 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
* Dominae thanks jshelr for the invite
I would be interested in participating (albeit on a limited basis), but only with the following settings:
1. No Accelerated Production.
2. All teams start with 2 Settlers.
3. Small Pangea, 70-80% water.
AP does make things faster, but to me it's not Civ3, it's Civ3 MP (which is not Civ3), and I dislike Civ3 MP. With two Settlers at the start and and appropriate geography, we can make the game go faster without resorting to AP. Setting the game to Regent would also speed up the game by reducing tech costs.
Some sort of enforced turn clock might also be a good idea, with a bank of neutral players stepping in and playing a turn (as best they can) if a team defaults on time.
Non-Agricultural would be nice, to level the playing field.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OPD
|
 |
Birmingham UK
Jun 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
There is alot to be said for AP, although the game is less balanced it does make things go alot quicker. Whether it's worth it I dunno, although without something drastic this game will end up being just like the others and will turn into a quagmire faster than you can say "hey look cIV's out"
If not AP then maybe a smaller, denser land mass would be an idea so that you get into the knitty gritty almost immediately, rather than spending 6 months expanding.
3 Settlers, 3 Workers and 3 warriors with perhaps only room for 6 cities each?
Also as people have been saying, you'd need a rigid time slot with a stand in "playing as best they can" probably being better than "skiparoo" although skiparoo does have a nice ring to it.
Last edited by OPD on 27-01-2005 at 00:22
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
* Dominae thanks jshelr for the invite
I would be interested in participating (albeit on a limited basis), but only with the following settings:
1. No Accelerated Production.
2. All teams start with 2 Settlers.
3. Small Pangea, 70-80% water.
AP does make things faster, but to me it's not Civ3, it's Civ3 MP (which is not Civ3), and I dislike Civ3 MP. With two Settlers at the start and and appropriate geography, we can make the game go faster without resorting to AP. Setting the game to Regent would also speed up the game by reducing tech costs.
|
I'll look into the No AP possibility. I still worry it's going to slow down too much especially with a smaller land area - that's part of why I want 60% water on a small pangea; larger land area allows larger armies etc., which is part of the intriguing thing for a Demo Game. A Pangea is going to be good for speedy resolution already ...
Regent is definitely a good idea; speeds up techs AND reduces corruption.
I think more than 2 settlers is actually a good idea - I'm thinking 6 settlers 3 warriors, which means 3 size 3 cities to start with. (Takes a good amount of money to start with of course  )
quote:
Some sort of enforced turn clock might also be a good idea, with a bank of neutral players stepping in and playing a turn (as best they can) if a team defaults on time.
|
Definitely. The growing Admin Team that will soon outweigh any one of the actual teams will do this nicely. I actually think just skipping the turn is better ... you can mess up a lot if you do anything meaningful, and if you don't what's the difference. And there should be some penalty after all ... 
quote:
Non-Agricultural would be nice, to level the playing field. |
Yep, that's in the Beta Rules.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aqualung71
|
 |
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:29
|
|
My 2 cents worth:
No AP
It is way too unbalancing and the implications to game mechanics are really very significant.....which essentially means that once a player gets a tech lead with AP on, he is a very difficult juggernaut to stop. That leads to ---> unfun for the other players very quickly.
Last edited by Aqualung71 on 27-01-2005 at 06:03
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:29
|
|
I'ld like to see teams firmed up a bit, then a manual poll with each team having one vote for the disputed options, personally.
It seems to work better that way in my experience.
As far as an Admin team member playing a save as a penalty, I will point out drawbacks on that idea:
If we were to PLAY the save, we would have knowledge of all the differing teams' actions, plans, locations, etc. Info not meant to be known by turnplayers. This could lead to making moves, even unconsciously, that benefit one team over another.
Just commenting. That issue should be voted on: Play or skip, and WHO would play: admin, or random willing player not otherwise involved...
Last edited by UnOrthOdOx on 27-01-2005 at 06:55
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-01-2005 21:48
|