17-03-2005 05:22									#1
	New AU PBEM course Got spare money?

As we all know, SP activity has been waning quite a bit, whereas PBEMs just keep going (and going and going)

This has shown to be the case in the AU forum as well, in that all but one of our courses to date have been SP.

I'm going to suggest that our next course be MP, in PBEM mode. That said, however, I'd like to jazz things up a bit, and wanted to gather some ideas here. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

* Not one-on-one... we already did that (and I think most participants thought it went pretty well).

* We should capitalize in some way on the Iron Civer experiences.

* I'd like to offer the game in both stock and with either the AU Mod or the AU MP Mod (if that is sufficiently developed).

* On the other hand, possibly based on one of the Conquests?

* I'd like to consider a team format, rather than just FFA. This could be a team of players against a number of AI civs, or team against team. [EDIT: Including some inter-site games. ]

Perhaps most importantly, we always like to have a theme, or a particular lesson/technique to work on...

Any thoughts??

Last edited by Theseus on 17-03-2005 at 05:28

	17-03-2005 12:34									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

small map, starter pack... 6 mixed units min... extra trait... 4 players max... run a muk

someone cannot play and does not post details within (time to be determined) then their turn is played by game administrator

game administrator to have a long chat with Rommel on how he monitored and pushed the Iron Civver Tournie to being the success it is

	17-03-2005 17:56									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I don't have any particular thoughts, but I would play an AU course if it was PBEM.

	17-03-2005 20:15									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I must say, I was an enthusiastic AU stalwart from the release of C3C, but like others my interest has waned to the extent that I haven't even finished AU505 or AU506.

AU601 was interesting since it was the first AU attempt at PBEM, but after several experiences at 1 on 1 PBEM play, it no longer excites me.

So, my 2c worth is as follows:

1. At least 4 players per game (a-la Iron Civer)

2. As Paddy suggests, a starter pack with extra settlers/workers/warriors helps get things started more quickly, but I ABSOLUTELY VETO AP, which some players like;

3. Again based on the Iron Civer format, it seems a competitive aura is best for helping progression of games (shock horror, this is not the aim of AU!!!). Rommel really got it right with the Iron Civer

4. Don't offer the game in both stock and mod. One only, be it stock or mod. I'd favour mod, but would be happy to acceed to the majority if it means we all play under the same rules.

5. I think one of the Conquests would be interesting, as long as participants understand some of the limitations and "brokenness" of some of the conquests and select appropriately.

6. Absolutely NO AI. My 12 months heavy involvement in PBEM has proven that on the odd occasion an AI is involved, almost all the fun is taken out of the game via manipulation. Level playing field, don't move the goal-posts.....humans vs humans, period!

7. Team of players - already tried, interesting concept, but doesn't this just make it another DemoGame? we've just started a PBEM DemoGame, so I'm not sure of the interet you'll generate for another one.

8. Theme - absolutely! Personally, I prefer being told what our theme and objectives are, rather than just being given an auto-generated map and told "go for it" just like in a random SP game. IMHO, this is also more in line with the AU theme.

Ok, perhaps that was 10c worth, but I hope it helps

Last edited by Aqualung71 on 17-03-2005 at 20:31

	18-03-2005 00:30									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 7. Team of players - already tried, interesting concept, but doesn't this just make it another DemoGame? we've just started a PBEM DemoGame, so I'm not sure of the interet you'll generate for another one.

I was thinking of some flexibility in this regard: teams could choose their own format, whether straightforward PBEM with alliances, succession (one player plays all of the team civs in a given turn), or demogame (team effort across all the team civs).

Thanks for the input, btw.

	18-03-2005 01:24									#6
	Suffering from ads?

How about a PBEM using the Mesopotamia Conquest?

	18-03-2005 01:31									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Another idea: a standard PBEM, but with mandatory DARs.

The purpose is to teach/learn PBEM skills. Players would report on their experiences in a standard AU DAR structure (perhaps more frequently). These DARs would be open to everyone, including the other players. Therefore it would not be possible to "hide" anything from other players (there would be a rule against misinformation via DARs). This is not necessarily a bad thing, as periodic looks into each other player's civ could cause some interesting diplomatic tensions ("So, you've been prebuilding Horsemen, eh!?").

	18-03-2005 01:42									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Dominae How about a PBEM using the Mesopotamia Conquest?

There has actually already been one that has finished (won by yours truly as Phoenicia ), and one currently going (slowly ) right now so I won't be joining a new one.

I can definitely say that the Mesopotamia scenario is fun for PBEMs, much more so than as an SP game. But I don't know if it's worthy as a "learning experience" PBEM because it's quite a bit different than a "normal" game. There is quite a bit more emphasis on combat and capturing cities because of the victory points. Just my opinion though.

For example I could give you my specific strategy for how I won as Phoenicia, but it's only really workable in that very limited instance. I ended up doing several things that you wouldn't normally see in a standard game, because it only pertained to how to win quickly as Phoenicia in the Mesopotamia conquest.

Your second idea of a PBEM with mandatory DARs out in the open is a good one. It's similar to the Reality PBEM at MZO right now (with out the kick-out a player every few turns vote). Perhaps put out a DAR every 3-5 turns or so, or even every turn.

	18-03-2005 03:20									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I could go for another PBEM.

I don't know how much time I could devote to a DAR. I could certainly hit all the general stuff.

I do know very little about the AU mod, but would not be opposed to going at it anyhow.

	18-03-2005 08:25									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Rhothaerill Your second idea of a PBEM with mandatory DARs out in the open is a good one. It's similar to the Reality PBEM at MZO right now (with out the kick-out a player every few turns vote). Perhaps put out a DAR every 3-5 turns or so, or even every turn.

I was thinking of a DAR every 30-40 turns or so. It's less work, and still allows for surprise maneuvers.

	18-03-2005 22:45									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm definately in for DAR's every 30-40 turns.

	19-03-2005 07:01									#12
	Put an end to popups!

Here's what I've got so far:

* Title: AU 602 - MP Teaming

* Theme: Coordination. Seriously. How do partners advise and coach each other? How do they leverage the strengths (and minimize weaknesses) that they each have, whether it's their civs, UUs, terrain, location, etc.? On that note, I think it'd be kinda neat if each team were to be composed of a newer player and a hoary old hand. BTW, I am anticipating that MP / PBEM is going to be a stronger factor in Civ4 (at least compared to the initial release of Civ3 )... let's get ready!

* Teams: 3 teams of 2 players each. Civs should be culturally linked, and pre-selected, so players are selecting their teammates and which of the three culture pairs that are offered. I'm leaning toward (if possible) one player having a Ancient UU, and one having a Medieval UU. Team civs to be placed near (but not too near) each other.

* Number of games: As many as we can fill. In addition to the participation of ALL the PBEM stalwarts ( ), I will invite players at MZO, CFC, the Ladder, the Spanish, the Germans, etc., to play.

* Administrator: Make sure things move along. Step in to play turns if necessary. Oversee replacement players if necessary. Judge, jury, and executioner if things come up and rulings need to be made. Depending on how many games, we may need more than one.

* Scenario Designer: Make scenario changes, select the map, place civs. Insert evil surprises. Based on stock, not the AU Mod or any other... we'll get more participants that way, and the AU Mod doesn't make *that* much of a difference for all-human games.

* Map / scenario: Standard, continents, 80% water, normal, temperate, 3B. Designed to provide for three primary continents, one for each team, accessible by Galleys. Not AP. Three native lux per continent, but two lux (ivory and ?) only on islands. Strat resources through saltpeter on each continent... after that? :chuckle:

* Level: Uh, I'm sorta newbie-ish on this... what is considered best for this type of game?

* Starter pack: 2 each of Settlers, Workers, and Warrior/equivalents; one Scout if EXP.

* Team behavior: Team members may communicate anything and everything to each other, maps, screenshots, science, whatever. Non-team members may not communicate except what's available in game -- you may communicate anything that would be technically communicable in game, so once map trading is available you can give specific directions; once mil. alliance is available you may make a military alliance; once communication is open, you may discuss scientific advances. Communication with one team member is communication with both.[NOTE: Thanks to snoopy, who I quoted from "Team PBEM" for the above.] Further, teams have the choice of playing as PBEM with a locked alliance, succession, or mini-DG; this should be disclosed in their first DAR.

* Time slots: NOT. That being said, since it's an AU course, and potentially inter-site, I expect that more people than usual will be watching. I like the idea of team partners disclosing their passwords to each other, so they can cover playing a given turn for the team if necessary.

* Mandatory DARs: Level of disclosure TBD. DARs should be joint reports by the team partners. Thanks to sabrewolf for this suggested schedule from AU 601 (yes, I know that it was meant to just track turns, but it works for this course differently):
- 2750bc: 25 turns, switching to 40 years/turn
- 1750bc: 25 turns, switching to 25 years/turn
- 1250bc: 20 turns
- 750bc: 20 turns, switching to 20 years/turn
- 250bc: 25 turns
- 250ad: 25 turns, switching to 10 years/turn
- 500ad: 25 turns
- 750ad: 25 turns
- 1000ad: 25 turns
- 1250ad: 25 turns, switching to 5 years/turn
- 1350ad: 20 turns
- 1450ad: 20 turns
- 1550ad: 20 turns
- 1650ad: 20 turns
- 1750ad: 20 turns, switching to 2 years/turn

* Playing for money: Optional.

	19-03-2005 10:43									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

That sounds great, Theseus. You have my full support.

	19-03-2005 14:36									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This looks really really good Theseus!

	19-03-2005 20:12									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Andydog This looks really really good Theseus!

Ditto

	20-03-2005 04:07									#16
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I like the idea, but for two things:

1. Starter pack. I prefer playing stock Civ3.
2. Continents. Coordination would be more interesting on a Pangea map.

Edit: Oh, and I want to team up with Aeson.

	20-03-2005 04:15									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Dominae I like the idea, but for two things: 1. Starter pack. I prefer playing stock Civ3. 2. Continents. Coordination would be more interesting on a Pangea map. Edit: Oh, and I want to team up with Aeson.

Why would you rather play Stock?

	20-03-2005 04:23									#18
	Suffering from ads?

I find the early-game really interesting and skill-testing. Although there's the disadvantage of having to wait a many turns to for anything to major to happen, I'm hoping a rapid pace of play will not make this a major issue (unlike some PBEMs I'm involved in...ahem).

	20-03-2005 06:12									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dominae I like the idea, but for two things: 1. Starter pack. I prefer playing stock Civ3. 2. Continents. Coordination would be more interesting on a Pangea map. Edit: Oh, and I want to team up with Aeson.

Uh, that'd be three things, the last being fairly notable. Again, though, I think it'd be better to pair newer and experienced players (except for the inter-site games, if any ).

I'm not committed to the starter pack idea... in fact, on reflection, while I recognize why Paddy suggested it (the painfully slow starts of some of the games out there), I think it prolly unnecessary for an AU game. Going from the experience of AU 601, those games that were played were played quickly.

Re continents versus pangaea, I was thinking that purposefully gearing the games towards Medieval age conflict might be a tad more interesting, and provide for both builder-ish and warmonger-ish coordination within each of the teams.

I'm going to work on suggested civs tonight.

BTW, Nukie, would you be willing to be the first admin?

	20-03-2005 08:36									#20
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Theseus * Teams: 3 teams of 2 players each. Civs should be culturally linked, and pre-selected, so players are selecting their teammates and which of the three culture pairs that are offered. I'm leaning toward (if possible) one player having a Ancient UU, and one having a Medieval UU. Team civs to be placed near (but not too near) each other.

Theseus, this idea is very similar to the Trial By Trait PBEM I started some time back.

There were 3 teams of 2 players, civ pairs were selected by hand very carefully, and teams chose which of the 3 civ pairings they wished to play based on a predetermined order.

The civs were matched by their differing traits, and one of the objectives was for each team to combine to maximise the effectiveness of the 4 traits they shared between them.

The tracking original thread is here if you want to take a look.

	20-03-2005 09:56									#21
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

It sounds good to me.

As to starter packs, I can go either way. I don't normally like them, but if they are a go then I'll play them.

As to the continents vs. pangaea, PBEMs in general, and especially team PBEMs, seem to work better on pangaeas because of the potential for earlier and more conflict.

	20-03-2005 11:39									#22
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'll admin it, for sure. I have an interesting an idea for picking the teams. As Theseus suggests, one new player (Warlord-Monarch), and one experienced player (Emperor-Sid). There would be a specific thread that players would post in to say what level they play on, what civs they would prefer, what their best at, worst at, etc. I then assign civs and teams, according to abilities and civ prefence. How does that sound?

	20-03-2005 11:41									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

And here are some possible sites to advertise it:

CFC
GWT (Although they hate 'Poly now)
CDG
BAT
PAL
CGN
MZO
GCA (Well, I don't know. Same problem with GWT, and they cheat.)
RBC
SE

Last edited by Lord Nuclear on 20-03-2005 at 22:03

	20-03-2005 16:11									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Another idea: a standard PBEM, but with mandatory DARs. The purpose is to teach/learn PBEM skills. Players would report on their experiences in a standard AU DAR structure (perhaps more frequently). These DARs would be open to everyone, including the other players. Therefore it would not be possible to "hide" anything from other players (there would be a rule against misinformation via DARs). This is not necessarily a bad thing, as periodic looks into each other player's civ could cause some interesting diplomatic tensions ("So, you've been prebuilding Horsemen, eh!?").

This sounds very appropriate to me. A 6 player PBEM would probably be a Civ3 swan song lasting past the release of Civ4 in most cases. The AU has honed gameplay to a fine art- why not have everyone lay all their cards on the table and show how they like to read and play the odds? It seems like the most logical approach for the AU to take toward PBEMs.

When determining map makeup, the main stumbling point I see with seperate land mass is not so much traveling by ship, but the ability to connect harbors for trade or attaining remote resources prior to the end of the middle ages. An admin would have to design the map with very artificial resource allocation to specifically accomodate this if going with continents...

For playing level, the most noticible effect is barbarians- combat bonuses and goody hut odds (esp. the impact on Expansionists). There's also the overall effect on research speed- not anything I've ever really noticed, but theoretically its there.

	20-03-2005 20:51									#25
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lord Nuclear And here are some possible sites to advertise it: CFC GWT (Although they hate 'Poly now) CDG BAT PAL CGN MZO GCA (Well, I don't know. Same problem with GWT, and they cheat.)

I'll see if I can get anyone from SE to come, though I don't know how many will partake.

	20-03-2005 21:20									#26
	Support Apolyton

Add RBC to that list.

So, pangaea seems to be recommended.

Still don't have a clue as to the best difficulty level.

Re civs: I tried at first a couple of paradigms, e.g., ancient UU/ medieval UU, or by trait, or whatever (vodka didn't help )... I ended up just picking culturally linked civs with a range of 'coordination difficulty':

Europe: France/Scandinavia

Middle East: Perisa/Ottomans

Asia: China/Japan

Thoughts?

PS: Aqua, any contributions from how 'Trial by Traits' has been? You guys are pretty far along (albeit at .35 tpd).

	21-03-2005 02:00									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

LN suggested I look at this, but I think i'll pass ... Teams as you suggest just don't work in my opinion, and I have to say that although the team play concept is interesting, the diplomatic options of not playing as teams I think are more interesting (choosing your own team, essentially, based on the situation in the game).

Also, the fact that most PBEMs (80% plus) don't involve teams implies to me that if you want to actually just teach PBEM play, you would be doing a better job teaching people to play PBEM if you had a solo game where people teamed up or not on their own ...

If you end up making a non-team based version of the game, however, please sign me up

	21-03-2005 02:58									#28
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Theseus Still don't have a clue as to the best difficulty level.

Monarch or Emperor leave decent odds on goody huts for non-Exp. tribes. I'd just recommend beefing up barbs some to prevent them being complete fodder- archers or swordsmen for basic, and Mounted Warriors or Keshiks(?!) for advanced.

	21-03-2005 04:13									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 If you end up making a non-team based version of the game, however, please sign me up

I actually have no problem with that... people can volunteer for either type of game. There's something to be said for the "lesson" to include / contrast fixed versus negotiated alliances.

Please note though that the set-up will generally favor the same teams anyway.

At first, that is.

	21-03-2005 04:24									#30
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 Theseus, this idea is very similar to the Trial By Trait PBEM I started some time back.

Indeed. I'd definitely be up for another one; this one has been interesting so far.

Theseus: It's mostly been expansion. The one war has been between myself (Persia, one of the larger civs in the game) and Greece (one of the smaller civs in the game). I eliminated Greece, so we'll now see how the game proceeds with one player being teammate-less...