Posts: 505
Threads: 16
Joined: Oct 2013
As for exploits the official list is in the thread stickied at the top of the forum. I'm sure that Refsteel will have a link to the list itself but I don't know how to do that.
The only thing not on the list that we have been discussing here is threats to the AIs to make them withdraw from an attack. I have used it to devastating effect in several of my games, and it really seems too powerful for the player.
With that said I personally love having a quick but not 100%reliable way to turn back the AI. Your mileage may vary.
Posts: 5,006
Threads: 110
Joined: Nov 2007
And we're off! Ianus got us started, and set up the game in its own thread!
May 17th, 2017, 18:33
(This post was last modified: May 18th, 2017, 03:24 by RefSteel.)
Posts: 5,006
Threads: 110
Joined: Nov 2007
Okay, that went really well, so let's get a new one started! Looks like we'll have enough players to split into two teams, so it would be neat to both play on the same map and compare strategies after the fact! If different players prefer different set-ups though, we can always divide accordingly. So in the interest of having a specific proposal to get discussion started, how about...
Difficulty: Impossible
Opponents: 5
Galaxy size: Medium
Race: Humans
Patch: 1.40m
Variant Rule: We may never use the "Audience" button to conduct diplomacy! (It's okay to agree to deals proposed by the AIs themselves; we just can't initiate our own diplomacy.) [EDIT: Also, per Ianus's suggestion below: We may never vote for anyone in the High Council who wouldn't (with our votes included) thereby get a 2/3 majority.]
The humans are among the strongest races in the game, in part because everyone likes them. We'll still have the advantage of AIs leaning (on balance) toward positive relations with us, but we won't take advantage of the aliens by suggesting things that they don't want themselves. This means we can't issue threats, won't get trade going unless an AI requests it, can't ask for NAPs when the timing benefits us, and (the Darlok event Ianus saw in our last game notwithstanding) can probably never trade technology. We can't even make peace until an AI actually requests it, still less ask for war allies or breach of alliance, so if we do get involved in a war, things might get hairy!
We'll still get bonus trade for any deal the aliens ask us to set up, plus our good starting and "resting" relations, good Planetology research, excellence at shield tech, and decent abilities in all the other fields, so this won't be an enormous leap in difficulty from the last game (unless the galaxy turns out to be much less friendly, of course!) but it will be a step up in difficulty.
What do you guys think?
Posts: 851
Threads: 22
Joined: Aug 2011
I'm up for it, as long as we make sure that each team gets a healthy mix of more and less experienced players. The diplomacy restriction seems quite daunting otherwise.
Also, if I may suggest a game title: Socially Awkward Diplomats
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 59
Joined: Apr 2004
Sounds good to me. I've always considered the Humans to be equally as strong as the Psilons or Klackons, but taking away their ability to max out trade routes with everyone and abuse the diplo screen certainly handicaps them.
Posts: 12,510
Threads: 61
Joined: Oct 2010
Hmm. Ref's proposed game sounds fun, but I don't tend to like 'can't read the other team's thread'. I'll put up with it if that's the consensus, but I'd vote for same game on different maps so we don't have to stay isolated. Or else just run two separate games entirely.
EitB 25 - Perpentach
Occasional mapmaker
Posts: 5,606
Threads: 47
Joined: Mar 2007
I'm in for another game. Last one was fun and educational. 
Would the experienced players be willing to act as sort of team captains, so each team has a mix of experienced and less experienced players? The difficulty of the scenario might be on the high side for a team of all inexperienced (on impossible) players, but ideally the game should also be interesting and challenging for the more experienced players.
The teams playing the same map allows for more comparison afterwards, but would prevent following the action of the other team as it happens. I would be happy to go with either approach, whatever other people want to try.
Posts: 6,654
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
If you need another experienced Master of Orion player to fill out two teams, I'm happy to help. Never used kyrub's patch before but so long as it works with the GOG version I should be fine.
Posts: 505
Threads: 16
Joined: Oct 2013
Wow Sullla that would be an honor!
Also I'm looking forward to playing again as well. The only additional restriction I would add is to forbid voting for the opponent in "undecided" elections in order to curry favor with them.
Playing the same map would be more of a mini-Imperium (which we should totally do soon by the way). The more I think about it the more I find myself preferring that approach as it would provide more opportunities to compare different strategies/play styles against the same template. I could be talked out of it but that's what I prefer.
Posts: 5,006
Threads: 110
Joined: Nov 2007
WOW! I'm loving the interest that's picked up all of a sudden!
With Sullla and Thrawn to strengthen our roster, we could build two teams of five, each with a couple of super-veterans to help less-experienced players learn the ropes. (Or we could split into three teams if we get even more interest - more players are certainly welcome!) If I've got the list of people who've expressed interest so far correct, we're looking at:
DaveV
haphazard1
Ianus
Mardoc
RefSteel
RFS-81
shallow_thought
Sullla
thrawn
TheArchduke
Based on the comfort level different players have expressed on Impossible difficulty, we could do something like this for a good mix of experience levels on each team:
Team A: DaveV, Haphazard, Ianus, Mardoc, Sullla
Team B: Archduke, RefSteel, RFS-81, Shallow Thought, Thrawn
All lists in alphabetical order because library habits die hard. Also, I chose the players on the two lists arbitrarily in the interest of proposing something concrete, but I don't have an actual preference for the details of who's on which team. If anyone prefers a different arrangement - or if I interpretted something as a sign-up that wasn't meant that way - they can obviously be tweaked!
I'm content to add the rule Ianus proposed as well: In addition to forbidding the "Audience" button, we may never vote for anyone in the High Council who wouldn't (with our votes included) thereby get a 2/3 majority.
|
