Global Domination's goal?

Global Domination's goal? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios

Message

srndac -> Global Domination's goal? (1/29/2011 12:42:37 PM)
What are, exactly, the victory conditions of this game, anyway? Or am I (Turkey) actually supposed to conquer the whole world with a handful of fanatics with bows and arrows?

Bombur -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/29/2011 11:13:26 PM)
In the first version, the winner would be the first to achieve 250 victory points. tweber suggested us to remove this feature, now we play until all of we agree who is a winner. Last time tweber won....with 250 VP.....

Bombur -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/29/2011 11:15:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: srndac Or am I (Turkey) actually supposed to conquer the whole world with a handful of fanatics with bows and arrows? -Hmmmm....maybe a 1500愀 GD scenario would be a good idea....

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/30/2011 5:50:17 AM)
I didn't know there was a number. Hrm. Tweber had an ally in that game don't forget.... :)

srndac -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/30/2011 7:29:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bombur quote: ORIGINAL: srndac Or am I (Turkey) actually supposed to conquer the whole world with a handful of fanatics with bows and arrows? -Hmmmm....maybe a 1500愀 GD scenario would be a good idea.... [:D] good one! But seriously: I play AT because it's one of the few computer games that (at least) tries to represent war in something approaching reasonable similarity. (when's the last time anyone saw their troops running away from the enemy in Age of Empires for example?) Recognising the good ol' "Amateurs talk tactics, Proffesionals talk logistics." maxim, and making a wargame out of it was brilliant achievement on the Vic's part and my hat's off to him any day of week. But mostly, I'm a wargamer (an decorous euphemysm for a guy playing with toy soldiers) and I played some games as hopeless as this, but there was always a realistical goal to be reached in them: If it's a rearguard Action: pull out as many of your soldiers as you can If it's a Advance Guard Action: hold that bridge/hill/house/whatever until cavalry arrives If you're being run over: hold off the enemy for as long as you can or any other case/scenario in between. There are examples of these kind of scenarios in AT, too - like The Last Stand (one of my favourites) But you guys didn't try to balance this at all! I'm supposed to compete with Britain (or USA) with 1/7th of their resources?!? Fat chance. The goal is Global Domination? Fine - keep it. But define it! MY .02$ on this one: Anyone that enlargens their country 5 times (in VP) wins. So, if Russia had 50 VP at the beggining (guessing, here - don't know the exact amount) it wins when it gets to 250. If Brazil (or Ottomans) have 10 VP (again, guessing - but you get the point) at the beggining, they'll win if they get to 50. A bit more fair to all, don't you think? cheers! srndac

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/30/2011 5:33:01 PM)
Or if by alliance a team gains a sum of cities. I realize this isn't easily done in the current version of the game. That would give smaller nations a better chance at becoming one of the winners. I like the % expansion idea, that should be something that can be implemented in the current version.

Bombur -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/30/2011 10:08:56 PM)
We could implement srndac愀 ideas, but it will make smaller countries a target instead of a possible ally of bigger powers....

srndac -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/31/2011 4:06:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bombur We could implement srndac愀 ideas, but it will make smaller countries a target instead of a possible ally of bigger powers.... Like they're not already ... the only thing that's stopping them are the other superpowers - who will jump the attacking superpower, and force it to fight the war on two fronts ... which is never a good idea ... Personally, I like Jeffrey's idea even better - since the superpowers will consider the smaller powers useful, and work to protect (and possibly even enlarge) them. (As opposed to the trouble they might get in if they choose to invade them.) OTOH - if you feel that the minor powers (Brazil and Turkey) are going to be gobbled up anyway - give them to the AI to operate. After all, you kicked out Italy and Austria, right? Even better (IMHO) would be the mechanism of tweber's 20th century European Diplomacy with it's Diplomatic Research. With (optionally) added proviso of reducing the PP cost if both minor and your nation are at war with the same nation - in my enemy's enemy style. For example. And (perhaps) give the AI a double production values ... just to make it more interesting if you DO attack ... cheers! srndac

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/31/2011 7:34:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bombur We could implement srndac愀 ideas, but it will make smaller countries a target instead of a possible ally of bigger powers.... The colonial outposts would be ripe targets for quick conquest, but that's the way the game is working right now anyway. In fact, our last game, it was Russia that was the only player controlled "home country" to have been invaded. The rest of us squabbled over the stuff the AI had or was left as open country. I think this is the case anyway. I might have missed something.

ernieschwitz -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (1/31/2011 8:05:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: srndac quote: ORIGINAL: Bombur We could implement srndac愀 ideas, but it will make smaller countries a target instead of a possible ally of bigger powers.... Like they're not already ... the only thing that's stopping them are the other superpowers - who will jump the attacking superpower, and force it to fight the war on two fronts ... which is never a good idea ... Personally, I like Jeffrey's idea even better - since the superpowers will consider the smaller powers useful, and work to protect (and possibly even enlarge) them. (As opposed to the trouble they might get in if they choose to invade them.) OTOH - if you feel that the minor powers (Brazil and Turkey) are going to be gobbled up anyway - give them to the AI to operate. After all, you kicked out Italy and Austria, right? Even better (IMHO) would be the mechanism of tweber's 20th century European Diplomacy with it's Diplomatic Research. With (optionally) added proviso of reducing the PP cost if both minor and your nation are at war with the same nation - in my enemy's enemy style. For example. And (perhaps) give the AI a double production values ... just to make it more interesting if you DO attack ... cheers! srndac Actually, working on something like that... its in its advanced stages right now... something akin to global domination, just placed in 1938. ... it still needs some playtesting and balance is an issue right now..

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (2/1/2011 7:39:41 PM)
Part of the fun of GD is taking a smaller power and trying to fight of a world of AI players. It's dead slow getting through the turns but sometimes that works out well when you are trying to keep busy around the house. I've been playing China against the world and it's kind of fun. Esp. when we eventually get a faster AI with ATG, then it's really going to be fun.

ernieschwitz -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (2/1/2011 8:00:18 PM)
I agree completely with Jeffrey. I had an early version of GD where i played up to 1930 with Brazil... Was pretty fun :)

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (2/7/2011 7:32:13 PM)
My China vs. The World of AI game has just crossed into 1950. China has avoided War with the USA and Germany. I have 251 VP's. I occupy the British Isles except for a huge AI garrison that accumulated up at Scapa Flow. I will reposition forces from Africa to face Germany in the Eastern Part of the Ex-Russian country, Southern Europe and Possibly open a Western front against them from GB. I've ran through the tech tree except for the last tier or naval and aircraft techs. Soon, I'll taper off all PP's and go to maximum war footing.

srndac -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (2/8/2011 3:28:40 PM)
Well, yeah - playing solo vs. AI in a conquer-the-world random game is fun - especially against a lot of them - on AI+ (or maybe AI++) ... it makes the victory sweeter ... especially if you won with Level 1 Tanks - while the AI's had Level 4 ... ;-) But vs. Humans? Come on! The average gamer is (most likely) an equivalent of a AI+ - while a veteran (and especially elite) player might be equivalent to AI+++ (pun intended) - and that's with a similar sized (and capable) nation. Now, as I said before, I don't mind being thrown to the wolves, but at least give me a reasonable chance of achieving something (if only to stay alive until help arrives) - this no-goal game is a no-winner for dwarfs like me ... or rather - Turkey ... Unless you actually wanted a Turkey-shoot - in which case I'm totally up to it ... ;-) cheers! srndac

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (2/9/2011 7:38:59 PM)
Well, all I can say is that "I feel your pain". As France in our last game, I quickly discovered that I had very little chance of survival beyond say 10 turns. I quickly decided to ally with Germany and stay out of any shooting wars as long as I possibly could. That was my game. Germany gradually wore everybody down when GB threw in the towel, we all gave up. Although I was interested in playing it out further because it would have been very interesting to see how the USA played out. So, maybe this little summary about how the game "works" for smaller powers will help you some, I don't know. Not everyone can be the "big dog" and even the random games don't have balancing mechanisms, (although Zaratoughda's mod does a really good job of it).

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Global Domination's goal? (3/25/2011 7:25:09 PM)
Actually, playing this game as a minor country leads me to wish for a way to scale production capacity at the expense of PP's. Of course this would have to be balanced by limiting availability to those countries which are at the lower end of the production rankings. Countries with larger PP capacity would have to spend more and more PP's just to keep their advantage, (call it 'labor unrest' or 'supply chain difficulties' or some such). Is this possible ?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.0625