Idea for an AU Game

jshelr · February 16, 2004, 15:47

Here is the germ of an idea for an AU game.

Suppose we divide the group of people who volunteer to play into pairs of two and play the scenario in pbem format.

Only 2 live players per game should make the turnaround rapid and let us get done in, say, three or four weeks, maybe.

But the two humans aspect would make for some new experiences and probably real fireworks at the ends of the games.

What do you think?

Russ

Konquest02 · February 16, 2004, 20:08

There has been some attempts at an AU PBEM... I think 4 games got under way, but only one was finished.

In fact, while I think about it, ducki, it's been your turn for a couple of months now, you might want to pass the save...!

--Kon--

Theseus · February 16, 2004, 20:12

I think what jshelr is proposing is a bit different... the previous efforts were succesion games, whereas I think he small-scale team games.

Interesting idea. I voted for SP as well, although there will be DAR issues.

Aqualung71 · February 16, 2004, 20:48

I've always wanted to get into MP games, but my dial-up connection and time-zone issues prevents me. Also, I just wouldn't want to commit if there's a chance I would let others down by not being available to play at certain times. So PBEM is a possible solution, though I've never tried it before. It would need flexible timing for the email submissions.

Someone please explain - PBEM means you email your move (as in, one turn only) to everyone? Wouldn't this potentially take a huge amount of time to get a game moving even into the middle ages? If so, by this time the SP's will have done their DAR's and moved on to the next AU game.

ducki · February 16, 2004, 21:31

If you mean the old PtW PBEMs, one day I just stopped getting SAVs and sent an email or two but never heard anything. Fatherhood prevented me from following up more aggressively, but after a while, I just assumed it dissolved.
Sorry 'bout that.

jshelr · February 16, 2004, 22:02

The existing au pbem games are, as Theseus says, completely different. The idea here is to have another human lurking about somewhere out there in your University course game. It's doable, but definitely requires real committment from pairs who try it.

vmxa1 · February 16, 2004, 22:45

If I follow what jshelr was saying, it could be handled like the Moo2 demo game.

If say two people teamed up, then you could agree that one will do X turns and then send it to the other guy. This could move along quickly.

I don't know if that is appealing or not, but it would speed it up.

Dominae · February 16, 2004, 23:14

I would definitely participate in one of these.

Rhothaerill · February 17, 2004, 00:14

I would be happy to participate as well. I had asked a while back whether any would be getting started with the new Conquests AU mod. This sounds like an excellent idea to keep the flavor of the mod while still being able to pit your skills against other players (which honestly is where my tastes lay nowadays).

Aqualung71 · February 17, 2004, 09:20

How would it work? If you play several turns each then load each others' saves, the AI turns during each of your turns will probably be different due to different RNG rolls.....or maybe I'm just thick!

jshelr · February 17, 2004, 10:07

I was thinking of 6 to 8 AI civs and two humans in each AU game. If we had 5 to 10 pairs of humans, the outcome would be a bit like a duplicate bridge session.

In pbem you play one turn at a time. So, a pair would have to get together and work pretty intensively through the early game.

Arrian · February 17, 2004, 11:06

I'm not up for it. I like the demogames because I don't have to make sure I'm around to play the save. I've played the save in ptwdgII a bunch of times, but mostly I'm not turnplayer, and that's a good thing. I'm online with civ access erratically, and apparently there are issues with my emails not getting to the next player until 2 days later in some cases.

But I'm all for others doing it and writing up DARs for me to read

-Arrian

ZargonX · February 17, 2004, 11:19

It's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't do it in place of a "normal" AU course. Dividing into pairs would be the best way to go, to ensure a quick pace of game. However, even with just 2 people, a PBEM can still take a loooooong time.

Master Zen · February 17, 2004, 14:26

PBEM takes a loooooooong time. I mean, a really long time. I'm not sure we'd effectively be able to handle it in terms of the AU spirit.

However, I'm still rather amazed at why a good number of the strat forum comunity doesn't play PBEMs. They give a whole new perspective on Civ. Hell, I don't even play SP civ anymore, only PBEMs and demogames (and AU 501

)

Maybe an idea is for those of us who do play PBEMs to eventually post DARs or something like that on the games we are playing.

Fosse · February 17, 2004, 14:34

I would be willing to do it, but probably not on a large or huge map.

I can turn out up to six turns per day, given the right partner. Realistically more like 1 or 2.

Would there be some sort of ranking system, so that a veteran Sid player doesn't square off against a guy who struggles on monarch? Or in-map handicapping?

I think that the DARs would take a lot longer than four weeks to come in though, especially since Side A wouldn't want to tip their hand (or their counterparts' hands) to Side B.

Rhothaerill · February 17, 2004, 14:53

Given the right combination of people, a two-player PBEM can proceed very quickly. Over at MZO, Uber Krux and Ayronis finished a "pong" game (their name for it) in about 45 days.

Regarding DARs, that is a bit more tricky, but it could be done with the honor system. Say we have a DAR breakdown similar to AU501 (write your first DAR at 2150bc, etc.), but we have two different DARs for each breakdown...one for player A, one for player B. Each team of two would have that designation. Player A would only post his DAR in the player A DAR and would be honorbound not to read ANY of the player B DARs until the end of the game, or "read ahead" in the player A DARs until he writes his own. And vice versa for player B. You would of course be placing a lot of trust in your partner for each game, but PBEMs require a certain amount of trust that the other player would not cheat anyway.

jshelr · February 17, 2004, 14:54

Fosse's correct that common sense should be appllied to map size and partners. I think a team would have to agree to spend an intensive Saturday doing several turns per hour to get the game off the ground. Not everyone can do that. But some might want to give it a try. We had a crazy group of 4, (Dom, alexman, SR) who played several turns per hour in pbem format a few months ago.

Dominae · February 17, 2004, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Maybe an idea is for those of us who do play PBEMs to eventually post DARs or something like that on the games we are playing.

Those would be welcome!

We started a bunch of "Strat Forum PBEM" games a while back, in which the players were expected to post a report (including comments on the AU mod). I posted a thread on the third one. The other ones have all died, apart from Strat 5.

Dominae

SirOsis · February 17, 2004, 19:38

I've been thinking about a type of game that would allow for 8 players to get in a PBEM game relatively quickly. My idea would be to have 4 continents. 2 players on each. There would be 4 different PBEM games going until Navigation. At this point there would be a possibility of contacting other civs via the ocean and the 4 continents would be combined into a single map and the game continue with the remaining players.

The map combo, of course would require a bit of work but maybe if it is generated on a large map and broken into 4 parts it would be easier. Cities would have to be placed, techs handed out, units placed, etc.

When a civ builds a wonder it is annouced and that wonder cannot be built by any of the other civs.

Kinda going by the seat of the pants here... any ideas welcome!

If there is enough interest I think this would make for a highly interesting AU course.