I would be up for it as long as the bet is no higher than 15

I want to, but I can't. Going on vacation from 22/08 to 30/08.

i'll play

Are you aware that might be an effort to restart the 7 powers team game (gameID=8536)? I'm sure there will be openings in that one if it happens.

@LoveDove: Yeah, I'm aware of that game, but I don't particularly like the idea of teams being divided simply by continent. I think a more-involved method of team selection would lead to a much more interesting game.

I'd join.

bump for more interest?

I'd play

Count me in.

i will join

1. ODaly
2. King o Dip
3. Murcanic
4. Tyran
5. Igetschtabby
6. bluecthulhu
7. Fortress Doerr

Reserve: MvW (I doubt this game will start by the end of the month)

anyone else?

Sounds cool, what sort of phase length?

2-3 days depending on the consensus when it gets a bit more filled.

I'm in.

Are you aware that gameID=8536 failed and ended up in a giant draw (and in a colossal waste of time) because there were no rules about when to grant pauses/extends or about what to do when someone NMRs or CDs?

Extends aren't much of a problem, since there's no issue with trying to get a unanimous consensus to resume the game.

As for NMR/CD, how's this sound:
an NMR'd nation is still under protection of its team, but may be cannibalized if SCs are threatened to fall to other alliances. A nation fully CD'd is granted immunity to members of other alliances so that teammates of the CD'd nation may complete cannibalizing the nation to get back to equal footing.

Clarification: ONLY threatened SCs of an NMR'd nation may be cannibalized. Secure SCs are still under protection until the nation falls into CD.

That game failed because there were too many unnecessary rules (as was pointed out ahead of time) that wound up confusing the dynamics of the gam, one of which Guaroz has pointed out. In addition using a three day turn phase kills the momentum of games because players cannot play like gentlemen and make ready on retreats and adjustments. This pushes seasons to six and nine days respectively, and players doing poorly or stagnated lose interest. This is further compounded by the concept of preset regional alliances. To it's credit this effort above attempts to spread out the nation assignments in a meaningful way, but the team game mechanic needs to be addressed through a scoring/coding process to make it work properly.

Frankly the whole concept of these team games is bizzare in the first place. With a player base as inexperienced and lacking the basic skills of the game to start with, games like this only serve to discourage active communication amongst all players int he game. It's a neat idea as a change of pace, but FFS these game are now dominating the scene here, all of them failing miserably.

Ehr... what I said is that the game failed because there were no rules (neither necessary nor unnecessary) at all. So when some CDs came up, someone started saying the game were screwed and it should be canceled. So, in the total absence of a rule, we made a poll to decide what to do. Now, a poll between canceling/going on, is always a rather idiot thing to do while the game is ongoing because, obviousely, who's doing well votes "let's go on" and who's doing bad votes "let's cancel". And so majority tyrannizes minority.
Putting a little effort in imagining what could happen BEFORE the game starts and making a rule about it, is always time well-spent and it's the only thing that let you avoid idiot-polls. Rules are to protect minorities against majorities' abuses.

Ehr, if you read closely I did not comment on why you said it failed, Guaroz. I said that you pointed out a rule problem. Apparently you think that there should have been more rules, but you're incorrect. There were unnecessary rules, and these rules are the onese that created the issue int he first place. The ones that mandated that you could not attack your teammates. That's a needless rule to put in a game that everyone enters under the premise of being on the same team. Why would you have such a rule? What's the point of it? There isn't one. If a team self destructs, so be it. If a team wants to swap center for tactical or strategic reasons, why would you prevent it? If that unnecessary rule wasnt in place, then problem with the CD nations wouldnt be a factor.

Once again the solution to the concept is in the scoring model, or in the coding or orders adjudication. Instead of addressing it through the proper vehicles, the designers tried to do it with a complex set of untested rules, whcih failed to take into accound many situations, one of which caused the game to fail

As I said when this discussion was going on before the game began, the rules were ill-conceived, and poorly written. Now if people enjoy endless play testing to ferret out all the new rules upon rules that this game was tradled with

Your solution to the bad rule appears to be to add even more new rules on top of that, when removing the needless rules would have taken care of matters and simplified the entire situation.

Oops yes sorry... I realize now that we were talking about 2 different set of rules.

I was talking about general rules (Pauses/Extensions/NMRs/CDs etc...) that may be good for any SRG and that were completely lacking.

You were talking about particular rules for that particular SRG (a team game).
Here they are:
(To: Global, from Gamemaster) - Spring, 2101: (Wolfman): 1) Alliance members cannot eliminate a player on their team.
2) Alliances should try to keep all members alive in the alliance, to the best of their abilities. Sharing centers if need be.
3) Alliances may work with any other alliances they wish.
4) Alliances may choose to have one member be the leader/spokesperson if they choose.
5) All members’ input considered on all moves and actions of their alliance, recommended to give your team the best chances.
6) Members may give up centers to other members of the alliance, as long as they maintain control of at least one center at all times, for strategic purposes. (!!!!!!!!!!)
7) No individual member can win outright or solo. If a member of an alliance is getting close, then handing over of centers to another member of the alliance might be necessary to equal out balance and to ensure that the game ends with a draw among one alliance.
8) Game should draw once there is only one alliance power left. However, if there is stalemate lines or all members of two or more alliances wish. A draw between 10 or more members is permissible.

You're saying it failed because there were too many unnecessary particular rules.
I'm (still) saying it failed because of the lack of general rules.

If you read (gameID=9186 => messages) last 3 weeks of Global chat, basically everybody is talking or complaining about CDs and NMRs and basically nobody talked about particular rules you're saying.

Please read Global chat. I think you need . Rule 6 gave me a doubt, so I checked a thing and... yes: RUFFHAUS, YOU WERE NOT EVEN IN THAT GAME !!! That's why it looked like you didn't know why that game failed. Read the Global if you want to learn why.

I think Ruffhaus was talking about my two player WW4 team game. There was an arguement over the rules saying they were pointless. However, even though those rules are just basic logic for a team game, how does that mess up the game? I am still confused on that. The only reason they could mess up a game is if the majority of the players wanted to break a rule because it is dragging the game down.

Would you guys please continue this discussion in a separate thread?