Attention All Diplogamers!

[OzzyKP]

I'd argue against a turn buffer. But taking turns during war I definitely support. I tried to enforce that in the last game, but the warmonger in question simply ignored me. So Mike and I kicked his ass and then booted him out of the game for being an ass.

[FlyBoy21a]

there might be a nuiance that I am missing but .....If you are going to delcare war then I hope you are already prepared for that decision and a one turn buffer wouldn't matter...

After war is declared...I agree everything in order to be played out well, and fairly should be in sequentially played turns.

As for times for me the best times are Mon-Thr after 10:00 pm until 4 am PST but I am prepared to request off any time necessary to play this game. thankfully I have a job I can do this
:-0 .

BTW why not adopt a universal time we can all relate to like GMT or Greenwich Mean-Time that way all we have to do is calculate what GMT time is in your location and no matter where you are GMT is universally the same.


I'll choose Roosevelt, Americans, or if someone want him i'm good for peter/russian

ive updated my profile on here too

later yall

[Robert]

I didn't read through the entire treath, but I'm interested in a diplo game. I used to play civ2 diplo games years ago.

I'm from The Netherlands (GMT+1) and I can play friday and saturday night/evening
friday: 22:30 - 02:00 (GMT+1)
saturday: 21:30 - 02:00 (GMT+1)

[Robert]

Version: 1.52 btw.

[The Capo]

If we include only the people who have posted with interest in playing a diplogame we still have a strong cast;

The Capo
CyberShy
FlyBoy21a
DeityDude
LzPrst
KunojiLym
(Deity)
(OzzyKp)
Etc...

I think the time has come to (at least) establish a solid Diplogame, the questions about the best type of game should be amended to deal DIRECTLY with the game we are planning NOW...

If that is too vague for you, what I meant was; WE NEED TO START PLANNING THIS GAME RIGHT NOW!

Thanks, please, ALL DIPLOGAMERS, help us out!!!

[Robert]

Maybe I can get my brother and one or two friends to join us.

I suggest for a game:
- No AI
- Level: Monarch (remember, there's no AI)
- map: Pangea, Large (pangea for ultimate diplo experience, large for enough space)
- sealevel: low
- barbarian: normal
- all victory conditions on
- no special rules
- simultanious turns

I prefer to play the Qin Shi Huang

[LzPrst]

I protest vehemently and violently!

sorry Cyber, but I must declare my differing opinions with extreme vigour.

A pangea with low sealevel will make sailing and boats useless. It is the very extreme end of one type of map and I honestly dont want to play the game on a no-boats map. I feel very strongly about this.

In addition I feel that the pangea map is more of typical beer and tractorpull warmonger map than what seems to be the desired norm for diplo games as I have understood it.

Also, a large map is too large for 8 players. 6-8 players should use a normal map. Otherwise there will be too much room, no early friction when settling, no competition for resources. and with a land rich low sea level pangea... there will never be the need for war or diplomacy. I fermently protest against that as well, and I feel very strongly about it.

Except for that all other suggestions are acceptable. I dont see the need to play on Monarch... Is it to slow the development? Most my multiplayer games have been played on noble as it seems to me to be the default difficulty level. I would of course be able to play monarch I just want a good reason so I know what it adds to the game.

Also, a full round of doing nothing after a declaration of war does seem a little artificial to me. on the other hand. I would be willing to accept this arrangement and try it out if it is the will of the majority. when I think about it, it doesnt seem wholly unnatural and may add a nice flavour to wars.

we should vote for it I say. I'll abstain my vote and accept the ruling of the majority.

Finally, so as to not only offer critisism heres my suggestions:

No AI
Level: Optional, up to the majority
Map: Normal, continents\archipelago, (possibly terra though possible size reduction required)
Sealevel: Normal
Barbs: Normal
Victory Conditions: All
Extra Rules: None
Turns: Simultaneous

And lastly, Deitydude. I must ask. What do you consider the "natural" order of play in a simultaneous game? As far as I can tell, in a MP sim-turn game there is no non-sim turn order to follow. One could use the score chart, but should the person with the lowest score go first or last? What is the advantage?

If the person with the highest rank goes last, would attackers willfully attempt to lower their score in order to be first? Or even last if it is an advantage?

My opinion is that in a simultaneous turn game, wars should be fought simultaneously. Allowing for mobile strategies and continous adaption. With a one turn buffer, I dont see the need to slow down wars any further.

In fact, simultaneous turns actually balances combat. Example: In a sim turn game I was attacked. A fleet of 4 transports carrying marines sailed within my borders and started amphibiously assaulting an isolated island city. As a counter I used my fleet to attack and destroy his escort and a few transports allowing my city to hold on.

If we follow this suggestion, the über-blitzes of civ3 (that I despise) become possible. The ability to smash your opponent in a single battle by not allowing him to act.

In civ3 attacking with a group meant that ALL units in the group would attack consecutively until the attacker or defender was destroyed. Even if you had a large stack of defensive units waiting outside the city, they could not enter the square until all attacking units were finished. So it came to who could move their stack first. In civ4, stacks are not as useful\powerful. Stacked units will attack one at a time. allowing the defender to respond by attacking the attackers or bolstering defences. Far more balancing and far more dynamic.
I object against this rule.

Sorry for 2 miles of text

[LzPrst]

oh, and I am GMT +1 (CET FTW )
New York and most of the US eastern seaboard is -5 GMT (also known as EST)

In order to further educate the world: http://www.worldtimezone.com/index12.php

Also, by looking over the thread I have found the following civ requests, and added my own

Flyboy21a - America
Deitydude - China
Cybershy - China (Qin Shi Huang)
Lzprst - Bismarck

Deitydude called China first, but I assume that the two of you can come to an agreement over the issue.

[Robert]

The Terra map is fine with me as well.
I think most fun for a diplo game is to start all on the same continent.

Since there are two chinas I'm sure that Deitydude and me can agree on the fact that I can take QinShi Huang and he can take that other fellow

[OzzyKP]

Personally my vote is for an earth map.

For the simul combat, I think the aggressor should go first. The one who started the war. Make sense that they should have the initiative in combat.

I am -5 GMT.

[LzPrst]

I still think that putting a non-sim enforcement on a simultaneous move game is a bad idea. civ4 is designed to work in multiplayer with simultaneous move fights. previous versions were not. which is why I cant see the necessity to implement in this version. I think we need to vote on this.

also, although I'm not 100% sure (98% though), only one player can play china. leaders are two different choices for one civ, not 2 separate civs.

[The Capo]

I would agree that Pangea is not the best option, we want boats to be a factor, but I also think that we should all start on the same continent, with the "other continent" being overrun with barbarians.

As far as playing on Earth goes, I think we SHOULD play on Earth for this diplogame because I am hellbent on having this one become a success and continuing to play diplogames. This way we should start simple here and move on to more complicated types of games.

LzPrst failed to notice I called Spain/Rome, I'll probably be Spain though because Rome was in the last game that failed .

The REASON for turning wars into turn-based affairs is not because of realism, it is because of fairness. Not everyone's computer moves at the same speed, and eventually a war will just be speed v. speed. I agree, however, that this would be the best way to fight and we may have to let the game run its natural course, but I just wanted to point out that the reason some of the vets prefer turn-based combat is because we've been playing Civ for a long time, including when it was only turn-based and to us its more fair. But I do agree that the most realistic thing to do would be to leave it as is.

Let me understand this properly; so for Lz any time in the US (EST) would be six hours behind you? So if (this is hypothetical) we played here at 7pm, it would be 1am where you live? And if Deity is still checking this, that would also be 11am in his neck of the woods (I don't mean DD, I do mean Deity)?

If this is the case we can have a few combinations:

Yanks play at 6pm, Aussies at 10am, and LzPrst at 12am (We play for three hours)

LzPrst plays at 8pm, Yanks play at 2pm, Aussies at 6am.

Aussies play at 3pm, Yanks at 12am, and LzPrst at 6am.

Well, it looks like it is going to be difficult to get a good time going here, but so far those are some calculations I have made, please correct me if I am wrong here.

Noble and Monarch doesn't make a difference to me, the only reason I would suggest playing Noble over Monarch is that some people haven't had the chance to get accustomed to the game yet, but I don't think it should matter too much in the long run.

In sum I think we should have at least 8 players in this game, if we can we should get 9.

[The Capo]

About tribes!

Keep in mind if we play on an Earth map the tribes will have to be selected accordingly. Also we tend to pick tribes to be evenly spread, meaning we'd have (out of eight people) probably FOUR tribes in Asia, TWO in Africa, and TWO in Europe.

So, I just wanted everyone to keep this in mind. If we played on a "Terra" map, then we could choose whichever tribe we wished to play as.

[KunojiLym]

Well, I'm in Singapore (as you can see from the flag )... that's GMT +8. Which is a +13 hour difference compared with EST (there's no such thing as daylights savings over here).

Hmm, if we're going to play an Earth map... *looks at the selected folks* I'd go with either India (Ghandi) or Russia (Cathy). Haven't decided which one I'd prefer more . On a non-Earh map, I think I'll go for Cathy.

And btw, you *can* play as different leaders from the same civ. That happened to me in one particular game. (I was Bismarck, and an AI was playing Fred)

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I'd argue against a turn buffer. But taking turns during war I definitely support. I tried to enforce that in the last game, but the warmonger in question simply ignored me. So Mike and I kicked his ass and then booted him out of the game for being an ass.

The reason for the 1 turn buffer is as follows:

Player 2 moves then player 1 moves next to him.

Without a 1 turn buffer he could declare war before ending his turn, end his turn, switch to turnbased and attack first.

This essentially gives him 2 turns in a row at the
beginning of the war.

As for turn order it shouldn't be based on score because that can change throught the game or even during a battle, again resulting in a situation where someone would get 2 turns in a row.

Turn Order should just be based on whatever the order would have been if it had been turn based. This I believe would be the order in the staging room.

As for settings I prefer:

Terra (I still like not knowing stuff until I uncover and it doesn't destroy the value of early exploration)

Large
Noble
Low Sea Level
Normal Barbs

As I posted earlier (and first ) I would like China

Gametime - I prefer Yanks play at 2pm or Yanks play at 6pm (as I calculate it I am 5 hours off Euro not 6)