I’ve been terrible this game even before the awful battle last turn.

Part of the problem is that original idea of having Mictlan join in the Scribble attack fell through horribly. When that happened the chance of winning for anyone but Abyssia/Agartha dropped. So Abyssia is hammering Mictlan and wants the other 3 countries to essentially kamikaze Agartha so Abyssia has a chance to win. That’s not an enticing prospect for those 3.

Yeah, losing to Abysia was not a plan of mine. Winning would have put me in first place.

I’m still happy to keep going with Kill Scribble. While Scribble is still in the best position to win, until he actually makes his move, it is not a foregone conclusion, particularly with Abysia annexing Mictlan.

There is probably little Eriu can realistically do to influence an overall result, but I don’t think the game has reached conclusion yet.

is there a link to steamlands that isn’t set up for six starts?

Pyrhic, can you let us know about settings (gem, indies, etc) for Rand game?

think it’s just regular, unless anyone has any preferences…

The other recent RAND games were run with indies at 7, fwiw.

BOO! Strong indies are bad.

Ha! Now I know your weakness! Just leave you alone and let the indies take care of you!

I’d prob prefer defaults, but if we’re going to have strong indies or something else off the norm I want to make sure I test appropriately.

This should do

So, when creating this, do i just set it to no VP Victory? or will it correctly do a 4 VP victory if the VP are in capitals?

It’s pretty easy to do a custom 7 start map. However, it would be inappropriate for me to build it. Should be an outsider. I can explain in detail.

Er, I have a handful of versions for 8. So the work is small. Anyone not in the game who can use a text editor?

Fixed starts are a good idea on this map. In test games, I have received some terrible starts.

I can walk someone through doing it. Just need a volunteer not in the game. It’s way too much advantage to set the starts in a Rand GAME.

If you need a map balanced for your RAND game, then I should be able to do this today. I just need to know…

  • What map
  • How many starts (any water nations)
  • Is 3-spacing between capitals ok? (so X-1-2-3-X)
  • Anything else I need to know

(I can see various potential answers to the above from the recent posts, but I’ll wait to hear an official reply from admin as there’s no OP to check for confirmation of the above “potentials”)

I think that’s just one of the features of small games (or issues, if like me you don’t like small games :P).

As in small games the point at which ‘leader ganging/kingmaking’ happens can be as early as turns 15-20 (or even sooner). As if for example you have two nations that get off to great starts (compared to “the rest”), then if “the rest” attempt to gang one, they are just playing kingmaker for the other. And if “the rest” do nothing, or even worse fight amongst themselves, then they will just get taken out one-by-one as the two leaders race to the finish. As it’s rare a pair of leaders will choose to directly take each other on early, not if there are smaller prey to go for and as such enter a “race to win with possible ultimate showdown”, rather than “an early showdown that might let one of the rest win if we beat each other up”. This is because “Winner takes all” has far better odds than “Winner might take all, or they might take nothing because they left other people alive before heading for the ultimate showdown”.

And because not everyone wants to get involved in “leader ganging/kingmaking” so soon into the game, and especially when some are still finishing off expansion, some players will either just ignore the issue completely (although they will likely notice it later when it’s already far too late to do anything), and/or have a strong desire to “just do their own thing”. But small games rarely allow for “doing your own thing”, unless your thing involves “getting a good start and taking a neighbour out asap”. Some players in “the rest” catagory might believe they can still win “just doing their thing”. Even though they are a small nation that had poor expansion, and while currently watching two of their neighbours being rapidly eaten by a big fish. Just not realistic I’m afraid. Plus the odds of “poor/slow expansion + chance to still win” becoming a wedded pair has ever increasing odds the smaller games get.

The ideal outcome for “the rest” is for them to split up in such as way as they can stop both leaders, and end up with a scenario where the two fish who became fat early on are dead, allowing the brave little fish, who have now become fatter, to battle it out for the win. And free from the tyranny of the two big fish who once upon a time threatened the well being of all small fish. (hey, this could be the storyline for Finding Nemo 2!)

But the problem for “the rest” with this ideal outcome is that far too often they are far too slow to react. As one small fish might not come to the aid of his neighbouring small fish until all but their tail has disappeared down the gullet of the big fish. And then it’s not a “2 small fish vs 1 big fish” fight, as it’s just another “1 small fish vs 1 big fish” fight. With the big fish perhaps having some stomach ache for a turn or two, but an ache that rarely prevents him from eating again immediately should another small fish generously offer himself up on a plate.

Oh and I might add binding NAP’s and/or honourable play only ever helps the big fish in these situations. As those 3 free turns might be all they need to have swallowed their first small fish. Since how often do you see players who get a good start, NAP-ing with all but one neighbour, and then going for that one who missed the NAP handout. It’s such a staple and successful strategy that SA have built an entire Dom community around it. But if you have agreed a NAP with a strong nation, then the moment they attack a mutual neighbour you should attack them straight away (circumstances providing). If you hesitate or give notice of the NAP at that stage, then you are already on the backfoot, and likely irreparably so. Hesitation usually means death in these cases. There is no honour in dying. And there is certainly no honour in sticking to honour at the cost of dying (or throwing the game away, allowing the game to be won unopposed).

Of course what Scribble describes might have a few traits involved that are uniquely associated with the QT3 community. But I think it’s the small size of games in general more than anything else.

I’ve uploaded a version of Streamlands for 7 land nations on the llamaserver. I will not be releasing the map file for obvious reasons (you only need the image file to play).

I hope this is the map you are using, as I won’t have time to do a different one now (it was only today/this morning, that I had the free time to do it)

QT3 started moving to smaller games after several mid sized/larger maps games where players found themselves not having a border with the winner/leader. I think our mistake has been not just moving to smaller maps, but to also keep our games at 7-8 players per game instead of moving to 4-5 player games.

It’s good for the community in that everybody gets to play whenever they want, but it has changed the quality of our games only in that we are a bit more focused on the early game than we were, it hasn’t really helped us in holding down the big beasts who get started quickly.

There are scripts that make a strong effort to lock down start positions. By setting how many neighbors there must be. Recognizing the difference between water neighbors and land neighbors. Setting distance between start positions so that capitals are not too close. They arent bad for trying to fix a bad map.

But of course a manual hands-on effort is best so its great that Maerlande and Calahan have volunteered to help out.

An special headache is that when someone first decides to set starting positions not taking into account that the game wants certain terrains for certain nations. That can cause very confusing results at first. Reading the debug file can usually show what the game was trying to do though.