Aarklash Legacy 2 = High Commitment game for (Newbie)-Intermediate players Thread - Dominions 3: The Awakening

Update: 23:11 GMT on Wednesday November 6th

"High commitment" 7 players competitive game for intermediate players.

Game Name:Aarklash2
Game Link: Llamaserver.net

Phase: ongoing

Mod: CBM 1.96
Download it here: Z7.invisionfree.com

Map: Streamlands for 7 Land Nations (Calahan's fixed start edition of Streamlands map)
Download image file from: Z7.invisionfree.com

Players - Reserved nations
jameshank - (LA) TC
mattyburn7 - (LA) Pangea
Rytek - (LA) Bogarus
Marginale - (LA) Abysia
Lumix19 - (LA) Agartha,
chelubey - (LA) Pythium,
Lora7 - (LA) Mictlan,

Rules: follow the link Indiedb.com

Speed, delay policy: follow the link Indiedb.com

Victory Conditions: hold 4 capitals for 3 consecutive turns or by mutual concession.
No joint victories (details are below in "Rules" section).

Admin: Chelubey - Indiedb.com
Vice-admin: Mattyburn7 - Indiedb.com

Skill restrictions:
Players with certain multiplayer experience are expected to join. Unfortunately there are no standard definitions for it, some would call it "intermediate", others - newbie-intermediate level. You should have experience of least several MP games played (finished) and in the very least survived untill the end in some of them (if something was won - the better).
It is not the game for green newbies or inexperienced in MP players.

"High commitment": It is expected to be "high commitment" game. (In constrast to "casual" ones).
Participants are expected not just join to take some fun, but prove themselves to be dedicated players. Do everything to win, find another challenging goal if you can't win, whether it will be a survival or a vengeance of some kind to the foe who oppressed your nation.
No going AI without mutual approval. (It is better to bring substitute player if you go AI, in the very least warn admin beforehand).

Edited by: chelubey

I'm still interested. Sign me up.

I don't like EA however. Prefer MA or LA. I'm up for any other weirdness/restrictions you would like to try.

I'm in. I prefer ea, but am happy with any era.

count me in. I would like an all ages game. I really loved the Dystopia type games that Maerland set up a few years ago. no money, no gems, level 10 indeps.
But I am game for anything.

I'd be up for a high commitment game. No-diplomacy on a trust-basis is OK; same for all ages or any specific age is OK with me. Not sure about a very special type of game with no money / no gems (how does that work?).

Technically 5 players look like some necessary for a semi-medium MP game.
However let's wait a bit more. I left anouncements about the game on Dom3mods, Shrapnel and Grogheads forums.

I'd like to join up. I'm happy with any era.

There was no explicit votes for no_diplomacy type of game, just several participants agreed in general, that it is acceptable for them. However it is different from requesting such a choice. Also we have 6 players already, so it maybe a bit too much for not anonymous no_diplomacy game.
Thus I suggest to follow standard route and use Machiavellian diplomacy. Trades are binding, but everything else is not (common approach).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since there is no unanimity concerning era as well, I consider using all eras mod as an option.
It is Single Age mod ( Forum.shrapnelgames.com ), right?

However I have no personal experience using it in MP, so I could be ignorant about possible problems related to SingleAge mod.
I read about it here and there, googled for a while, but didn't encounter mentions about issues with it. It doesn't mean there aren't however.
So if someone had experience with SingleAge, I would be grateful for a few hints.
Is it enough to simply attach Forum.shrapnelgames.com (seemingly most recent version I found)?

Also there is no Single Age mod loaded in llamaserver's directory (list of already loaded mods available to use when you create new game). It looks very suspicious for me since I've got impression Single Age is an option which is used in MP games sometimes.
There is only some "MySingleAgeCompleteMod" with description "normal SA complete I couldnt see it". This is not something what would ease my apprehensions.

Edited by: chelubey

Chelubey, Slobby's version looks like the right one. Odd that it's not on the llamaserver since I thought at least one of the megagames was hosted there. Anyway, we could just upload it again. Depending on the nations chosen you may also want to use Streamers and Standards (personally I don't like the SNS banners but in a single age game they have their uses).

Speaking of nations, can I join as EA Van? And, can we ban LA Ermor/R'lyeh because they're annoying?

Otherwise the settings look good (the fewer provs/player the better as far as I'm concerned, to make the endgame more manageable). And definitely the most recent CBM release.

Rytek wrote: I really loved the Dystopia type games that Maerland set up a few years ago. no money, no gems, level 10 indeps.

That sounds interesting, though I'm not sure if chelubey had something that extreme in mind for this game. Did everyone play with Luck 3?

Valerius. wrote: Depending on the nations chosen you may also want to use Streamers and Standards (personally I don't like the SNS banners but in a single age game they have their uses).

I almost hand't personal experience with Streamers and Standards, but the general impression I've got about this mod is that it could be worthy idea.

Valerius. wrote: Speaking of nations, can I join as EA Van?

Ok, sure.
(By the way - if other volunteers have some favourite nation(s) in mind - reserve them as well).

Valerius. wrote: And, can we ban LA Ermor/R'lyeh because they're annoying?

Yes, reasonable. They are too special.
Also whether underwater nations will be allowed or not depends on the map we'll play, and it depends on the amount of players signed in. So I'll delay this issue for a little while.

Valerius. wrote: Otherwise the settings look good (the fewer provs/player the better as far as I'm concerned, to make the endgame more manageable).

This is exactly what I have in mind.
It is not proper time these days to plan dom3 MP game which have chances to run on some deep lategame.
So a bit more crowded map than usual (not too far, of course) would probably lead to quicker game with more violence spreading around.

Valerius. wrote:

Rytek wrote: I really loved the Dystopia type games that Maerland set up a few years ago. no money, no gems, level 10 indeps.

That sounds interesting, though I'm not sure if chelubey had something that extreme in mind for this game. Did everyone play with Luck 3?

It sounds for me as a too radical step into not very investigated area. Let's rather stick to more reliable and predictable solutions.

Edited by: chelubey

chelubey wrote: I almost hand't personal experience with Streamers and Standards, but the general impression I've got about this mod is that it could be worthy idea.

Maybe let's wait until nations are chosen and if none of them have duplicate flags then no problem and SNS won't be needed. Interestingly, the version of single age mod on my computer has added lines mentioning some SNS flags.

chelubey wrote: Also whether underwater nations will be allowed or not depends on the map we'll play, and it depends on the amount of players signed in. So I'll delay this issue for a little while.

Lol, I figured for once I wouldn't mention it, but I hate water nation mechanics so I'd be very happy to ban water nations. Limited water provs limits my sailing ability as well but I'd be happy to not sail if it means no water nations.

If we agree to use SingleAge mod (don't we?), then I ask volunteers to denote their prefered races for such a multi-era game.
So far Valerius. reserved EA Vanheim.

Edited by: chelubey

I really don't like EA. If you do decide to go EA or Single Age, please replace me.

Personally I don't care about era at all. Or - I like them all equally. So many options and challenges for so many nations in any era.
According to the wishes people expressed in this thread there are several more players who don't have age-preferences as well.

However mattyburn7 and Valerius expressed certain inclination for EA.
What would be your opinion if we didn't go SingleAgeMod route and didn't take EA?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Or (as an option) we can simplify matters, if we return to the beginning - to the Aarklash Legacy.
Accomodation of nations for players in Aarklash (which constitute majority of players here) already finished at some point.
Indiedb.com
Bullock - Ctis
chelubey - Pythium
mattyburn7 - Pangeae
jameshank - Caelum
Marginale - Abysia
Rytek - Bogarus
Bhoona - Man
+Lumix19
+Valerius.

So we could use that as a starting point (if Valerius and Lumix19 don't mind to have somewhat relatively lesser selection of races) - and save the time for LA nations call over.

( Or if someone is rigidly against LA as well, then we can stick to MA. )

Edited by: chelubey

I am ok with simplifying things.

(Update10:30 GMT on Friday November 8th)

(Rules below are borrowed from Calahan's set of rules in Z7.invisionfree.com , his Chelonaphobia game and basic rules of MP games for Dom3Mods forum.
Thanks for Calahan and Sombre for formularizing it).

Diplomacy: Machiavellian
Trade agreements are binding, but everything else is not.

Trade agreements in this context are defined as any simple trades that are completed within a few turns. For example PlayerA agrees to buy an item from PlayerB. PlayerA sends the gems. PlayerB forges the item. PlayerB sends the item to PlayerA. This trade takes 3 turns, and is a typical example of a simple trade agreement.

YOU CAN NOT arrange non-simple agreements, such as for example insisting that a NAP is a conditional part of a trade agreement, and then claim the NAP is binding just because it was part of a trade agreement. Manipulating the binding aspect of trade agreements in this way, or other similar ways, by trying to transfer the binding condition of trade agreements to cover other aspects of a deal is not acceptable, and it certainly does not make the other aspects of the agreement binding.

Stale Turns
1) I ask players to warn me and vice-admin beforehand if there someone has a doubt that he/she will be able to finish his/her turn in time.
That's simple - whether you are not sure you'll finish it within time - drop a short message about it. Just warn, or war/specify how long the game should be postponed. It takes just a minute, and it is much better than encounter situation later when you'll have sacrifice something from the real life to finish the turn, or you'll have to sacrifice the efficiency of turn because you have no chances to finish it within the time.
2) When the game will run, I'll likely ask one of other players to be a vice-admin. Four eyes are better than two.
3) The game is delay tolerant, but it is a duty of player to report about need in delay to admin.
4) I ask players not to drop-out just because of a stale turn or two. The same can be said for losing a big fight. It hurts, but it's not a reason to quit tjhe game or go into a staling sulk. If a player stales for 2 consecutive turns then the position will be assessed, and that player will either be turned AI, or a substitute will be sought. In the latter case, the game might need to be delayed a short while for a sub-search to take place.

Fighting On Until The Very End:
In most of the games played on this forum players are expected to fight on until the very end and until they are defeated in-game. If a game does not make mention of this either way, then it's safest to assume that this is the default stance of the admin. And in my games I certainly do expect players to keep fighting, and keep putting effort in until the very end.

Although please note that when I say I expect players to fight on until the very end, I do actually mean that I expect players TO FIGHT ON UNTIL THE VERY END, and NOT JUST SUBMIT TURNS UNTIL THE VERY END. As the latter is incredibly insulting to the other players and the admin, and in my opinion constitutes acting like a douchebag. And in my games it is only my opinion that matters on such issues.

Fighting on until the very end means a player continuing to care about their nation, continuing to care about the other players in the game, and continuing to put in the time and effort required to put up a good fight, until they are defeated in-game. Fighting on to the very end DOES NOT MEAN simply leaving all your troops and mages on default orders while you send in blank turn files (to avoid a stale mark), while you do nothing but wait for your last fort to be captured. You might get some situations where you literally can't do anything, but most of the time there is always something you can be doing to improve your position.

For example if you have any gem income then it can be used to either summon more units, given to mages to reduce casting fatgiue, or traded with other nations for items. I know these might only be small things, but it all helps to make life for difficult for your enemies, and help you put up a better fight. And as such it is /very/ rare that you will ever be in a situation where you can literally do /nothing/ to improve your situation. As even unlocking some low level spells can improve matters, and that only requires you spend a few moments of time on the research screen.

But to simply stale or send in blank turns just because you can no longer be bothered to play anymore is incredibly selfish behaviour, and also very insulting to all the other players in the game who are putting their own time and effort into playing their turns properly. And anyone I find doing this will be banned from all my future games. As all players should aim to have some pride in their play, and not just simply adopt a "I don't give a shit anymore" attitude the moment they realise they are going to lose a game. As again that is very insulting to the other players, and certainly constitutes acting like a douchebag.

Challenging, but realistic goals (not a rule, but rather an appeal to participants, so I mark it with italic font):
Both from thematic point of view and according to the "competitive game" idea, it would be beneficial if participants set challenging, but realistic goals for themselves. If ultimate goal cannot be achieved, maybe it makes sense to adjust the goal.
Everyone ultimately tries to win the game, but those who are unable to do it, can set more realistic goals for themselves. (E.g. pleasure for repelling invaders over and over again under some desperate last stand situation can be not less than some dull and boring world domination scheme).
It is better to lose as second world superpower, than to lose as some minor nation, and the latter is better than to have some last castle left. But to have last yet not conquered castle left is still better than to be exterminated from the game.

Allied and Joint Victories
Allied/joint victories are not allowed.
You can make any agreements with wannabe-leader (or any other player), but there will be only one winner.

Needing to Leave the Game:
If you do have to leave the game for any reason, then please can you let the admin know about it. I understand that this is not always possible to do depending on the problem, but it is always highly appreciated if possible And if you can find your own substitute for your position, then that would be even better. But one thing you should not do is turn yourself AI, even if you have to leave suddenly I'd prefer you to just abandon your nation to stale rather than turn AI.

As I would please ask that nobody goes AI without prior notification and permission. I can not emphasise enough how important this is, and how much players turning AI can ruin MP games. And even though it sounds strange, a staling nation is always better than an AI one. It is also considered to be very bad manners in this community to turn AI without first obtaining permission to do so from the game admin, and anyone doing so is unlikely to be welcome in any future games that I arrange or admin. (see below where I mention that being a general douche bag is banned in this game)

Technical in-game rules:

1. Do not move-block other players by probing their armies with lone commanders. If you want to probe another player's army then hide a Scout in that province and use the "Attack Current Province" command. Since that runs no risk of blocking another player's movement.
2. Do not copy the script orders from Bogus and his friends to others commanders (ie. The 'Fire Commanders' orders).
3. Do not overload other players labs by sending them lots of items they did not request. Be they worthless or valuable.
4. Do not exploit obvious mod bugs or game bugs. If you find something which is obviously wrong, or looks wrong, then you have a duty to report it to the admin, and not exploit the bug until the admin makes a decision on it.
5. Do not intentionally exploit the fort-lockdown bug. If it happens one turn by accident then you MUST TAKE WHATEVER STEPS NECESSARY to prevent it happening for a second turn. If that means attacking with the hidden commander(s) at a great loss to yourself then so be it.
6. If you notice a player is staling, especially if it's your current war opponent, then you have a duty to report it to the admin.
7. Don't try to silently harm a known staling player
8. Do not use keyboard shortcut commands, or the 'Grouping' trick, to issue orders to commanders that are not available via the order menu. This includes :-
- Blood hunting underwater
- Patrolling with immobile units
- Breaking siege with immobile units
- Patrolling to break siege
- Site Searching while besieging or whilst being besieged
- Any other such exploitative keyboard shortcut or grouping tricks that I am either unaware of, or can not remember
There are to be no exceptions to this rule without the permission of the admin, and permission is only ever likely to give in situations where using a keyboard shortcut is needed to counter an exploit. (such as to deal with the fort-lockdown exploit/bug)

Rollback:
There is an option on llamaserver to roll back previous turn.
I consider it to be only the "last line of defence" since such a measure can bring irreversible game inconsistencies, what will ultimately wreck the game. There should be extremely serious reasons to consider such an option (e.g. staled turn of one of parties is not).

Edited by: chelubey

Hi, I would like to jump in, any era.

I'm ok with a smaller number of available nations

No problem, I'll sit this one out (which may be a good idea anyway since due to RL circumstances I'm not sure how much time I'll have the next couple of weeks). Have a good game!

(Totally without relevance to Valerius message - rather one more stroke to the description of the game)

I'd prefer the game to be relatively slow paced (I'm inclined to think that this is a mode convenient for most, since those who have not enough dominions can just join another game(s) as well). However I fear slow paced games are not right way to go nowdays since if we'll hit some late lategame we can encounter situation when substitute player will be needed with negligible chance to find any.
So the game will likely have some common speed.

At the same time I aim the game to be delay-tolerant.
I'll try to do my best to prevent stales, however it is a responsibility of players as well (and players in the first order).
It is ok to be unable to make the turn in time (various kinds of problems/issues take place in life), however it is your duty to contact me and warn about it as soon as possible (or just within reasonable time) if you foresee you'll be unable to make turn.

Edited by: chelubey

So I guess the game is going to be LA but there's the possibility of us going with MA, either way I'd like to put down my nation choices.

MA - Arcoscephale
LA - Agartha

I'm happy to reselect if these are unavailable

Edited by: Lumix19

Valerius. wrote: No problem, I'll sit this one out (which may be a good idea anyway since due to RL circumstances I'm not sure how much time I'll have the next couple of weeks). Have a good game!

I don't have a coherent fellow feeling about some eras not very acceptable to some of players, since this was never even a slightest issue for me. I even found certain interest in games with random distrubited nations. So I can only point out that technically we have also MA which no one demured to (yet).
As for RL circumstances - well, I'm certainly wouldn't like to be a man who tempt others to play for the sake of their life. So I can't estimate how hard is this issue. However first expansion turns usually don't take much time.

All in all it's a pity if you'll be unable to take part. There are not that many tough dom3 players left (veterans quite expectedly rushed to dom4 - no wonder) and you are seemingly one of such type (I maybe mistaken since we didn't intersect, yet this is general background impression from forums).
So whether this is going to be one of the last relatively large competitive dom3 MP games (probably so) then it would be bad if someone is missed.

Lora7 wrote: Hi, I would like to jump in, any era.

Ok, then define your prefered nation for LA among those which are left then (and just in case for MA as well).

Edited by: chelubey

LA Mictlan
MA Ulm

If MA i'll go Atlantis

I don't think there is realistic chance for more players to come.
As soon as issue with era will be finally resolved (thus it will become clear how many players do we have), I'll seek for fixed-starts map.
So it is probable that we'll be able to start (that is - proceed to "design pretender" stage and have the game created on llamaserver) on Weekends.