Trash Trips Ass TTA (working title) - Page 2

asleepathewheel · November 7, 2002, 00:24

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
BTW, we should prepare for the eventuality of our team being in more than one game at once.

It seems there will be more than 4 teams, but only 4 in game 1. That may mean that we could duel with another team. The Builders? While the main game goes on.

I see this as ideal. It gives more than enough opportunity for all of us to get some blood and grime on our hands.

Eventually, I would like to get in at least a duel with one of the other sites ASAP. After we have a private forum, of course.

BTW, a duel can be done with easily in the BCs. They are fun. Quick and sharp, as any duel should be.

The only restriction I would propose for this is... that most everyone of the team agree to the foray with the other team(s) and that nothing is done in the name of the team without near unanimous consent. ie, we'll work it out.

sounds like a great idea to me

a duel with another site sounds great

FrustratedPoet · November 7, 2002, 03:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
We still have much to discuss, where is notyoueither?

Make sure you check your PMs

FrustratedPoet · November 7, 2002, 03:25

I'd be happy for us to play a Duel with the Builders or another site. It shouldn't take long to play a 1v1 on a Tiny map.
Plus, it'd be a shame (although perhaps unavoidable) if the Builder's couldn't join the main game because of overcrowding. We should give them a chance to die ... erm, I mean play.

Have you tried any duels yet NYE? Anyone else? How long did they take? Could we run 2 at once alongside the main game or are they short enough that we could play several one right after the other.

notyoueither · November 7, 2002, 03:37

You can play a duel in a few hours of continuous play, if elimination is a term. Longer if genocide is required.

Genocide may be a good idea given that many duels with 1v1, no AI start civs within 10 or 15 tiles of each other. Of course, could last longer when the placement works and you are spread out.

Maybe AI's should be included? That would be less of a duel but more of a game for both teams.

FrustratedPoet · November 7, 2002, 03:44

I'd favour a no AI game with Elimination as the victory condition, if for no other reason then that would mean we could play many games against several other teams rather than 1 or 2 games against 1 or 2 teams.

Diversity would be the key to these games, we'd get our fix of drawn-out deep tactical planning in the main game, for on-the-fly quick turnchat decisions we'd have the Duels.

Plus, if we play more games then it means we can have an overall record of 5-0, 6-0, or 20-0

. That just looks cool, and of course we'd always win.

notyoueither · November 7, 2002, 04:05

I agree. Get the builders to.

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 05:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I am honoured by the consideration being bestowed upon me. I did not assume that would be the case.

I think we will mostly find our way by agreeing on the best course of action. However, there is something to be said for assigning some areas of responsibility to individuals to be guardians of. Make sure we don't miss anything.

That being said, who considers themselves...

Diplomat
Economist
Tactician
Scholar?

We should divy ourselves up on those lines. Those with a strength in one area should work together and put forth one their own to be spokesperson (honcho that the game leader refers to in a pinch).

I consider myself leading in diplomatic and tactical skills. While I've won most of my games through conquest, I am still unsure of a military command against a human, it just depends on how much support militarily there is.

Diplomatically I love the whole scene, veying one nation vs. another, arranging deals and etc behind the scenes.

my kinda work, although I honestly can say I've got nothing on Togas.

notyoueither · November 7, 2002, 05:19

You'll whoop his butt! You must, we are counting on it.

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 05:29

OH my, if I'm nominated for Foreign Minister by you then you're probably getting my vote for President (oops Prime Minister??) whether you like it or not...

j/k

I'm definitely NOT much of an economist, the numbers involved are not my forte, so I think thus my skills are best applied either militarily or diplomatically.

notyoueither · November 7, 2002, 05:33

We will sort ourselves out.

That is the point. Who is best suited for what. I am sure that all will get their turn at the controls...

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 05:39

Coincidentally both Togas and I are pushing for the same team (Carthage) on both our seperate teams. Strange that I noticed that.

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 05:45

It is perhaps necessary to note that the only reason to pick a civ is because of it's gifts, not necessarily because that will be the civ that we may do any roleplay with or anything, chances are we will name each city and have our own culture to create and be proud of, which is partially what I'm hoping for.

I would prefer an industrious/military or an industrious/economic or an industrious/religious...as long as we are industrious and taking full advantage of our resources I am content.

Not that I had much interest in joining the DIA in the CVDG although I"m sure it sounds like it.

No offense DIA members I may be playing on the same team with...

notyoueither · November 7, 2002, 05:45

Yes, they were famous diplomats.

You should get together quickly with the others who tend towards diplomacy (alva?). and begin the propaganda offensive...

We could really use Theseus and or Arrian, if they are considering the game.

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 05:46

notyoueither by any chance do you live in pacific northwest time?
I'm noticing we post at the same time, and I live in washington state...although my flag says otherwise.

notyoueither · November 7, 2002, 05:53

I am 1 hour later than you. Just the other side of the Rockies and a bit north.

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 06:03

hmm that's most convenient. I was wondering if I was on a team with folks from England or god-knows-where, just in case it turned out to be a struggle to make turnchats...

by the way, how does our turn-by-turn system work in PTW? I haven't gotten my copy yet unfortunately...

notyoueither · November 7, 2002, 06:15

Actually, diversity is our strength. 3 Euros that I know of.

They can keep the night watch while we sleep. We can keep the night watch while they sleep. Lots of night watches.

Turn-by-turn system? You mean the normal chat routine?

Not so well maybe. See, if we play real time, there will be no time to check with people and ask directions. The player will need to be apprised of goals in advance and be trusted to strive for them.

In PBEM, we can confer with each other, but we do 1 turn then wait for the other teams to do theirs. For 3 days. A rapid pace to boredom if people are expecting the chats of the Civ3 demo game.

I think we need to find another way. I am open to suggestions.

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 06:19

No idea on how we want to do the turn-by-turn functions. No experience yet on that. I'll learn it sooner than later, though.

Interesting thought on the western hemisphere players being up and the eastern asleep, and vice versa. maybe having different players awake at different times could work to our advantage maybe? ?

Randolph · November 7, 2002, 10:06

Wow things have been active here.
Perhaps I could be on the “economic” committee/ econ. minister, I feel this is a strong part of my game. (I did major in economics

, and I enjoy this part of the game)

Diplomatic is not my strong point (though I may be better with people than AI, but I still doubt this would be the place for me).
My tactical game is strong, but it seems that we already have some good tacticians

Names…
Ahh, no good ideas, but I do think that we should keep a healthy level of sarcasm in our name. Threatening would be nice also.

alva · November 7, 2002, 11:16

ahhh good

I was dreading the fact no-one would come forward on this one

alva · November 7, 2002, 13:21

anyone any thoughts on the "units over city" option?
Should we have a general poll on this? And where do we stand on this?

alva · November 7, 2002, 13:28

hé, my first DP

let's at least do something with it

Would you guys be interested in a ********for this team? I can get one for free at my ISP (I never used this, since I don't really feel the urge to show my two cats to the world

)

But it could be handy to post a few maps,.....
(I would need some help though setting it up )

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 19:22

never really payed attention to the 'unit's over city' option. what is that? my guess is that it tells US what units are on top and defending our cities, but I don't think our opponents will see them will they?

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 20:21

Randolph I'm glad you are leaning towards economics. That's a huge relief. I figured like n.y.e. that most would choose a military post or something.

Spiffor · November 7, 2002, 20:26

I didn't play PtW, but I assume the "units over cities" option is a graphical one, and doesn't change any info the opponent migt get. I think everyone will know what the first defender of the city is, like in SP.

By the way, you seem to have plenty generals, but do you have any diplomat ?

Meshelic · November 7, 2002, 21:00

Spiffor, we haven't quite chosen what we are doing as far as politics here, though I'm kinda sure I'm the diplomat until we have an official election or appointment.

Meshelic · November 8, 2002, 05:39

OKay TTA members, we really need to decide what civ we are going to be. I believe we should all post our top 3 and the civ that is most constant on all those votes should be our civ.

Meshelic's choices were:
1-Carthage
2-Romans
3-Arab or Spanish

not you either's choices were
1-England
2-Korea
3-France

Sir Ralph's choices were
1-Iroquois
2-Persians
3-Celts

Zeit's choices were
1-Koreans
2-Persians
3-Babylonians

FrustratedPoet's choices were
1-Arabs
2-Vikings
3-Iroquois

Randolph's choices were:
1-Persians
2-Americans
3-Egyptians

So far, among the responses, this is the running tally of team votes. with civ name first and amount of votes so far within the ( )

Carthage (1) , Romans (1) , Arab (2)
England (1) , Koreans (2) , French (1)
Iroquois (2) , Persians (3) , Celts (1)
Babylonians (1) , Vikings (1) , Americans (1)
Egyptians (1)

I WILL be updating this list frequently.

notyoueither · November 8, 2002, 05:42

England.
Korea.
France.

Harovan · November 8, 2002, 05:55

1-Iroquois
2-Persians
3-Celts

Meshelic · November 8, 2002, 06:07

Check my post above to view the running poll among TTA members ONLY. Although this is a bare-guts kind of poll it will do the job until we have seperate team forums. We wouldn't want to have anyone else outside this team to vote anyways so I will only update a member's poll if he lists his top 3 choices AND if his name is on the team list. If you're name isn't on the list when posting 3 choices here, you will not be counted, so rest assured you should know or not if you're on the team.

If you are one of the 13 here, go ahead with yer choices.