FG: Galactic Overlord 5 - The Wrath of Doc

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko



Allied victories were never allowed and the sole allied victory happened in contradiction of the rules while you were GM.

However, I'm willing to repeat the vote on this issue in the next sign-up. There will be a vote on how to stop spy exploit too and I'll repeat the vote on shields.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, during this game the GM ruled they were allowed, as is his right, and myself and GT played it accordingly. Our win stands.

[:) Smiley]

Now were the last seven turns really necessary? Skanky, Kass, and Joncha could have simply surrendered to GT on after Turn 6 and ended the game there.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by DrSpike
You're entitled to your opinion. However, during this game the GM ruled they were allowed, as is his right, and myself and GT played it accordingly. Our win stands.

In principal, I agree. However, if the rule changes the very essence of the game, rendering one strategy pointless while at the same time favouring heavily another one, and if it's done after the game has already started, I believe GM is not allowed to make such a change. Particularly if the profound change I'm talking about was made public the first time at the moment of its application.

For example, don't you think the other players would have played the game differently from the beginning, had they known allied victories were allowed?

[Ljube]

Originally posted by Smiley
Now were the last seven turns really necessary? Skanky, Kass, and Joncha could have simply surrendered to GT on after Turn 6 and ended the game there.

I don't understand why they surrendered. They played the whole game for GeneralTacticus. I would normally understand such a play if the player that played this way stood no chance to win. This was not the case. Either one of the three could easily have won this had they wanted to and played accordingly.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko



In principal, I agree. However, if the rule changes the very essence of the game, rendering one strategy pointless while at the same time favouring heavily another one, and if it's done after the game has already started, I believe GM is not allowed to make such a change. Particularly if the profound change I'm talking about was made public the first time at the moment of its application.

For example, don't you think the other players would have played the game differently from the beginning, had they known allied victories were allowed?

Well we played as per the rules after asking the GM. You are free to believe cooperative wins shouldn't be allowed, but note that votes have been close in the past on this issue, so it's not cut and dried.

A win is a win, and counts as a win (funnily enough).

On that note welcome GT to the prestigious two times winner club.

[Jamski]

Does this mean a new game is about to start

-Jam

[DrSpike]

Nothing gets past you does it?

[Ljube]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Well we played as per the rules after asking the GM. You are free to believe cooperative wins shouldn't be allowed, but note that votes have been close in the past on this issue, so it's not cut and dried.

A win is a win, and counts as a win (funnily enough).

On that note welcome GT to the prestigious two times winner club.

Dodging the issue Doc? You asked him all right, but not publicly and very, very late. You can't say now your allied victory was a fair one, all things considered.

[:) Smiley]

Speaking of which, someone want to add Galactic Overlord to the hall of fame at the top of this forum?

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Smiley
Now were the last seven turns really necessary? Skanky, Kass, and Joncha could have simply surrendered to GT on after Turn 6 and ended the game there.

Um... what? Those "last seven turns" comprised more than half the game, and there were still a great many other players around at the time.

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, and regarding Co-Op victories - to my knowledge, they were neither expressly allowed nor disallowed, which is why I bothered to ask in the first place. I accept that it's no longer allowed, and I accept the reasoning behind that, but at the time, there no rules one way or the other, so Skanky had every right, and in fact was required, to make the call on whether to allow it or not.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Um... what? Those "last seven turns" comprised more than half the game, and there were still a great many other players around at the time.

Great many other players? There were the four of you, me, and Spaced Cowboy. It was essentially a very lopsided 3 way game. Those client states were giving you 3 additional actions per turn. Doc's co-op victory involved two parties with nearly equal strength.

[GeneralTacticus]

Ok, I looked back at the turn reprots, and you are correct regarding the numbers of remaining players. However, I think it should be noted that until you wiped out practically all of Skanky's fleet, I was hardly the most powerful player in the alliance, and I was expecting to have to fight him to be the final winner. Him being rendered effectively powerless rather changed that...

[joncha]

Yes. The decision to surrender was only made on the eve of this turn. It seemed the most appropriate way to conclude our cooperative effort.

[:) Smiley]

On Turn 9, prior to my attack on Skanky, the Skank had barely half your tonnage.

Next game, I'll choose my targets more carefully...

Still a mystery to me, what caused the Kass-Joncha alliance to merge with the Skanky-GT alliance?