 |
|
Aqualung71
|
 |
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:35
|
|
Interested parties for the team game so far are:
MrWhereItsAt GMT+12
Aqualung71 GMT+8
Krill GMT
Kloreep GMT-6
1889 GMT-7
Platypus Rex GMT-8
If all the above are definite then we're now full. If we can all commit to a reasonable pace of a turn a day, I don't think the widespread timezone's are really an issue. We will set the teams based on timezones.
I also suggest we select 3 "sets" of civ pairs, with each civ pair complementing each other in traits and possibly UU's. Any suggestions on this and other settings?
Last edited by Aqualung71 on 09-05-2004 at 17:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aqualung71
|
|
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:35
|
|
Ok, if we play with culturally linked start locations on, and choose all civs from 2 culture groups only - 3 from each group with team partners having civs from different groups, then we should end up with team partners being reasonably well separated. Does this make sense?
I suggest we choose the Mediterranean and Mid East groups. In arriving at this I eliminated all civs with the Agricultural trait. I then tried to pick civs with reasonable ancient or early middle age UU's. I also tried to shy away from the Religious trait, but couldn't seem to get a good balance of civs without using a couple of Religious ones.
So, my suggestion for the teams are as follows (first civ is Mediterranean, second is Middle East):
Rome (Com/Mil) & Persia (Ind/Sci) - the only team without a religious civ, but with a lethal ancient age UU the Immortal and very solid Legionarie.
Greece (Com/Sci) & Arabia (Exp/Rel) - good early defence with the Hoplite and versatile early middle ages Ansar Warrior
Carthage (Ind/Sea) & Babylon (Rel/Sci) - another good ancient age defender that can also double as an attacker plus the "cultural" civ with an average UU but cheap everything!
This is just my initial suggestion - anyone who feels these combinations are unbalancing, suggest some alternatives and we'll go with the consensus. The other group that would probably be ok would be the Asian group. If we replaced the Mediterranean group with the Asian group and used the Indians, Chinese and Mongols, each team would get 1 Religious civ and there would be more middle age UU's. I felt the European group did not provide good enough balance and the American gorup had too many Agricultural civs.
Standard sized Pangea map, 80% water to make up for the less than normal number of civs (or we could go for 70%). Barbs roaming or restless, temp/climate/age all random to add a bit of mystery.
I also suggest Monarch level, to give us a bit of a break on corruption and happiness.
I would prefer to use 1.22
Whaddya reckon?
Last edited by Aqualung71 on 09-05-2004 at 18:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
 |
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
Definitely no regicides. Normal SP victory conditions. Team players can cooperate in any way they wish - via email before they have met onscreen, advising of each other's location to hasten in-game meeting, cooperating on research goals, swapping workers to balance mutual tile improvement, sharing resources whenever needed. Giving each other cash to rebalance commerce and research goals, etc. Anything else? |
Wow. Quite a powerful ability, to be able to communicate from the start of the game, but I suppose that might be useful in balancing out various degrees of geographical closeness between teammates.
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
The only things I think we should ban would be the "double duty" type things like sharing artillery for double use on the same turn, though with 2 other players between team players' turns this would be risky anyway since it would mean leaving artillery exposed. |
 Most definitely an exploit.
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
Etiquette regarding alliances between teams should still be observed, such as no discussing future research plans until an embassy is established and no discussions at all until contact is made, etc (refer Rommel2D's full list). |
No research discussions before embassy is established??? I'm not sure why you would have that rule.
And where's Rommel2D's list? I only see the topped one taken from Dominae's list and from the MZO DG.
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
Anybody have suggestions on how to generate the map and start positions with team players not being too close together? |
If we want to ensure teams start far apart and/or equally far apart, we might want to enlist a mapmaker.
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
Ok, if we play with culturally linked start locations on, and choose all civs from 2 culture groups only - 3 from each group with team partners having civs from different groups, then we should end up with team partners being reasonably well separated. Does this make sense?
I suggest we choose the Mediterranean and Mid East groups. In arriving at this I eliminated all civs with the Agricultural trait. I then tried to pick civs with reasonable ancient or early middle age UU's. I also tried to shy away from the Religious trait, but couldn't seem to get a good balance of civs without using a couple of Religious ones.
So, my suggestion for the teams are as follows (first civ is Mediterranean, second is Middle East):
Rome (Com/Mil) & Persia (Ind/Sci) - the only team without a religious civ, but with a lethal ancient age UU the Immortal and very solid Legionarie.
Greece (Com/Sci) & Arabia (Exp/Rel) - good early defence with the Hoplite and versatile early middle ages Ansar Warrior
Carthage (Ind/Sea) & Babylon (Rel/Sci) - another good ancient age defender that can also double as an attacker plus the "cultural" civ with an average UU but cheap everything! |
Again, a mapmaker would open this up a whole lot so we didn't have to pick cultural combos.  Though eliminating Ag would be good anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
Standard sized Pangea map, 80% water to make up for the less than normal number of civs (or we could go for 70%). Barbs roaming or restless, temp/climate/age all random to add a bit of mystery. |
I'd say standard map, 70% water. Humans tend to take up a bit more room than AIs. 
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
I also suggest Monarch level, to give us a bit of a break on corruption and happiness. |
Why not regent? Same happiness but less corruption, which IMO is a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
I would prefer to use 1.22 |
Either 1.15 or 1.22 is fine with me.
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
I like all the above, but could every one say the level they usually play at, so we can try to balance the teams (if possible). |
I usually play Monarch. When I play SP at all, which I haven't much recently; mostly just DGs and PBEMs.
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
Yes, I thought 80% water would balance out the fact that we've only got 6 civs on a standard sized map instead of the usual 8. Or we could use a small sized map and choose 70% or 60% water instead, which would probably be better. Again, I don't really mind either, but I'm now leaning towards the small sized map. |
I'd say 70% standard, but could go for small 60%
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
A bigger priority for me would be to try to move the game along at a decent pace, which would probably favour the convention of setting the play order according to timezones starting with the most easterly and moving westwards. This would remove the chore of picking teams, which would be as per the list in the first post of this thread. Not sure how to allocate the civs though. I guess in order of who expressed interest first would be fairest....of course, only one team member would get to choose and the team would then need to sort out which player gets each civ. |
Teams don't necessarily have to go right after each other, though it is a military advantage. As for allocating civs, first come first serve works to break ties, as does RPS or a dice roll.
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
Yes of course. We might also want to start with say 2 or 3 settlers each to get the game moving quickly. I'm no expert on using the editor to setup scenarios, so if we are going to make a few tweaks someone who's done this before is welcome to do the initial setup. |
:/ I'm not a fan of starting with more pop units, but I'll go along with it if that's what the majority wants.
quote:
Originally posted by 1889
I think this game should be played on a standard map. If the teams coordinate reaserch the tech rate will be pretty quick. |
But what if teams don't meet up quickly?
Certain techs, like unit and resource enablers and pottery, are pretty vital to have ASAP.
Still, I don't think it would be that big a hit. Small maps are 20 beakers per tech point, standard maps are 24 beakers per tech point. Not a huge difference.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
|
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
I think Aqua means the Iron civer rules and etiquette. |
Ah. Just looked at that thread, and it looks okay, except...
quote:
2-2 Cities may be offered diplomatically only as part of a peace treaty. |
This seems like an extreme solution to teleportation. What if one civ founds a city it later wants to give to another civ as part of, say, a border agreement?
I'd say a better rule to go with here would be cities may only be offered accepted if they are empty of units.
Also, one problem with PBEM is that luxuries are not recognized for one turn after the deal expires even if they are renewed in time, because the city happiness does not update with the new luxury. This can be fixed by using the F1 during production phase exploit and upping, then returning to its previous setting, the luxury slider to force a re-count of happy faces. Are we going to allow this work-around or not?
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
From what I'm seeing at the moment, I think we should go with a standard map. And Regent seems like a good idea, but that lowers the tech costs, does'nt it? I don't mind, either way |
Yeah, I think it does lower the tech costs a bit, but that's okay with me for a higher OCN.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2004 10:08
A bigger priority for me would be to try to move the game along at a decent pace, which would probably favour the convention of setting the play order according to timezones starting with the most easterly and moving westwards. This would remove the chore of picking teams, which would be as per the list in the first post of this thread. Not sure how to allocate the civs though. I guess in order of who expressed interest first would be fairest....of course, only one team member would get to choose and the team would then need to sort out which player gets each civ.
Attachment: 
|