The 2011 Dominions 3 Thread

dfs · 2012-09-29T14:19:40.000Z

Dave Perkins:

My Pretender is dead and the entire world is overrun by sparkle ponies. My troops are mere automatons who serve no one. Rumors of cannibalistic poo ceremonies.

and it still looks like it’s your game to lose.

Austen · 2012-09-29T19:31:22.000Z

Just to make sure I’m understanding correctly (since it’s been how I’ve been planning things for many turns now) - You have to be in full control for two full turn… Both the fort and the province, right? You can’t be under siege. Correct?

Evil_Steve · 2012-09-29T19:43:33.000Z

My understanding is you can be under siege, as long as you hold for two turns?

pyrhic · 2012-09-29T20:53:48.000Z

I thought it was owning the fort, so being under siege in all 3 would be fine. And if that’s correct, Bandar will have 3 once he gets into Machaka…

dfs · 2012-09-29T21:01:32.000Z

hmmmmm…

What I wrote was “Hold 3 capitols for two entire turns is the victory condition.”

What I intended was exactly what Evil Steve an Pyrhic state that you controlled the castle in three capitol provinces.

What Austen writes “You have to be in full control for two full turn… Both the fort and the province. You can’t be under siege.” which makes an amount of sense.

FWIW my original victory condition was hold three capitals. Maerlande wanted the wording about 3 turns which I reduced to 2.

other things I wrote in the course of discussion about the victory condition
"If all the players wish to continue…then we can do that, but I would want all the players to wish to continue. "

"I have very real reservations that holding three capitols for two full turns is still not the victory condition that I’m after, but as the host I don’t want to be the one leading the parade for a change. 8 nations on a map that seems to really constrict mobility. In my test games, the games have been won very quickly and I have never really had a border with more than 4 countries, leaving some out. I think instead of a full out king of the hill, you need to think of this condition as a race. Less dogpiling on the leader and more picking off your weakest neighbors. The game has not been set in stone. If you have an opinion please voice it and I’ll take it into account. "

"I’m going to leave it at three with the clause that you have to keep all three castles for two turns. That would likely have extended Newbs and Sharks for another half a year or so. "

OFFICIAL RULING
I sat and thought about this now for…I don’t know …4 seconds? And I think the answer is pretty clear that Austen and Dave Perkins should decide if, while holding the fortress, the provinces themselves cannot also be under seige.

The game has been delayed a really long time assuming these two players will not submit a turn till we have a real resolution. I think the game has been a very, very good one and I do not want anyone to feel cheated or misled.

If Dave and Austen cannot make a decision, I’ll listen to both sides of the argument and then decide for the player who offers me the largest bribe.

The argument that I see…Austen’s proposed victory condition will extend the game roughly forever which is not in the spirit of the original rule.
…and…
Ruling that the provinces CAN be under seige will likely give the game to Dave Perkins who is a big doofus and should never be allowed to win.

It’s kind of a tough call at this point.

Austen · 2012-09-29T21:57:50.000Z

I agree that now being able to be under siege extends the game as it’s much tougher. The fact that it’s a lot tougher is why I haven’t been in a big rush to try and take a 3rd cap. I wanted to make sure I could hold 3 before I took a 3rd. It’s also why I have made a lot of other pivotal decisions.

For instance, I wasn’t really sweating Bandar at Machaka because I knew I could put him under siege.

That said, it sounds like I’m the only one who has been playing under that pretense. I reviewed all the posts about win conditions quite a few turns ago and I swear I saw something about being in full control of the Caps, but I am not seeing it now.

So… it sounds like it’s on me for not making sure I knew what the fuck the goal of the game was before developing a strategy. If everyone else understood, then it’s not their fault I’m retarded.

Calahan · 2012-09-30T02:21:52.000Z

Maerlande:

Bloody hell Calahan! You following me?

First point. Slave doesn’t need to be cast till round 2. To be honest, I didn’t realize that at all. Makes sense.

Second: Yes cast spells is just there. I usually go Slave, body eth, whatever fits. But I find that pure S magi do just fine on cast spells. They cast the best they have for range. Unlike other path magi that cast crap. Still I use a lot of mix ups. Might toss in some swarm if S N magi or an elemental or two for more meat. Various things until the full PotS and LotNS get rolling. And or the other elemental buffs, epower, phoenix power. I generally do NOT place magi in the same square but I will place troops with them.

Hey I was here first! As my first post pre-dates yours by many months. So why don’t you stop following ME! :D

Surprised you didn’t know about Slaves not needing to be Slaves until round 2. But then maybe not so surprised, as I am literally the only player I’ve ever seen who takes that into account when optimising scripts. Even some of the great self proclamied communion gurus never do it, thereby proving they are not the experts they claim to be.

At one point I was going to write a proper Communion guide that went into fine detail regarding some of the clever tricks you can pull off with scripting, as well as how to optimise scripts properly. ie. Give away a load of my own personal trade secrets (which from seeing others play and talk, everyone else seems to be oblivious to). But I didn’t do it as the undisputed King of Communions. who has recently taken to wearing a cape, was always harping on about the awesome Communion guide he was going to write. And so I didn’t have the heart to steal his thunder, or deprive myself (and others) of a damn good laugh! (he’s taking his sweet time though :()

Re: Capturing and holding capitals.

I use this victory condition almost exclusively in the games I run, and I use the interpretation that it is only control of the fort that matters. ie. being under siege means nothing.

This is best explained by pointing out that if the game was using VP-marked capitals, and the victory requirement was to capture 3 VP, then the game would end on the turn a player captured the capital fort(s) that put their VP’s up to 3. Whether or not any of their other capital forts were under siege would be irrelevant, as control of the fort means control of the VP (eg. you don’t lose or gain a VP the moment a capital fort is sieged). Having a “must not be under siege” requirement would also have the potential to prolong the game significantly, especially in big games, and would also largely remove the option of going for wins based on sudden mass-VP strikes. (which is a very valid tactic by which to win games, and should not be removed from the table IMO)

A VP-game would also mean the game would instantly end at this point. ie. capture, rather than capture and hold. This is one of the drawbacks of using the VP-capitals setting. Although it pales into insignificance compared to the whopping great drawback of the huge bulleyes they paint.

Of course the above should not really play a part in the decision regarding your game, as it’s up for the players/admin to decide what’s best (now that the game is at an advanced stage). I’m only commenting due to my experience of such vicory conditions, and my efforts to promote them as the norm every chance I get. Oh and death to all VP-marked capitalists!

Dave_Perkins · 2012-09-30T05:53:04.000Z

Austen has clearly won this game by any standard other than the victory conditions. However, like him, I would have made very different decisions throughout the game had I thought that we had to control three capitals, without even being put under siege, for two turns. For one, I wouldn’t have let Pangaea hang out to dry. :)

Not that there’s any reason to think that my alternate-universe decisions would have amounted to a pile of monkey poo! For one, I haven’t crafted a single magic item during the game, which shows you how pathetic my research and gem finding has been.

Dave_Perkins · 2012-09-30T06:00:37.000Z

Another hilarious tidbit: I forgot to put a point of defense in Eriu after taking it over, so Austen was able to siege Eriu this past turn with a scout, which means that I can’t recruit units, which means it’s more likely that someone could land on the castle with a big army and storm it in time to prevent me from winning.

Also, Austen’s research is much more powerful than mine, and I might expect some horrifying shit to rain from the heavens onto my army in Machaka. And then a Caelum army to swoop in and destroy what’s left. Last night, I rescripted that entire army in preparation for an aerial attack. My very best spell available: Rain.

dfs · 2012-09-30T08:24:52.000Z

Crooked Trunk

I’m left ruling that holding the fortress for two turns is the needed victory condition. It’s what I intended. It seems that everybody but one understood it.

C’mon Austen, …find a way for the sparkle ponies to prolong it.

dfs · 2012-09-30T08:27:10.000Z

Calahan:

At one point I was going to write a proper Communion guide that went into fine detail regarding some of the clever tricks you can pull off with scripting, as well as how to optimise scripts properly. ie. Give away a load of my own personal trade secrets (which from seeing others play and talk, everyone else seems to be oblivious to). But I didn’t do it as the undisputed King of Communions. who has recently taken to wearing a cape, was always harping on about the awesome Communion guide he was going to write. And so I didn’t have the heart to steal his thunder, or deprive myself (and others) of a damn good laugh! (he’s taking his sweet time though :()

I drew Pythia, the second empire in a recent game here. I could REALLY use this as almost all my communions end up ineffective against the enemy and killing my mages.

Austen · 2012-09-30T08:33:51.000Z

I still have a couple cards to play obviously…

Just not the vast array of options I had even last turn… all my fault though…

Austen · 2012-09-30T09:03:13.000Z

So. I guess since I am failing at understanding victory conditions, let me make sure I understand another part. Holding a Cap for two full turns means the turn you capture it, and then two turns beyond that, correct? Because you don’t control it for the full turn on the turn you capture it?

Dave_Perkins · 2012-09-30T09:05:41.000Z

I would say so. I may take Machaka this turn, but then I will need to repel any stormings for the ensuing two turns.

dfs · 2012-09-30T09:16:11.000Z

I believe we are all in agreement. The poo flingers may take the spider capitol fortress this turn, turn x, but they will not have controlled it for the full turn sequence. They will need to hold the fortress for turn x+1 and turn x+2 in order to fulfill the condition.

Nate · 2012-09-30T17:55:55.000Z

Dave’s going to win by TKO?

Austen · 2012-09-30T22:20:59.000Z

Prob…

Evil_Steve · 2012-09-30T23:42:49.000Z

KILL PERKINS

dfs · 2012-10-01T07:56:51.000Z

We are waiting on Tenuki for this turn.

Scribble · 2012-10-01T11:35:18.000Z

Kill Scribble

As it seemed unkind to pick on Dave who’s not even in this game, the game is now retitled. And open for pretenders on llamaserver: http://www.llamaserver.net/gameinfo.cgi?game=KillScribble

I know the map says 8 fixed locations, but I examined it and all the locations seem fair even if one of them will be vacant.