like the idea of edits beyond what's possible ingame.

    "Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

    King of Men wrote:
    Anders is correct.

    Fivoin wrote:
    Yeah, Anders is right.

    baronbowden wrote:
    I would tend to agree with Anders.

    Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

    I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
    Vissarion
    Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:06:25 PM
     Lieutenant General

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 14000th Post

    Joined: 3/6/2007
    Posts: 1,715
    Location: Norway
    I think we should also use the earlier suggested rule to limit air power of having a few level 2 airports around the world (probably 1 per area) and prohibiting production of airbases. I'm also in favour of not being able to queue up naval bases for instant placement, but rather limiting it to the province menu. If you recall the Normandy landings one of the hardest things was to make those floating harbours to be able to receive enough supplies, and that was only across the english channel. Making a captured remote island able to instantly supply for a further offensive should not be possible.

    I'm also interested in changes when it comes to alliances. I find the rule of no alliances at all intriguing, but I think it was not received so well last time it was aired. In the last game I consider the no-brainer alliances of India and China and the Americas to be a little limiting... anyone got any suggestions/viewpoints there?

    boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
    peng
    boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
    zong
    hiensen
    Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:06:58 PM
     Generalleutnant

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 18000th Post

    Joined: 1/27/2008
    Posts: 1,331
    Location: Pau, France
    If you guys are going for an abyss I'll sign up as USNA or Prussia.
    sonofliberty
    Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:07:32 PM
    Free Man

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalBiggest Spammer '08 Award

    Joined: 3/5/2007
    Posts: 4,329
    Would you consider this as a saturday or sunday game? I will be available starting the first sunday in august.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

    There is a new game on the way Project Blitzkrieg
    Ederon
    Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:25:09 PM
     Field Major


    Joined: 2/28/2007
    Posts: 5,949
    Location: Heart of Europe
    Anders wrote:
    Regarding editing the scenario, I believe we delayed AI wars long enough by setting "war = 0" in the current game. I think that modified save's somewhere in the Monday IX section... Otherwise there aren't that many countries to "fix" in that regard.

    Yes, I've just copied whole thing, first part about AI dowing is really obsolete.

    Quote:
    The tech edits I'm sure everyone agreed to before the last startup, only we never got around to doing them. But if we start in 2 weeks, I'm sure there will be enough time to implement them this time. For possible AI countries, I suggest we just add what tech we would want if we were playing it.

    I'll try to write something down for this purpose. People will then just send me files with techs they want and program will compile it into the save. Another option is manual edit by un-involved person. All edits are basic, so it should be no real problem.

    Quote:
    What else we need to settle are the rules, specifically regarding alliances and ingame edits.
    I think we could have alliances restricted to the Armageddon setup, but I don't like the idea of edits beyond what's possible ingame.

    I'd prefer either no-alliance rule or restricted alliances. The restriction could be cumulative IC of alliance members. Let's say we won't allow alliances bigger then 500 base IC. It'd be easily controllable. Another restriction might be number of members. I'd be for restricting alliance to max 2 human players and their puppets (if they have any). With IC rule still in effect.

    I've taken brief look at /db folder and tweaked misc.txt, spy_costs.txt diplo_costs.txt and building_costs.txt. Here are my edits (line marked with #E followed by original value)

    building_costs.txt
    Code:

    coastalfort = {
        cost        = 4
        buildtime     = 750 #E 1000  ;  effect of fort is lowered, so is price
        manpower    = 0.5 #E 0  ;  forts should cost some manpower, to operate them properly, you need some men
        size        = 1
    }
    landfort = {
        cost        = 5
        buildtime     = 900 #E 1200  ;  same as coastal
        manpower    = 0.5 #E 0  ;  same as coastal
        size        = 1
    }
    infra = {
        cost        = 1
        buildtime     = 200 #E 360  ;  aprox. halved time since we halved effect to allow more flexibility
        manpower    = 0
        size        = 0.05 #E 0.1  ;  halved effect to allow more flexibility
    }


    diplo_costs.txt
    Code:

    diplomacy = {
    # Influence Nation
        -200 #E -100  ;  this should be more expensive
    # Ask for Military Access
        -500 #E -150  ;  military access should be expensive thing to arrange
    # Send Expeditionary Force
        -50 #E 0  ;  sending expeditionary forces should cost money
    # Guarantee Independence
        -1000 #E -30  ;  GOIs in hoi2 are disputable, so price is risen considerably
    # Offer Non-Aggression Pact
        -500 #E -100  ;  NAP should be real commitment
    # Cancel Non-Aggression Pact
        -500 #E -100  ;  same with breaking it
    # Release Puppet
        -1000 #E -20  ;  if we wanna prevent puppet dances, this is one way. it still allows people to have puppets
    }


    misc.txt
    Code:

    economy = {
    # IC to TC ratio
        1.4 #E 1.5  ;  less TC, less units operational = tougher game
    # IC to Supplies ratio
        3.0 #E 4.0  ;  less supplies per IC means less IC for production = less units
    # IC to Money Ratio
        0.15 #E 0.2  ; less money per IC means less IC for production = less units
    # Max Gearing Bonus ( never lower than value * build time )
        0.50 #E 0.65  ;  same story - lower gearing =  less units
    # Gearing Bonus Increment ( lessening of build time per successive build, down to Max Gearing Bonus )
        0.03 #0.05  ;  gearing should increase more slowly
    # TC Load from bases in queue
        500.0 #E 100.0  ;  this should eliminate behavior when people keep undeployed bases in SR pool
    # Trickle-back factor for manpower from losses in battle. (ie, how many are just wounded.)
        0.3 #E 0.35  ;  less MP should return from battles to make it little more scarce
    # Reinforcement Manpower Cost Factor
        0.9 #E 0.8  ;  reinforcements costing more MP means less MP for unit building
    # Upgrade cost    
        0.7 #E 0.5  ;  if upgrades cost more, we'll see more generations of untis on the battlefied side by side, it'll also contribute to less units overall too
    # Monthly Nationalism reduction
        0.03 #E 0.05  ;  let those nationalist sentiments be stronger to make occupying country pay little more
    }

    combat = {
    # Combat Modifier: Air Exceeding Max Command Limit Mod
        -0.40 #E -0.25  ;  this should somewhat prevent or at least penalize air superstacks
    # Combat Modifier: Land Fort Multiplier ( value * fort level)
        -0.04 #E -0.09  ;  less effect from land fort should eliminate need for rules limiting their production (hiensen's rules limit it to 5, this is implementation of that rule)
    # Combat Modifier: Coastal Fort Multiplier ( value * fort level)
        -0.05 #E -0.09  ;  same as land forts
    # Combat Modifier: Total Air Overstacking Mod for each division above two.
        -0.05 #E -0.02  ;  let's make air overstacking more severe
    # Air Leader Command Limit (nr of divisions), Rank 0 (highest)
        16 #E 24  ;  lower command limit = less aerial mess
    # Air Leader Command Limit (nr of divisions), Rank 1
        8 #E 16  ;  see above
    # Air Leader Command Limit (nr of divisions), Rank 2
        4 #E 8  ;  see above
    # Air Leader Command Limit (nr of divisions), Rank 3 (lowest)
        2 #E 2  ;  see above
    # Delay in hours after a combat ends before new orders can be given.    
        36 #E 24  ;  make planning little more importnat, still not much beyond vanilla
    # Maximum sizes of air-stacks
        8 #E 4  ;  8 airstack seems to be just right
    #CHANCE TO GET TERRAIN TRAIT
        1500 #E 1200  ;  we want to see more traits
    #CHANCE TO GET EVENT TRAIT
        1500 #E 1200  ;  same
    #Chance of leaders dying while in combat per day
        0.0005 #E 0.0003  ;  increased chance of leader dying in battle, still fairly low
    #_CV_AIR_ORG_DMG_MODIFYER1_ Increasing this value will increase the org dmg air units takes
        27.0 #E 25.0  ;  make CVs tad better against regular air
    #_CV_AIR_STR_DMG_MODIFYER_ Increasing this value will increase the str dmg air units takes
        0.25 #E 0.2  ;  see above
    }

    research = {
    # Pre-Historical Date Mod (value * days prior to historical date. Lower limit for the total is -0.9. )
        -0.0014 #E -0.00125  ;  make ahead of time research more difficult
    # Mean number of "invention" events occuring per year
        8 #E 4  ;  more randomness to have ability to keep the pace while having limited alliances
    }


    spy_costs.txt
    Code:

    diplomacy = {
    #    _HOID_SPY_COUNTER_ESPIONAGE_,
    65 #E 50  ;  counter espionage should be more expensive

    #    _HOID_SPY_COUNTER_ESPIONAGE_CHANCE,
    5 #E 15  ;  chance of success of this mission is lower to make spying possible - no more clean backyard
    }


    Some of these changes are inspired by MEM, but it doesn't go to such a depth. This should make the game feel like vanilla.

    File Attachment(s):
    building_costs.txt (1kb) downloaded 28 time(s).
    diplo_costs.txt (1kb) downloaded 26 time(s).
    misc.txt (6kb) downloaded 25 time(s).
    spy_costs.txt (2kb) downloaded 26 time(s).


    Wishing_Well
    Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:48:56 PM
     Decurion

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 3/12/2007
    Posts: 71
    Location: Paris, France
    Having been in the beginning (2 or 3) Monday Games, the few things I have just read here make me feel like you have completely perverted the spirit of Monday Game.

    Monday Game used to be a game anyone that was looking for a good time of HoI Play could join. Inexperienced players were welcomed.
    Players would play whichever country was available. There were no reserved seats, although admitedly some multiplayer experience was prefered for the major countries.

    What was unique about Monday Game was that unlike the other "organized" games you couldn't prepare for it. It was very much an open game, it was "C'mon and play!".

    Now what have you turned this into: players choose their countries weeks in advance. Rehearse for the game. Now if you implement that "free tech" at start system they will start making all kind of studies to find out what is best. You'll be turning Monday Game into a professional game.

    Personnaly I find this too bad. Monday Game not anymore, it's become The Game.
    Anders
    Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:19:50 PM
     Generalfeldmarschall

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

    Joined: 3/9/2007
    Posts: 13,057
    Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
    For me, as long as I've been in it, it's always been THE Game.
    I guess we're tired of just anyone dropping in and screwing up the game when they leave (looking at you, adam...) and now prefer to have a game hat will last for months instead of the average drop-in game of 3 weeks.
    Regarding the adding of tech, that's just done to add another element to the game, which, quite frankly, it needs. I really doubt anyone "practice" with their selected country's setup very much beyond what we've al ldone with HoI2. All I'll do is probably look up what ministers and tech teams I have, so I can determine what starting techs I should select.

    How many RP should we start with? 100? Or something based on Base IC? (Ottomans and others with less IC gets more)


    "Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

    King of Men wrote:
    Anders is correct.

    Fivoin wrote:
    Yeah, Anders is right.

    baronbowden wrote:
    I would tend to agree with Anders.

    Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

    I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
    Ederon
    Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:23:25 PM
     Field Major


    Joined: 2/28/2007
    Posts: 5,949
    Location: Heart of Europe
    Wishing_Well wrote:
    Having been in the beginning (2 or 3) Monday Games, the few things I have just read here make me feel like you have completely perverted the spirit of Monday Game.

    That's harsh said. And not very accurate. Let's see the rest of your post.

    Quote:
    Monday Game used to be a game anyone that was looking for a good time of HoI Play could join. Inexperienced players were welcomed.
    Players would play whichever country was available. There were no reserved seats, although admitedly some multiplayer experience was prefered for the major countries.

    It is still such. The fact we mention our preference in advance doesn't mean it's reserved. It's common that people have preferences. If someone comes later and his preferences collide with those already in, it's common and usual to come to a consensus. Not dictate anything per se.

    Major countries are by preference given to experience "proven" players, not random (or yet unknown) people, to protect the game. We did it all the way back to earl.y Monday Games of hoi2. And it's nothing perverse.

    Quote:
    What was unique about Monday Game was that unlike the other "organized" games you couldn't prepare for it. It was very much an open game, it was "C'mon and play!".

    Only difference between Monday Game as it was in times before this forum was founded was, that at the precise time of game start, it started on vnet without any preparation. Then it became organized and no different from other games. What happens now is not much different. If you call that change of "spirit", you are right to some extent, but it's in no way perverted.

    Quote:
    Now what have you turned this into: players choose their countries weeks in advance. Rehearse for the game. Now if you implement that "free tech" at start system they will start making all kind of studies to find out what is best. You'll be turning Monday Game into a professional game.

    What is professional game? The one you get money for playing it? We all play it for fun, whether it is semi-random started a-la 2nd or 3rd game or this organized, it's still game opened to anyone who wishes to spend some good time on Monday and between every another by playing the game, not working it.

    Quote:
    Personnaly I find this too bad. Monday Game not anymore, it's become The Game.

    I still fail to see your problem with current status? From above it's not very clear considering facts. Are you disgusted because we are searching new ways how to enjoy this overplayed game again and again? It was much different at the dawn of Hearts of Iron 2 when everybody learned the game. Now we all know it, some more then others and we don't want to follow same patterns all the time like jammed vinyl. We are going forward. And like any progress or change, it has it's pros and cons. I still consider pros in this case overruling cons by huge margin.
    hiensen
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:57:47 AM
     Generalleutnant

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 18000th Post

    Joined: 1/27/2008
    Posts: 1,331
    Location: Pau, France
    and what about the coons ? LOL

    Why change GOI cost since all countries start with full interventionism ?
    Vissarion
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:28:43 AM
     Lieutenant General

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 14000th Post

    Joined: 3/6/2007
    Posts: 1,715
    Location: Norway
    Wishing_Well wrote:
    What was unique about Monday Game was that unlike the other "organized" games you couldn't prepare for it. It was very much an open game, it was "C'mon and play!".

    How do you prepare for an abyss game? It's way too unpredictable.

    boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
    peng
    boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
    zong
    Anders
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:25:00 AM
     Generalfeldmarschall

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

    Joined: 3/9/2007
    Posts: 13,057
    Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
    Regarding the rules, I'd like something to prevent the formation of virtually unconquerable blocks, like America. With two players allied there, regardless of what countries, the third country hasn't got a chance if it's attacked within 3 months after start. Same thing with countries like India+China vs Indochina, or Indochina+China vs India and so on and so forth. That's why I advocate same-ideology-only alliances.

    "Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

    King of Men wrote:
    Anders is correct.

    Fivoin wrote:
    Yeah, Anders is right.

    baronbowden wrote:
    I would tend to agree with Anders.

    Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

    I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
    Vissarion
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:33:33 AM
     Lieutenant General

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 14000th Post

    Joined: 3/6/2007
    Posts: 1,715
    Location: Norway
    Same ideology only is a good idea. I still think we should also use max xxx IC per alliance and/or max 2 humans in one alliance to prevent the obvious armageddon alliances (all of each ideology in one alliances) - unless that what youse wants.

    There was some one - I think Mighty G - who was in a game with no alliances, I would like to hear of how that worked out.

    boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
    peng
    boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
    zong
    Anders
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:17:01 AM
     Generalfeldmarschall

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

    Joined: 3/9/2007
    Posts: 13,057
    Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
    So Market Liberal vs Nazi vs Commie vs Social Liberal? Depending on the number of players we have.
    I think we were 8 at startup in Monday IX, how many are going to be in this one? Anders, Ederon, Schürmann, Vissarion, M&M, Mighty G, Hiensen, R_B ...?

    (And I still call Australasia, even though I've had a good look at it now...)

    "Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

    King of Men wrote:
    Anders is correct.

    Fivoin wrote:
    Yeah, Anders is right.

    baronbowden wrote:
    I would tend to agree with Anders.

    Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

    I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
    M&M
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:45:26 AM
     General

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 3/8/2007
    Posts: 2,335
    Location: Cairo, Egypt.
    Quote:
    the few things I have just read here make me feel like you have completely perverted the spirit of Monday Game.

    My sentiments exactly, I totally agree with WW's post. The free-form no rules spirit of the monday games and specially the last abyss game is what provided alot of the fun for me. Now its becoming too scripted & you're even modding the game to allow for it. Personally I preferred the free-form style but it seems I'm in the minority here Sad. Somehow I get the feeling this won't be as fun, but I'm trying to keep an open mind still.
    Ederon
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:48:15 PM
     Field Major


    Joined: 2/28/2007
    Posts: 5,949
    Location: Heart of Europe
    M&M wrote:
    My sentiments exactly, I totally agree with WW's post. The free-form no rules spirit of the monday games and specially the last abyss game is what provided alot of the fun for me. Now its becoming too scripted & you're even modding the game to allow for it. Personally I preferred the free-form style but it seems I'm in the minority here Sad. Somehow I get the feeling this won't be as fun, but I'm trying to keep an open mind still.

    Last game was fun, but with American alliance and Asian alliance working on beginning-end basis the game was not as much fun as it could have been. If we want to have different game (and I'd love to have one), we need much smaller power blocks with more dynamic environment. Not just recurring war Asia and America every year between them to decide the winner. Actually I think that was against the spirit of Monday Game, not what we are maybe gonna do now. You played mini-max style game, where (according to your words) your two-three countries worked as if it was one. That's "professional" style play I don't prefer. I rather play the game, not win the game. Some extra startup techs are just to add more diversity to the game, allow more profiling without artificial power blocks. Same goes on account of restricting alliances.

    Another thing - using exploits. When you use them, it's really against spirit of Monday Game, not modding or talking about our new future game. That being said, I'm ending my participation in any game where "old guards" use any exploit. I believe we all know what exploit is - phony wars to reduce CG need, supply exploits, amphibious landings beyond range etc.

    What scripting? And regarding the edits - they are aimed to improve the game, not to degrade it. If you have rational arguments against any (or all) edits, just go ahead and present them. I'm all listening. Wink Same with the tech edits. You didn't mentioned anything yet. If you are against, mention it. Otherwise nobody knows.
    M&M
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:32:04 PM
     General

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 3/8/2007
    Posts: 2,335
    Location: Cairo, Egypt.
    Quote:
    Last game was fun, but with American alliance and Asian alliance working on beginning-end basis the game was not as much fun as it could have been

    Well the game could've been radically different if bourbon had stayed in the game, as you might see in our forums (if you open them up) we were quite afraid of an atlantic attack from independant bourbon Tongue. But for new games alliances can change easily, it doesn't have to repeat. No alliances at all seems too extreme imo.

    Quote:
    You played mini-max style game, where (according to your words) your two-three countries worked as if it was one. That's "professional" style play I don't prefer. I rather play the game, not win the game.

    lol seriously ? Teamwork is bad then ? Isn't that the entire point of an alliance, to help each other out and work as a team ? Operating as seperate entities would defeat the entire purpose of the alliance :-? . How is that "profesional style" or gaminess ? It had nothing to do with victory, the most fun I had was after the crushing defeat at borneo and trying to hold the line against overwhelming force by the asians, making them bleed for each and every island they took until we recovered.

    Quote:
    Another thing - using exploits. When you use them, it's really against spirit of Monday Game, not modding or talking about our new future game. That being said, I'm ending my participation in any game where "old guards" use any exploit. I believe we all know what exploit is - phony wars to reduce CG need, supply exploits, amphibious landings beyond range etc.

    Like I said in that topic, I don't think anyone was willfully exploiting, i repeatidly said I didn't know the amphib assaults were exploits and immediatly withdrew.

    Quote:
    What scripting? And regarding the edits - they are aimed to improve the game, not to degrade it.

    Well you're editing (or schuer rather) an entire new scenario, with an entirely different map, nations and everything. I already stated my views in that topic but said I'd keep an open mind since the majority seems to prefer to play it.
    Ederon
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:42:48 PM
     Field Major


    Joined: 2/28/2007
    Posts: 5,949
    Location: Heart of Europe
    M&M wrote:
    Well the game could've been radically different if bourbon had stayed in the game, as you might see in our forums (if you open them up) we were quite afraid of an atlantic attack from independant bourbon Tongue. But for new games alliances can change easily, it doesn't have to repeat. No alliances at all seems too extreme imo.

    Alternative is alliance limit based on cumulative IC and # of players. That'd make it more fagmented and IMHO more fun.

    Quote:
    lol seriously ? Teamwork is bad then ? Isn't that the entire point of an alliance, to help each other out and work as a team ? Operating as seperate entities would defeat the entire purpose of the alliance :-? . How is that "profesional style" or gaminess ? It had nothing to do with victory, the most fun I had was after the crushing defeat at borneo and trying to hold the line against overwhelming force by the asians, making them bleed for each and every island they took until we recovered.

    No, teamwork is ok, but it's more fun when you think out of the box (game). If you compare your alliance with historical Allies (or Axis), you'll get better picture what I mean.

    Quote:
    Like I said in that topic, I don't think anyone was willfully exploiting, i repeatidly said I didn't know the amphib assaults were exploits and immediatly withdrew.

    If you don't consider debarking from rebasing TPs beyond their operating range exploit, then why do the other. It's obvious exploit IMHO, self explanatory. You withdrew, but only after objections were risen. This is however not to bash you for it, I stated my point and you know how I will treat it next time.

    Quote:
    Well you're editing (or schuer rather) an entire new scenario, with an entirely different map, nations and everything. I already stated my views in that topic but said I'd keep an open mind since the majority seems to prefer to play it.

    Schuer scenario is different thing. What I propose now is few edits to make the game more interesting, reduce number of units not by altering their costs, but by making IC more scarce because of higher cost of supplies and money IC-wise. Have you looked at those edits? If you have objections, please comment on. I'm interested in it.
    Anders
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:29:12 PM
     Generalfeldmarschall

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

    Joined: 3/9/2007
    Posts: 13,057
    Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
    Most of the modifications seems fine. However I'm not that happy about increasing the IC cost of money. Even at full Free Market it's a bitch getting enough money to do anything. Also the land forts are getting a wee bit too nerfed to my liking. As far as I understand, Hiensen's fort-rule is primarily to prevent stalemates in France, the Pacific and to a lesser degree in the USSR. Not to mention D-Day.
    Quote:
    # Air Leader Command Limit (nr of divisions), Rank 0 (highest)
    16 #E 24 ; lower command limit = less aerial mess
    # Air Leader Command Limit (nr of divisions), Rank 1
    8 #E 16 ; see above
    # Air Leader Command Limit (nr of divisions), Rank 2
    4 #E 8 ; see above
    # Air Leader Command Limit (nr of divisions), Rank 3 (lowest)
    2 #E 2 ; see above
    -To me this looks like the limits in Doomsday pre-Armageddon... Increasing leader overstack penalty is better than limiting the numbers.
    Quote:
    # Delay in hours after a combat ends before new orders can be given.
    36 #E 24 ; make planning little more importnat, still not much beyond vanilla
    ...You do know there's a workaround to the delay, don't you? You simply issue an order to the unit "cooling down", then you issue the order you want executed to it, as the second time you can set the time to whatever it is currently.

    "Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

    King of Men wrote:
    Anders is correct.

    Fivoin wrote:
    Yeah, Anders is right.

    baronbowden wrote:
    I would tend to agree with Anders.

    Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

    I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
    Ederon
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:28:56 PM
     Field Major


    Joined: 2/28/2007
    Posts: 5,949
    Location: Heart of Europe
    Anders wrote:
    Most of the modifications seems fine. However I'm not that happy about increasing the IC cost of money. Even at full Free Market it's a bitch getting enough money to do anything. Also the land forts are getting a wee bit too nerfed to my liking. As far as I understand, Hiensen's fort-rule is primarily to prevent stalemates in France, the Pacific and to a lesser degree in the USSR. Not to mention D-Day.

    -90 percent is too much for forts IMO. And what applies to France/D-Day in regular game also applies to Abyss game, it just won't be France/D-Day but Ottomans/X-Mas Wink
    Quote:
    -To me this looks like the limits in Doomsday pre-Armageddon... Increasing leader overstack penalty is better than limiting the numbers.

    When you have just 16 units without overstacking penalty, it means once there is more units in the air, it's not necessarily worth it. And comman limit is only way how to do it. But maybe we should just make Air Marshals more limiting, not the lower ranks? Something like 4/8/12/16.
    Quote:
    ...You do know there's a workaround to the delay, don't you? You simply issue an order to the unit "cooling down", then you issue the order you want executed to it, as the second time you can set the time to whatever it is currently.

    Well, this was just an idea. There is workaround to landing units beyond transport's range too, but it's an exploit. Anyway, I was in impression you can assign those unit mission, but it won't perform it until it cools down :-? All in all, I'm not gonna press this any hard as it's really marginal and as I said, just an idea.
    Vissarion
    Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:49:09 PM
     Lieutenant General

    Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 14000th Post

    Joined: 3/6/2007
    Posts: 1,715
    Location: Norway
    am I right to assume there will not be a game tomorrow?

    boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
    peng
    boing boom tschak, boing boom tschak
    zong
    Users browsing this topic
    Guest


    Forum Jump
    You cannot post new topics in this forum.
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
    You cannot create polls in this forum.
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

    Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
    Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
    Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.