Warlords restart

[WARMASTER]

Ugh - you know what really sucks balls? In the Warlords game that this replaces, I got the exact team I wanted in the draft, my opening moves were a dream and I got all three of my regions on turn 3. I'm not saying that I would have won, but it certainly gave me a nice start. I didn't get the team I wanted in this one, the setup was a lot worse and I've had reams of bad luck in the first turn. I've basically been dealt a busted flush - if this were a card game, I'd fold right now. But I won't do that because I'm not a selfish prick. But I resent like hell that this happened and I'm not going to forget it anytime soon. I will soldier on until the end, but I do not expect to enjoy this game - it already seems like a chore.

We can also set up a Warlords game with pre-set teams identical to the draft in that previous game.  You, I, and Ohman can play the same team and we can find another player to take over the DE/NE/WA team (this is a very strong team).  My plate is a bit full atm, but when our restarted Warlords game concludes, I am happy to revisit this idea.  Interested?

[DuPont]

Hey - perhaps, let's see how it goes. I don't want to come across as being pissed at anybody other than the player who dropped so early without explanation, though.

[DuPont]

Okay guys, not sure what happened here. I got hosed on turn 1 and was prepared to stick it out. But now another team has dropped and I'm not going to spend time on this over the holiday season given that this has now happened twice in a row. I agreed to a re-start of a game I would have almost certainly won but unless we can get players who are at least prepared to hold fast until turn 10, this is just fucking ridiculous.

[Ry Vor]

I've said before, maybe we need to raise the bar for joining Warlords.  I don't know how many times I have admonished players to not join if they may drop, and they have to be at least at Commander level.  I think it is players joining their first Warlords game that underestimated the commitment that have dropped - not our experienced players. 

I think Confederations is better for players going from Steel to controlling then two kingdoms instead of three as in Warlords.  When they get through Confederations, then perhaps Warlords.

We are the purveyors and of course want players in many games, but imagine if you were in a game of Axis and Allies (or perhaps even Risk) in a four player game and one player quit an hour in when the other three had committed for the evening.

[Calidor]

Dropping in general sucks, Even in the team game I am playing we have had a few that dropped... but kudos to those who stuck it out even when their partners bailed. I can say that players dropping has had a big effect on the game.

[DuPont]

Well, with me dropping, you might have two evenly matched teams so I don't mind if they want to continue. Me dropping at this stage might give it back balance.

[Ry Vor]

Well, with me dropping, you might have two evenly matched teams so I don't mind if they want to continue. Me dropping at this stage might give it back balance.

Come on DuPont, that's not you. 

I wish we could have done better with our reputations like Iron Willed to be able to suggest which personas are suitable from a game you just can't enter and be blaisae about.  So I just think we need more restrictions on who can join Warlords, for the obvious reasons. 

So since this Warlords is seemingly crumbling again, I offer again a new Warlords with four Iron Willed if we have them, or those in this game to get a free setup in a Confederations game.  (Control two kingdoms).

Again, I feel an agreed upon set of kingdoms is better than a draft.  Agreed upon everyone knows what they can get, whereas draft someone screws up and drops and the game dissolves.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Well, with me dropping, you might have two evenly matched teams so I don't mind if they want to continue. Me dropping at this stage might give it back balance.

Come on DuPont, that's not you. 

I wish we could have done better with our reputations like Iron Willed to be able to suggest which personas are suitable from a game you just can't enter and be blaisae about.  So I just think we need more restrictions on who can join Warlords, for the obvious reasons. 

So since this Warlords is seemingly crumbling again, I offer again a new Warlords with four Iron Willed if we have them, or those in this game to get a free setup in a Confederations game.  (Control two kingdoms).

Again, I feel an agreed upon set of kingdoms is better than a draft.  Agreed upon everyone knows what they can get, whereas draft someone screws up and drops and the game dissolves.

Since one has already quit and DuPont seems ready to go (he has had one of his 3 kingdoms eliminated from the game), I'm willing to do either the Iron-Willed Warlords or the free Confederation (whichever fills first!).

[Ry Vor]

Good.  So the setup is again free for the players in this next Warlords, or the next Confedrations.   I hope to get sea legs back it is a Confederations game of six players controlling two kingdoms setup by someone like Imperial Tark or JonDoe. 

Just realize, in these kinds of game they are competitive, and if a player drops or misses turns, it spoils the broth.

[Ohman the heartless]

As a player with Dupont in both early drop warlords, I totally sympathize. I love both the warlords and Confederation format, so am open to either. I just finished game 544, and there were 3 teams left that had 2 or less players continue until the end. 2 had 1 sole surviving kingdom left, and the 3rd lost their partner due to elimination about 3 turns ago. Congrats to the winners, but TOTAL cuddo.s to those who stayed on till the end!!