people behave differently in risk (change alliances, backstab each other constantly) than in strategus (where they are allied forever in 1 block no matter what strategus version) because:
- they have different objectives
- their objectives intersect/compete with other's objectives
- they can only win the game all by themselves so they have to backstab their former friends to win at some point.
from completely different point of view:
lets say in TF2 there are maps that are just so badly designed, it is almost impossible for a team to conquer the last point/achieve victory, because the last point is so easily defendable. often 1 team is so close getting the last control point of the enemy only to get pwned in last attack and loose all of their control points only to be able to hold their own last one. then the situation repeats over and over... in TF2 it sucks hard that you
constantly struggle no matter what you do and map control just turns completely upwards down at some moment.
but in Strategus it might work, "everybody" would have its time in the top. i can imagine a situation when for
achieving a victory a clan would have to capture some number of towns + if they'd manage to hold this number of towns for certain time, that clan would just be pronounced as a winner and nobody else (in fact 2nd strongest clan military wise would be pronounced as the biggest suckers as they didn't prevent it) and new strategus round would come up.
one clan could get strong, they could even get all the cities they'd need (of course with the help of their friends), but in the end they'd have to defend them even against their former friends that helped them to get the cities to win. if you won't stand your ground as the strongest clan controlling those cities, you will loose them as well as your army and from uberpower you turn to the weakling. then those that were average in strength will come suddenly to the top only to be (possibly) crushed when they get close to winning the game.
possible example:greys + drz + others get uber strong - nobody else can match them, greys get enough cities to achieve victory by just holding them for some time, if drz + others want to win the game (i suppose they would), they'd have to pwn the greys and kill them off their cities. thus reducing power of greys and theirs. wars will happen, rage will happen, next time maybe different alliances will be formed since beginning as old friendships will be broken. then the fucking glorious fallen come and will take over weakened greys, or maybe not because others will unite against fallen when they get strong (if they ever get strong) etc...
the question is:won't there be a few clans that will always unite in the same matrix only to make a deal that one strategus round 1 clan will win. then the other one etc. etc... i believe people are retarded enough to make this happen. but still it would be worth to give it a shot.
game or simulation- what you loose is a free world with no rules
- what you possibly gain is more fun (just by implementing winning conditions that will go against uber alliances at some point (at the point of winning the game)).
- now what do you value more (game, simulation, fun?)
- strategus imo succeeded admirably in terms of making a medieval simulation, but not so much by making a good game. the question is what is it a game, prolly nobody really gives a fucking awesome definition, but the biggest part of the game should imo be fun. i'm not that much sure if you can say the same about simulation.
but its a question for mister donkey what he really wants to achieve
(and a quick note for koyama: alliances don't fuck up strategus, only one always the same big alliance does, it takes all the fun for themselves. but they are not to blame, its the game that is to blame that enables this. most of the people would prolly love to be a part of that huge alliance too, but they are just unlucky and can't - because then there would be no fodder for uber uif's fun)
