PBEM with a twist....

alva · January 1, 2003, 13:02

Hi, looking for something else this time.

How about doing a scenario, maybe start in the middleage, that sort of thing.

No big core/rule changes, preferably none in fact, too confusing.

hmm,
4-5 players
NO AI !!!
Random standard map

all else is up for discussion

-----------------------------------------

* current proposals *

- middleage start
- co-op (2X2)

-----------------------------------------

* agreed upon *

- nothing

-----------------------------------------

* (possible) players *

- alva (gmt +1)
- Frustrated Poet
- Conqueror
- Ghengisfarb

-----------------------------------------

GhengisFarb™ · January 1, 2003, 13:32

I've been working on a Mod to simulate the Colonial Period where I've added several more coastal improvements (during the Colonial Age coastal cities were more the center of power than inland cities) that I was hoping to get some people to PBEM when it was done:

Wharf: +1 food in water tiles

Harbor: +1 food and +1 commerce in water tiles, allows water trade

Shipyard: +1 shield in water tiles

Naval Shipyard (Small Wonder) Acts the same as Ironworks but requires the Timber resource to be within the city radius

Seaport: +1 food, +1 commerce, and +1 shield in water tiles.

Eventual goal was to to start in the Middle Ages and then go into the Renaissance and Industrial/Modern Ages.

alva · January 2, 2003, 09:53

hmm, not bad Ghengis, those are more changes then I had in mind though.

I had expected more response btw...
Common people!!!!

other options..,
- Team game (co-op)
- mini!!!!demo-game( allmost the same as the one
above, just not quite)
- one of the new victory modes,....

FrustratedPoet · January 3, 2003, 07:24

I like the idea of a co-op game. How about a 2v2?

If a neutral person created a random map with each of the teammate's start locations near each other (so they could meet for early trades and exchange maps etc.) then I'd be good.

I'm thinking of a small maps with two equal (even identical?) continents. Each team starts on a seperate continent.
Maybe have a couple of "coast bridges" between the two continents so we won't have to wait until Navigation to explore.

I'm in for this game.

Conqueror · January 3, 2003, 10:57

I could join, but, only if there's not too much twisting, i dont like changing the basic rules.

alva · January 3, 2003, 12:42

Sounds good FP

(4 players = standard map?? , growth,science will go faster 2 x 2 then when playing individually.
We could have 80% water

)

Conqueror, me neither, at least not for an PBEM game (allthough I might try it)
I justed wanted to do something else, without touching the core rules too much, if at all...
Right now, I have about 5 games going, and pressing enter is nice, but not great...

GhengisFarb™ · January 3, 2003, 13:49

I had been thinking along the same lines FP, a Team Multiplayer either with an Individual playing two civs or Team Democracy.

Conqueror · January 3, 2003, 16:20

2 on 2 could be very interesting, altough should be confirmed that same team members start relatively near each other, and if everyone is not on the same landmass, then galleys should be enough to get to the enemy.

alva · January 3, 2003, 18:25

Quote:

I had been thinking along the same lines FP, a Team Multiplayer either with an Individual playing two civs or Team Democracy.

I don't care either way, but this should be decided asap..
For the one we have enough players, to do the other we need 4 more.

A cop-op would be a ground-breaking game though.
(Just the choice of civs...

)

Conqueror · January 5, 2003, 08:28

co-op is lots of fun, even against the AI. We played a co-op PBEM game against Deity AI's with a friend, it was very educative experience, even tho he had bad luck with RNG too many times and we agreed on not continuing till the end.

/edit: Altho now that i think of it the, AI was propably more like Emperor or Monarch due to the difficulty level buggin in PBEM, it didnt expand the way AI's do on Deity. But it certainly was not regent. Agh another example of these horrid PBEM bugs.

alva · January 5, 2003, 10:08

So lets not bother with the AI then

SO, are you all in? Can I close it?(<-- membership)

FrustratedPoet · January 5, 2003, 10:26

If we're gonna play a 2v2 with no AI then I'm defintely in.

Civ picks will be a very interesting decision, we'd need to choose civs that would complement each other well.

2 Civs on a team gives 4 traits. Industrious is a must so that somebody can build fast workers. Expansionist would let somebody use Scouts and guarantee good hut results, but if we already know that each team is on an island then finding out the terrain is not the biggest priority.

Also, if the teams have to attack over water then naval power will actually be important for once. Will people pick Vikings for the Berserker and/or English for the Man-O-War?

It'd be interesting to see what Civs people pick.

alva · January 6, 2003, 01:10

something I saw in an other and is not a bad idea, maybe confusing..

How about starting two games, same line-up(teams), but different map, civs, etc....

FrustratedPoet · January 6, 2003, 06:05

Quote:

Originally posted by alva

How about starting two games, same line-up(teams), but different map, civs, etc....

I'm already in 5 PBEM's. I'm Ok with being in a 6th if it's a unique idea (like the 2v2), but I don't wanna be in 7 (if we do this one twice).
Sorry.

alva · January 6, 2003, 22:19

Sure, no prob, it was just a thought

GhengisFarb™ · January 7, 2003, 10:22

Okay, we have 4 people and that will work perfectly for the 2v2 idea.

I think a player's 2 teams should be right behind one another to speed up gameplay.

Which 2 teams does each player want?

If we choose, I would like to be the Germans and French. The Franco-German Empire.

alva · January 7, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

I think a player's 2 teams should be right behind one another to speed up gameplay.

1. I don't real see how this would speed things (much)

2. It has the potential of being very unbalancing.

I'm waiting for Co,queror to say he IS in ot not.

GhengisFarb™ · January 7, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by alva

1. I don't real see how this would speed things (much)

2. It has the potential of being very unbalancing.

I'm waiting for Co,queror to say he IS in ot not.

If our two teams are in sucession then when you get the save you play team 1, then team 2, then email to the next member.

Otherwise you have to play TWICE as many times with TWICE as many lags.

You would send to me, it might be 4 hours until I get home to play my turn I email to the next, he emails it to the next, he emails it to the next, 3 hours later when I get back to play the game I play my team 2.

TWICE AS LONG, TWICE AS MUCH WAITING. I don't see how it unbalances the game in any way, but it does double the speed of the gameplay.

FrustratedPoet · January 7, 2003, 12:04

Ghengis is right.

alva · January 7, 2003, 13:20

I was thinking in terms of each player doing their own turns...

As to the balance side of things:

You can get a complete-full out attack from two civs on one, instead of
move->counter->move->counter
we get
move->move->counter->counter

To speed things up, your idea is

Thrumble · January 8, 2003, 11:55

So what's up. I'm curious to watch how this 2 on 2 game ends up working. Are you going to start sometime this year or not?

GhengisFarb™ · January 8, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
I was thinking in terms of each player doing their own turns...

As to the balance side of things:

You can get a complete-full out attack from two civs on one, instead of
move->counter->move->counter
we get
move->move->counter->counter

It's no different from normal civ. Instead of one civ with 3 cities attacking another with 3 cities you will have two civs with a combined 6 cities attacking two other civs with a combined 6 cities.

Now, let's see you pick your two civs!

alva · January 8, 2003, 18:38

We seems to be talking about to different things , arn't we?

let me see .

Ghengis: each player takes two teams and plays individually???

Alva: 2 players each pick one team but work together as one civ.

FrustratedPoet · January 8, 2003, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by alva

Alva: 2 players each pick one team but work together as one civ.

That's what I was thinking of.

Example:
FP picks Egypt, Alva picks Persia - they start on the same continent and work together.
Ghengis picks China, Conqueror picks Carthage - they start on the same continent (but a different one to FP and alva

) and work together.

alva · January 8, 2003, 19:58

We could however combine both ideas...
Large map?

4 players, each 2 civs, 2 versus 2

FrustratedPoet · January 8, 2003, 20:04

I'd be OK with that idea too.

It'd be fairer if we took it in turn to pick our Civs if we're gona have more than one. Otherwise whoever chooses last would have missed out on the best 6 Civs.

GhengisFarb™ · January 8, 2003, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
I'd be OK with that idea too.

It'd be fairer if we took it in turn to pick our Civs if we're gona have more than one. Otherwise whoever chooses last would have missed out on the best 6 Civs.

Definitely misunderstood. I had been thinking of Democracy game where the Democracy chose 2-3 civs to be theirs, representing the religious, military, and merchant factions and played against 5 AI and I had assumed (wrongly) that this was similiar only we each chose two civs.

If we go your way then we should probably wait for more people. My way would have the slots taken up by 4 people. If go the 2 per player I had thought each player would submit their 2 team pact and if there are civs have been chosen by more than one player we can do some sort of compromise.

alva · January 8, 2003, 21:03

ok let's start over again (yhis seems to be happening in many of my started games)

Can each of you post what you would like to do with this game?

Conqueror · January 9, 2003, 11:23

I'm in for sure, somehow i didnt see any new posts in this thread for 2 days

I'll remove the proxy server immediately. Strange that i saw all new posts in the GS private forum, hmm..

Conqueror · January 9, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
ok let's start over again (yhis seems to be happening in many of my started games)

Can each of you post what you would like to do with this game?

Maybe each of us control 2 civs, and all vs all game.
Or each only 1 civ, and we have 2 people playing like a "team", 2 vs 2 so to speak.

But considering that we are all already in a PtW demogame, we might not have too much time to negotiate the team strategies & such, so maybe "the 1 player with 2 civs" idea could be good.

But i'm up to the 2 vs 2 team game too, my partner just has to deal with not so much negotiating, then