 |
| |
|
|
Beta
|
 |
Prowling in a PBEM near you!
Nov 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
Oh - is con back? OK then - I will get going on this. 
The Game: Clash Of Titans
Paddy and I have agreed on the folllowing parameters.
Pangaea map - with good land on either side - and some rough terrain and goodies in the centre. Either a standard or large map. I will leave that to the map maker.
We start on opposite sides - two settlers each, two workers, one warrior.
No inter-mingled starts, as the starting positions itself may dictate the game and/or one or more team-mates may be eliminated really quickly. The idea here is that your culture grows, and ours grows, we meet, we clash. Exploration to find the good stuff and the others will be paramount.
Difficulty level at deity to slow down research, and make goody huts less rewarding - thus removing another 'luck' factor.
Barbs at a medium level.
Sir Ralph or OctX or alexman or GodKing to do the map. I will get in touch with a mapmaker.
The civ split remains Europe vs Asia. I dunno - it was the original basis for the game, and a good historical theme setting. The method of choosing is outlined below.
No out of game communication until teams have in game contact. Otherwise - there will be some incredible master planning of civ layouts, which would be unnatural for the game, IMHO. Everyone will have to be on their honour about this one.
And no declaring war on a team mate; we will use locked alliances.
OK - the civ choices. There will be a coin toss done to determine who gets first pick of either Asia or Europe. Said coin toss will be done my Ms. Beta. Paddy or one of the Bushrangers can pick heads or tails.
Simply post your call here - and the coin toss will follow.
Once Europe and Asia are determined - each team picks four civs from the following list. There is only one restriction - Europe can only pick one agricultural civ. For the Asians, there is only one. Each team will be choosing from a list of eleven civs.
Here are the lists to choose from, with the civ traits (you can figure out the abbreviations  ):
EUROPE
Celts R A
Dutch A Sea
English C Sea
Portuguese E Sea
Vikings M Sea
Spanish R Sea
Russians E S
Germans M S
Romans M C
French C I
Greeks C S
ASIA
Sumerians A S
Koreans C S
Ottoman I S
Persians I S
Babylonains R S
Indians R C
Arabians E R
Japanese M R
Mongols E M
Chinese I M
Hittite E C
OK - Paddy and mates - make a call - heads or tails???
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung71
That was my view too......but it was overruled by the Lords Paddy and Beta.
3 civs.....that sounds perfect  |
Unless Beta's grammar is mistaken - or mine - the final ruling did not agree with that overruling. Particularly with the fact that nobody seemed to argue with your post following his one post to that extent (at the end of the 1st page, at 30/page).
Regardless, both teams *start* with in-game contact, since it's been made wildly clear that we will be in locked alliances. That's how locked alliances work.
Edit: Reading the second half of that relevant sentence, it seems my interpretation of his grammar was mistaken. However, we start with contact ...
Beta, I don't think you have to worry too much about "master planning". It's reasonable imho to discuss which direction we intend to expand to, but unless it's a huge map that wouldn't happen until we could see where the other civs were anyways and could see the space in between. I think you're limiting the 'team' aspect of this game unreasonably, and in a way that makes the game far less fun, if you're going to artificially limit us.
I see this as a paintball match, not a civ game that limits my choices of diplomacy (ie peace/war), which is what it is if we play by normal civ pbem rules of contact. That's neither fun nor interesting. And regardless, we start with contact ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:21
|
|
Secondly, there was never a final word about map trading, as in i don't see it in the "final rules". Is it still limited to after navigation ??? I think that would, again, make this much less fun, much along the lines of aqua's argument at the end of page 1. Perhaps "mapmaking" would be a reasonable limit, if you want a limit. (After all, I never understood why from a "realism" stance mapmaking didn't involve trading maps. If that's your concern, anyways. C3C moved it down to make ... hmm, i'm not really sure, now that I think about it.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rhothaerill
|
 |
Vincent Returns!!!
Feb 2003
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by snoopy369
Secondly, there was never a final word about map trading, as in i don't see it in the "final rules". Is it still limited to after navigation ??? I think that would, again, make this much less fun, much along the lines of aqua's argument at the end of page 1. Perhaps "mapmaking" would be a reasonable limit, if you want a limit. (After all, I never understood why from a "realism" stance mapmaking didn't involve trading maps. If that's your concern, anyways. C3C moved it down to make ... hmm, i'm not really sure, now that I think about it.) |
I agree that map trading with the map making technology is more fun for PBEMs. They changed that for C3C to make it harder on the player in SP games, but it's just unnecessary for PBEMs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-10-2004 21:14
Besides, if it's a locked alliance, we all *have* contact at the beginning of the game 
|