I thought of something that might possibly be used generally but especially for the idea of the ongoing huge game that we might have in the future that would last as long as 1000 turns.
Again that idea was to allow players to join an ongoing game in which a winner would be determined after possibly 1000 turns and then the game would get reset and restarted.

Of course there is always one major problem with such a game and that is that there will be empty castles all over the map up for grabs and of course first come will grab plenty but first there should be at least a minimum of at least 5 players before the game gets restarted and this is unranked for fun with possibly the winner getting his name posted on the news page or something so this isn't really a problem.

However also it might be a good idea if it is possible just to slow early starters somewhat by restricting "castle takeover" if gold, resources and troop reserves are below a certain amount and the farther away the castle to be taken the higher the "war costs".
Any merit to this idea?

TR

Last Edited : Wednesday, 19 January 2005 - 23:48

none.

Well I knew I should have included the most important reason for that ongoing game idea is just really to allow new members to get right into a game so they can get their feet wet and start learning how to play instead of getting bored waiting to get into a campaign and possibly moving elsewhere.
The "war cost" idea is intended just to help keep early starters from expanding too rapidly just to try to keep the game somewhat competitive.

So with that added "jewel of a thought" and after "editing" to insert the word "be" in the above post in the phrase "should be at least", is there still no merit to this great idea?

TR

Last Edited : Thursday, 20 January 2005 - 00:19