[Announcement] GS Westeros Tag team Tournament FaQ

[Uriyaca]

I could say the same if the guys south of me were the ones south of you.

Just check who we are up against and stop trying to convince people this is fair, it isn't but we'll play through anyway and have fun doing so. Just stop saying it's fair.

The guys to my north aren't Youngbloods either

I'll stop if you don't care for me trying to cheer you guys up tho, and I wish you and Jiub best of luck

[Mithridate]

If it helps Jem regarding the incoming defeat then certainly, Lannister Joffrey are in a bad spot^^. They can do quite evil things that only "perfect" play from Tully can prevent however, The problem to me is that Renly and Tyrell have a little bit too much leeway and Lannister having a wee bit too much to fight.

Lannister/joffrey moving on to the final is very unlikely, but the masochist in me would love to play them as they certainly can pull it off.
Tully/stark is kinda in the same boat but with way more freedom and options, the south having all the advantages... Adding Martell as human in the central alliance's hands would have been a good solution imo ( but that risk being too much in the favour of the central alliance ).

Westeros wont be an entirely balanced fight, nor would SS be and especially not Vanilla. Forever can be spent arguing which one is more unbalanced to no avail. I do think a few minor things could be done better by the GS here, mistakes mostly because this all seem to have been done so fast and sudden. But the notion of the perfect inbalance, is one you should entertain imo and that nothing will ever be perfect.

Thank you GS for this lovely little tournament and best of luck to you all

[jemdkyl]

Agree with the entirety of that post Mith, though I don't know what leeway and wee bit mean. :p Simple way to balance it in my opinion is to switch your position with the North. I'd have an easier time if Matto and vozd were playing the Southern Alliance. Giving the nutjob players the best factions make it even harder. But that's enough, let's play already.

[Dux]

There are some misunderstandings considering the one turn peace rule.
For clarification, one turn peace includes no forting in enemy lands. If this would be allowed Lannister would be able to cut off all important Tully settlements and armies without Tully being able to do anything about it, (effectively killing him on turn 2) and that is the same as attacking Edmure on turn 1(the entire purpose of the one turn peace rule).

Jemdkyle and Jiub were unlucky to get Joffrey and Lannister, but that was the result of a random draw. We tried to solve some of the inbalance by giving Joff the ability to recruit armored swordsmen in rosby and giving him Tyrion (a very good general) and some more men.

[Jiub]

scratch that, doesn't matter. we'll make do.

[DrakeRox]

scratch that (2) !

[Dux]

Let's have a vote.

Who is in favor of banning the ransoming of captured soldiers after you have defeated a human opponent?

In my opinion it is not really fair to the other party, I honestly thought it was auto refused and I always use execute.

[Uriyaca]

Let's have a vote.

Who is in favor of banning the ransoming of captured soldiers after you have defeated a human opponent?

In my opinion it is not really fair to the other party, I honestly thought it was auto refused and I always use execute.

I thought the same, its kind of silly that the computer just takes your money without letting you choose whether you wanna ransom them or not.
I vote yes for banning it. I never ransomed anything, mostly because it never accepted but still

[jemdkyl]

It shouldn't be allowed, computer can't take your money without your permission. So no, ban it.

[DrakeRox]

Ban it !!!

[Dux]

Ok let's ban it.

Another vote, from a request of a player.

It is allowed to kill diplomats, but not princesses (by surrounding them with units).

Who is in favor and who is against?

[themzr]

I vote yes as well

[jemdkyl]

I am against it.

If a faction starts with a princess, swell, he can spy with it as much as he wants. Factions that don't start with a princess lose the ability to spy around, and the only way they can make up for it is if they recruit diplomats. So diplomats make up for their disadvantage.

However, I don't support spying with neither of them, so if we are going to allow diplomats to be killed in such fashion, we have to allow princesses to be killed in such fashion too. I honestly think princesses should be allowed to die that way, otherwise they are a too strong spying tool.

[Mithridate]

Against it, Jem tells it all

However: It needs to be stressed that its the killing via surrounding that is illegal.

[Jiub]

I am against the allowing to kill diplomats or princesses.

However: It needs to be stressed that its the killing via surrounding that is illegal.

Elaborate

[Mithridate]

Elaborate

Blocking bridges to prevent agents and princesses from passing is perfectly fine, and I find no problem with blocking them in place with units. Even if you have to completely surround, it is the act of killing them that is impermissible ( moving unit on top of them when surrounded, thereby killing ).

Imo, you need to either not allow blocking them or have no restrictions on blocking. Whilst killing is abusing a bug caused by the agent having nowhere to move as its current square is occupied without any adjacent square being available.

[Aldor]

Against the killing of agents.

(Not against blocking them with units, as Mith described.)

[themzr]

I argue that killing diplomats should be permissible, firstly they are easy to produce and very cheap to maintain, who would object if someone built spear militia and used them for the same purpose. Second they are going to be used as spies when spies are not allowed, and thirdly what about a faction like the stark or the tyrells where recruiting diplomats is near useless because of distance issues. Although I abhor the murder of beautiful princesses.

[jemdkyl]

Have you read previous posts? Princesses can be used as spies and not all factions start with princesses, therefore it is unfair to allow the killing of diplomats.

[themzr]

Yes but princesses are non replaceable, which I clearly documented that diplomats are cheap and easily replaceable and can force players to waste their movement if they want to kill them. Also diplomats can be used to bribe armies. Should I not be given a defense against that? (ie. killing diplomats)