21-03-2005 06:38									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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

Theseus, the team lists in our game are as follows:

Babylon / Carthage - Scientific/Religious + Seafaring/Industrious

Rome / Persia - Commercial/Militarisitc + Idustrious/Scientific

Arabia / Greece - Religious/Expansionist + Commercial/Scientific

I specifically eliminated Agricultural civs from the setup and chose one Scientific civ for each team.

In an attempt to evenly distribute start locations on the randomly generated Pangea map, I had also taken care to ensure that there were only 2 culture groups represented (Mediterranean + Mid East), and that the teams had one of each. With culturally linked start locations turned on, this should have ensured that there were 2 distinct areas of 3 civs each, with one civ from each team being in each geographical area. This kind of worked, except that on the Pangea map, Babylon and Carthage ended up in the middle and so closest to each other.

As for UU's, all civs chosen except Arabia had Ancient Age UU's, so this was also fairly well balanced. The kick-arse Persian Immortal was up against good defensive units in Numidian Mercenaries and Hoplites, while the Arabian Ansar Warrior had to wait until the Middle Ages to emerge, by which time other teams were in a better position to deal with him. The weakest was the Babylonian Bowman, but to date in our game (early Middle Ages) Babylon hasn't seen any action.

I took quite some time with the setup. After taking into account all the variables with Traits, UU's and cultural groupings, the civ pairings almost chose themselves and I think this is probably the most balanced set of pairings you could find within the parameters I chose.

We've progressed the game fairly well (though at 0.35 turns per day not particuarly quickly), and are currently at around 350BC. As Kloreep says, he's eliminated Greece recently and now Arabia is on its own. The other 2 teams remain fairly well balanced, with Persia/Rome being more powerful (largely due to Kloreep's Immortals absorbing Greek territories), while Babylon/Carthage has defensive advantages by being relatively close together.

The early objective in such a game of course is to meet your team civ, so you can share techs. Research cooperation between team civs was allowed from the start of the game, but between non-team civs was restricted until the teams actually met in-game. Despite the obvious team cooperation on research, the tech pace hasn't been outlandishly fast.

I think 3 teams of 2 is a good setup. Any less would be strategically boring, any more would be unacceptably slow.

	21-03-2005 06:48									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Lord Nuclear 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?

Excellent. Thanks!

	21-03-2005 06:56									#33
	Put an end to popups!

Thanks for your comments, Aqua. I think I clearly went through some of the same thought process that you did... in fact, I'd just use 'Trial by Traits' if I didn't want to get you guys to particpate in the AU course!

Re civs, I started going through the same exercise as you, and then realized that you'd already done it... so, a slightly different approach, focused on the complements and differences in civs:

Europe: France/Scandinavia
COM/IND+MIL/SEA
Musketeer+Berserk

Middle East: Persia/Ottomans
SCI/IND+SCI/IND ( :cackle: )
Immortal+Sipahi

Asia: China/Japan
MIL/IND+MIL/REL
Rider+Samurai

I can think of some scary stuff coming from each of these pairings!!

Now, who's gonna design a map, 'cause I am fer darn-tootin' playing??!!

	21-03-2005 07:32									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, I suggest we start getting players to sign up, and contacting the other sites. I'd be willing to design a map, although I have no real skill or experience in that area, and I'd probably just get the RNG to make a map, and I'd balance it out.

	21-03-2005 07:55									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

When we are ready, I'll do a pre-game thread in the AU forum, summarizing what we've got so far and providing for sign-ups. I'll also let a few of the lost sons and daughters around here know, and start contacting other sites where I have a history.

First, though, we need to determine the extent to which the game is modded:
1. Stock
2. Starter pack
3. Iron Civer mod

As much as I am attracted to #s 2 and 3, I suggest staying with stock to attract the greatest participation (including inter-site)... any strong objections out there?

	21-03-2005 08:06									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I've got way too many PBEM games going for the time I have available, so I'm in

Theseus - I think those civ choices are going to make for a helluva lot of fun.

France/Scandinavia --> Nasty amphibious UU paired with a pretty good defensive UU. France's traits are reasonable, though Scandinavia's suck on a Pangea.

Persia/Ottomans --> commerce and research juggernauts, and when one UU becomes obsolete, the other kicks in!

China/Japan --> keep them both away from Iron or we're all toast by the Middle Ages


I'm reserving the Ottomans

And no Vikings for Theseus

	21-03-2005 09:02									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Of the 3 pairs, France/Scandinavia seems slightly underpowered to me, though maybe I'm underestimating their UUs. (The Berzerker is powerful, but this is a Pangea. And as Aqua points out, Seafaring isn't worth much.)

	21-03-2005 09:31									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Nope, not pangaea, three nearby continents. And believe me, Berserks are insane regardless of amphib attack.... I played a couple of SP games over the last six months just to test that theory, and they delivered, big-time. I mean, daaaang, 6a??!! Crunch crunch, chop chop.

	21-03-2005 10:05									#39
	Tired of ads?

Putting the only two Scientific civs on the same team is not very fair...

	21-03-2005 10:30									#40
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Putting the only two Scientific civs on the same team is not very fair...

Nor Immortals and Sipahis... methinks the other two teams might have something to say about that. Also, the tech advantage is only realized if trade relations are well-managed, and there is no inherent military benefit to these two given the UUs.

Actually, Dominae, I've been waiting for you to weigh in on this... any further thoughts? I'm hoping to solidify this course, get the invitations out, and get going by the coming weekend.

	21-03-2005 10:50									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Once it's all set up, I can get a News Report for it too.

	21-03-2005 11:00									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Theseus Nor Immortals and Sipahis... methinks the other two teams might have something to say about that.

Who wants to be dogpiled?

quote: Also, the tech advantage is only realized if trade relations are well-managed, and there is no inherent military benefit to these two given the UUs.

Well-managed tech trade relations just means splitting up the tech tree evenly (well, there's more to it than this, but it's less important).

Saving 140 Shields per city per team member on Libraries and Universities is likely a game-breaker. And that's not even counting the free techs from era advancement, which the other teams would only dream of having (that and SGLs!). Scientific is the one and only trait that gets better when paired with itself.

Oh and, IMO, Immortals and Sipahi would dominate those other UU combinations ("You've got Riders? Well, I've got Muskets! And Gunpowder is not far off from you-know-what!!").

	21-03-2005 11:02									#43
	Support Apolyton

If we do this right, it can be the blow-out celebration that Civ3 deserves. SP/MP/succession/AU/inter-site/competitive¬... d*mn, I'm getting pumped. And all the players too... Vel, Sir Ralph, Fried-Psitalon, and all the others who aren't quite so distant (too many to name)... I am coming for you!

[and Jesse? Soren? Mike? Sid?]

	21-03-2005 11:05									#44
	Put an end to popups!

Does anyone know how we contacted Firaxis to play in the first ISDG?

	21-03-2005 11:19									#45
	Full PM-box? Change here!

How about these combinations:

Japan (Rel/Mil) - Korea (Sci/Com); Samurai + Hwach'a
Arabia (Rel/Exp) - Ottomans (Sci/Ind); Ansar + Sipahi
China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

	21-03-2005 13:19									#46
	Tired of ads?

You could of course use one or more Agricultural civs to offset the power of a Persia/Ottoman combination.

	21-03-2005 16:31									#47
	Suffering from ads?

Quote * 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.

Still looking for a volunteer? Or are you looking for an offical admin person type?

	21-03-2005 18:06									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

PR....for games such as this we need good fast players. My experience is that you are one such player. Therefore, please play and do not administrate

	21-03-2005 18:09									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dominae How about these combinations: Japan (Rel/Mil) - Korea (Sci/Com); Samurai + Hwach'a Arabia (Rel/Exp) - Ottomans (Sci/Ind); Ansar + Sipahi China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

I think Dom's suggested civs are ok too, though I would substitute a kick-arse Agricultural/AA UU civ such as the Celts or Iroquois instead of Japan, to offset the relatively weak Korean civ.

Under such circumstances, I'd be happy to play Korea (seems like the only way I'll ever get Korea into an AU game, despite numerous attempts so far )

	21-03-2005 20:25									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Theseus * Playing for money: Optional.

This aimed at me?


If a game was willing I'ld more than happily head a merc concept tem.

Otherwise I'll be fine simply doing my best to demonstrate team playing to folks through DARs.


Looking at the proposed civs, I'ld play any civ mentioned, being a random player even in PBEM's. Korea included, even paired with Japan as is. So, slap me anywhere you have a hole with lack of participation.


Q: Would the teams be sharing info prior to in-game contact? (I am thinking probably so given the setup)

	21-03-2005 20:43									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

If Agr. civs are on the table (no reason not to, since the civs/teams will be balanced), then we could give the novice players Agr. civs and pair them with non-Agr. veterans.

Sumeria (Agr/Sci) - Arabia (Exp/Rel); Enkidu + Ansar
Iroquois (Agr/Com) - China (Ind/Mil); Mounted Warrior + Rider
Celts (Agr/Rel) - Scandinavians (Mil/Sea); Gallic + Berzerk

The Celt/Viking combo is more for flavor and is consequently a bit weaker than the other two, but could still pack a punch in the right hands.

	22-03-2005 00:44									#52
	Put an end to popups!

OK, we have three suggested combos:

My initialset:
France (Com/Ind) - Scandinavia (Mil/Sea); Musketeer + Berserk
Persia (Sci/Ind) - Ottomans (Sci/Ind); Immortal + Sipahi
China (Mil/Ind) - Japan (Mil/Rel); Rider + Samurai

Dom's first set:
Japan (Rel/Mil) - Korea (Sci/Com); Samurai + Hwach'a
Arabia (Rel/Exp) - Ottomans (Sci/Ind); Ansar + Sipahi
China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

Dom's second set:
Sumeria (Agr/Sci) - Arabia (Exp/Rel); Enkidu + Ansar
Iroquois (Agr/Com) - China (Ind/Mil); Mounted Warrior + Rider
Celts (Agr/Rel) - Scandinavians (Mil/Sea); Gallic + Berzerk

I'd like to keep the flavor of cultural linking, but am happy to reconsider the mixes for better balance and variety... so, how about:

France (Com/Ind) - Scandinavia (Mil/Sea); Musketeer + Berserk
Sumeria (Agr/Sci) - Arabia (Exp/Rel); Enkidu + Ansar
China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

Talk about variety!!

	22-03-2005 01:06									#53
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Dominae If Agr. civs are on the table (no reason not to, since the civs/teams will be balanced)

Unless we were to make locked alliances an option. I'm with snoopy in the view that team games are a PBEM anomaly and would rather see this with open alliances.

	22-03-2005 01:17									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If we go with open alliances, this may not end up being very AU-esque. If co-ordination is not the lesson, what would be? Just straight diplomacy? We could make the course about Machiavellianism, which could make the course rather interesting. Since I'm not going to be the one playing it, it's really up to you guys. Perhaps a poll is necessary?

	22-03-2005 01:36									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If the victory conditions (which will have to be artificial for locked alliances too, I believe) were to pertain to any two allied players, it would still mean a focus on co-operation, albeit one that would relate to any PBEM game in general.

	22-03-2005 01:54									#56
	Tired of ads?

Then you would have the best players aligning with each other, which doesn't sound very much like an AU game.

	22-03-2005 02:02									#57
	Suffering from ads?

While forming the permanent alliances on the fly does sound interesting, I agree with LN: you'll just have the two most powerful civs linking up and wiping the floor with the rest.

	22-03-2005 02:30									#58
	Suffering from ads?

I thought the focus of the AU method was about the reporting of one's progress and studying other's reports to compare with your own. The civs played would have to be balanced (which could include handicapping by player's skill). The games themselves would probably be organized according to player skill.

	22-03-2005 02:31									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

From the viewpoint of a relative novice, that China/Japan combo looks devastating if they live long enough to bring their UUs into play, so it behooves the other teams to dogpile, as Dominae mentioned. So I'd advise against that one.

Question: what sort of turnaround time/pacing are we talking about here? I'm *not* the sort of fast player mentioned by Aqualung71. My last PBEM games were Starweb and Feudal Lords, games that were played on Cuneiform Computers Actually, that's not true, my most recent PBEM games were Lords of the Earth (the source of my handle, in fact), and *those* turns took just a *bit* more time to prepare!

	22-03-2005 02:35									#60
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Theseus France (Com/Ind) - Scandinavia (Mil/Sea); Musketeer + Berserk Sumeria (Agr/Sci) - Arabia (Exp/Rel); Enkidu + Ansar China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

Substitue Persia or Ottomans for Sumeria (only Agr. civ) and that list looks good to me.