| Re: Glacier III... |
Thu, 17 June 2010 12:45   |
|
|
|
| Altruist wrote on Fri, 18 June 2010 01:49 |
| Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 17 June 2010 05:50 |
DANGER! LONG POST FOLLOWS! READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL / RISK OF BOREDOM.
|
Not at all.
A pleasure to read. With only some maps missing.
|
Gah! Think how long it took you to read it... Now think how long it took me to write it... And you want illustrations? 
EDIT: just for you... I attached two images (the small one is embedded at the 2401 mark, the larger one you'll have to download if you want to see it.)
| Quote: |
And once again it fills me, the "diplomatically challenged", with horror how huge a role diplomacy played even in an all-out-enemy-no-NAPs-game.
|
The scenario encouraged diplomacy - just so long as it was the cut-throat-watch-your-back-because-everyone-else-is-and-not- in-a-nice-way variety.
Many races were assaulted in what they'd considered to be safe (or even inter-settled) borders... And fair enough too - since the game rule invalidated any promises not to. It took me a while to grasp what the host meant, but I think you could almost describe it as a 'no whinging' rule. If it was his goal, it certainly succeeded in creating a very dynamic game, with shifting allegiances.
It didn't prevent a little bit of whinging cropping up here and there, as the host will attest. For example, I had a bit of a whinge early on to the host about the Griffin-Protoss 'non-alliance' (their words.) He explained to me again that the rule didn't explicitly prevent this. It just prevented it actually meaning anything - it was to be considered inevitable that there would be a backstab at some point.
It meant that you could only be assured that a race would not move against you, if you ensured there was always a good reason for them NOT to do so. This is another reason SS is so strong in this scenario - nobody knows how much you've kept back in defence, and how much you might've inflitrated into their territory.
| Quote: |
That was a rocking 9-month-game, wasn't it? Probably the later turns took ages? But no dropouts? Respect!
|
I don't think anyone dropped until they'd at the very least lost their HW. Many fought to the death. It was definitely a good game in that respect. The last turns indeed took ages, and in a very boring way - huge micro to as perfectly optimise the econ for 2560. It's definitely a relief that the game is over.
[Updated on: Fri, 18 June 2010 13:10] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
