Picking Civs - 2nd Poll

[Beta]

From the first poll, the majority indicated that they want some method of choosing their own civs. It would seem the options are:

1. Random assignment of draft choice

2. First come, first served.

3. Top 3 choices, and work it out from there.

4. Bananas all round - just to keep conmcb happy.

Please vote!!!

Thank you.

Looking to get this underway shortly. Aro, the game host is ready and willing.

[ZargonX]

Top 3 choices, hammer it out from there :b:

[Nugog]

Top three choices - from a practicality point of view.

So long as no-one else wants Southern Cross' civ...........

:cute:

[RobWorham]

Originally posted by nugog
Top three choices - from a practicality point of view.

So long as no-one else wants Southern Cross' civ...........

:cute:

Yeah!!!

[Keygen]

Now you're talking :b:

[UnOrthOdOx]

I still favor ranDOM let the damn PC pick. Which don't appear to be an option. We'll start talking about potential choices as that seems to be happening.

In case some folks didn't know about it, handy tool for picking civs: http://www.geocities.com/megan_and_percival/warlords_leader_picker_1.0.htm

[rumpo kid]

Voted, and would you adam and eve it, I'm in the majority again!

[Beta]

From the other civ choice poll, it would appear that folks are keen on allowing duplicate civs/leaders. Guess that would be OK.

[emperor]

Personally, I'm in favour of each team discussing amongst themselves and selecting ONE leader, which they will get. The Civ4 game allows duplicate leaders, so we should allow them in picking our civs. Of course, it's possible to end up with 9 Alexanders, but I severely doubt that this would happen - you'd be surprised how different people favour different civs for different reasons, and all of them perfectly valid. For an example, in the Intersite Democracy Game (between 14 teams divided into two games of 7) we used this method of picking our civs, and I think we ended up with 2 Gandhi's and 2 Qin's in one game, but apart from that every other leader was unique. :)

Regardless, I'm extremely opposed to a random civ choice for all teams. I don't mind if other teams wish to do that just for themselves, but personally I know from experience that in multiplayer, too much of the game does depend on the advantages and disadvantages of various leaders, and thus I would want to be able to have a say in which civ my own team ends up with. For instance, I'm sure nobody wants to pick all random and end up as Frederick stuck between Caesar, Cyrus and Hatshepsut. ;)

[Paddy]

I feel it should be open to all teams, and 1st come 1st served

in that some civs do have multiple leaders, let there then be full usage of that civ if required

[Pinchak]

I'd say randomly choose the order in which teams can choose, then have all civs allowed.

No doubles is prefered.

[emperor]

Originally posted by Pinchak
I'd say randomly choose the order in which teams can choose, then have all civs allowed.

No doubles is prefered.
No doubles should happen naturally in most cases, since different people have different preferences. However, in the odd cases where doubles occur... can you tell me why it actually matters to you? Those civs will be completely unique anyway, different colours and names, controlled by different teams. Why does it matter that they share a unique unit, unique building and two traits?

[Pinchak]

I just don't see the need for doubles when there are so many choices.

[Paddy]

yet people do have the ability to have this option in the game, it is there in the vanilla game, not a mod etc, so I believe it should be allowed into this game

[Fosse]

I'd like random assignments.

Barring that I'd like to suggest an option sheerly for it's cumbersomness and the fact that it seems interesting to me! ;)

We have two rounds.

Round 1: Every civ chooses a leader and PMs it to a neutral party who announces the choices.
Round 2: Every civ has the option to re-choose their leader based on what they've seen, not knowing if anyone else is doing the same. The neutral party again announces them all at once, and the second picks are the ones everyone has.

We allow duplicate civs/leaders. I think it's fair because everyone gets to pick at the same time, and interesting because we get to react to what's been chosen already but in a blind sort of way. It removes the advantages of picking first (whoever you want) or last (in response to what everyone else has).

[Paddy]

nice work Fosse :b:

I know we can have same civs & different leaders, but can we have same civs & same leaders?

[emperor]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
nice work Fosse :b:

I know we can have same civs & different leaders, but can we have same civs & same leaders?
Yes, that is allowable by the normal Civ4 mechanics.

[Beta]

Fosse - great suggestion!

And given the unique nature of the different teams, the leaders become almost irrelevant as such. Clearly it is the traits that matter. If more than one team wants the same traits - and UU - what's the big deal.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Lord Parkin

Yes, that is allowable by the normal Civ4 mechanics.

excellent

many times in our history people groups have split and gone their seperate ways, why ever not here

rock on :Party:

[Krill]

Fosses' suggestion is an interesting way of picking civs and does also help out with balance issues.

[Pinchak]

My suggestion for no doubles was simply my opinion. Not like i will refuse to play if we allow doubles.

Just for the record i am very against totally random civs. Expeically on an island setup.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Krill
Fosses' suggestion is an interesting way of picking civs and does also help out with balance issues.

yes indeed

yet if we are allowed multiples of a civ, then team just need say who they want and we are closer to a start ;)

[polarnomad]

I really liked Fosse's suggestion, and it seems others do as well. Can we have it included as an option for leader selection?

[Aidun]

Top 3 choices.