"A History of the World XII" Planning/Sign-Up Thread...

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by LzPrst


WELL FINE!! I SEE IT. I GET IT. AND FURTHERMORE, IT IS ¤#%ING DULY NOTED!!! BUT YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Toni]

Asmodeous Votes: (I asked him to vote!)

3.

I.

B.

[Heraclitus]

Finally, some clarity. This democracy buissnes can be so inefficient.



I do have one last proposal, that I think we won't need to vote on:

Could we have culturaly linked starting positions: Like European civs together and Asian Civs together. I just think it would add to the story telling a bit.


BTW If terra is chosen, the new world will be empty right? Like in a normal SP terra game?

[Toni]

@ CS, now that we know we will be playing terra map - could you pls let us know via pm what civ ppl get?

Thanks

[Robert]

I got 9 full civ-wish-lists.
Some players gave a different earth and non-earth list. Some didn't.
For those who gave 2 lists, I took the non-earth list.

Everybody except 1 got their 1st choise.
That 1 person got his 2nd choise.

I'll send you all a PM.
I'll start creating Poly accounts and hotmail logins as well, and you'll all receive the account info soon by PM as well.
You can use the hotmail handle for MSN chat during the game!

I'll let Ozzy know the final list.

don't start making your own accounts!

[Toni]

Thanks CS

[Toni]

hah nice that means we can start the stories when u get us the poly accounts

[Toni]

FINAL Vote Tally.

Vote nr.1
1. Continents: 1, Capo
2. Terra: 5.5, Pinchak, Lzprst, deity, Heraclitus, (Aussie_Lurker), Toni
3. Big and Small: 1.5 (Aussie_Lurker), Asmo
4. Other: 1, Trev

Vote nr.2
To resource tweak or not?
I. Yes: 6, Pinchak, Lzprst, deity, Aussie_Lurker, Toni, Asmo
II. No: 1, Capo
-Undecided: 2, Trev, Heraclitus

Vote nr.3
Shallow Sea lanes?
A. Yes
B. No: 6, Pinchak, deity, Trev, Capo, Toni, Asmo
C. Yes, but difficult: 3, Lzprst, Aussie_Lurker, Heraclitus

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, only disappointment for me is no Sea Lanes. Should be a fun game nonetheless . Only reason I supported Sea lanes was to give something extra for naval units to defend.

Aussie_Lurker.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Also, hate to be a pain, but can we establish firm ground rules regarding Alliances &-related to that-Tech Trading?

First, do we need a vote on whether we want No Tech Brokering?

Second, I think alliances should only form between civs under the following circumstances:

1. Shared borders (i.e. neighbours).

2. Shared Values (at least 2 Civics in common-not really valid in the first 1/3rd of the game).

3. Shared religion (this is the big one in the first part of the game).

4. Shared ethnicity (European, Asian, African etc).

5. Setting it up in a GOOD STORY (either beforehand or straight after the alliance).

Obviously the more of the conditions you meet, the more sense an alliance will make. Clearly we can't hold anyone to this, but I would like to hope people will make an EFFORT to stick to the aforementioned guidelines. Also, anonymity will help a lot, but ONLY if people don't break from anonymity (again, a matter of TRUST).

As for Tech Trading, I really REALLY think that we should have a house rule that, unless a civ is right at the bottom of the leader table, a tech should NOT be given away-even to close allies. It should be swapped for another tech or traded for cash equal to-say-around 5 or 10 times the number of turns it took to get it?

Additionally we really need to establish which techs, if any, should be non-tradable under any circumstances (all the philosophical & religious techs should come under this heading). Hopefully, though, if people stick to the guidelines I mentioned above, we shouldn't require hard-&-fast rules for it.

Anyway, sorry to sound like such a "Game-Nazi", I just don't want to see the acrimony that developed mid-way through HOTW XI-it spoilt an otherwise amazing MP-game experience.

Aussie_Lurker.

[LzPrst]

Current Vote Tally. Get on the bandwagon, it's soon time to play!


Vote nr.1
1. Continents: 1, Capo
2. Terra: 5.5, Pinchak, Lzprst, deity, Heraclitus, Toni (Aussie_Lurker)
3. Big and Small: 1.5, Asmodeus (Aussie_Lurker)
4. Other: 1, Trev

Vote nr.2
To resource tweak or not?
I. Yes: 6, Pinchak, Lzprst, deity, Aussie_Lurker, Toni, Asmodeus
II. No: 1, Capo
-Undecided: 2, Trev, Heraclitus

Vote nr.3
Shallow Sea lanes?
A. Yes
B. No: 6, Pinchak, deity, Trev, Capo, Toni, Asmodeus
C. Yes, but difficult: 3, Lzprst, Aussie_Lurker, Heraclitus








Result of votes.
We will play a Terra map. There is a clear majority, nearly 2/3rds in favor of this choice. Even if all the other votes are piled on another map, Terra wins.

Ozzy will generate the map, look at the resources and throw around a few of them to create more clusters, and possibly even new world only resources (sugar for instance). That is 100% up to Ozzy. This also has a clear majority a full 2/3rds.

Sealanes are right out. end of story.

[LzPrst]

Rules and such.

we have played with No Tech Brokering in previous games and I believe all players consider it a worthwhile and diplofriendly option. If anyone objects, do so now.


There was also a suggestion that we limit the number of tech trades to a certain total. for example; you can make a maximum of 10 tech trades total during the whole game.

It would make tech trading less prevalent and far more strategic, hopefully adding a lot more diplomacy to get off a tech trade. Another advantage is that it is extremely easy to keep track of. I want your thoughts on this. Please try to be brief, we don't have much time left. If there is a lot of opinions we might have to vote for it, and if it is implemented the exact number of tech trades must be decided. For now, just put down your thoughts on the matter.


@ The_Aussie_Lurker
As you say, this cannot be forced, but it will be expected. people should make alliances when it is story-wise reasonable. Which brings us to another issue, though I believe that we have a consensus, or least a majority for using Ozzy's point system, which will reward/punish those who do not put their alliances through some form of scrutiny.


And finally, we must ask if Mr.Lincoln should be given a spot even though he is a wee bit late.

[Pinchak]

new world only resources (sugar for instance)

Corn (maize), could fall into this catagory as well.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well I think anonymity will help reduce "tech-whoring" between 'friends' (i.e. people who are friendly with each other outside of the game).

Beyond this, I would prefer NOT to have a hard-cap, but am happy to be outvoted. I would like to think that we are all mature enough players that, if we agree to a certain "price" for techs in trade that we will abide by it. Ultimately it is up to people's conscience. I have no care about winning the game, only about a good story, so I will happily remain within any guidelines. Still, I think we should vote on a hard cap vs "fair trade" & whether certain techs should be non-tradable or not.

As to Mr. L, he was notoriously unreliable in the last HOTW game & I really don't want to run the risk of finding myself next door to an AI civ!

Aussie_Lurker.

[Toni]

To add i want to see the rule that the top 3 civs EVEN 4 (IF ppl agree) can't be allied to each other as we spoke earlier, ppl ok with that?

Also can we agree on the barbs issue - i want agressive barbs.

And what difficulty are we playing on?