Pitboss Diplomacy Game

[Pinchak]

Thanks Hera!

Since I'm on a roll, I will throw the following out there for discussion...

Regarding choosing of civs... I'm going to guess nobody wants random, expecially in a diplomacy game. I would suggest "drawing straws" so to speak for the "pick order". No double civs for story reasons.

Regarding tech trade.... I would suggest one of the following...

1. No Brokering

OR...

2. Trade limit of (TBD) with any single civ. This would help to avoid "tech blocs" from forming, while also avoiding the problems that emerge with a straight trade cap.


Speaking of caps.... anyone try to get ahold of Capo for this?

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Why is Raz on the list twice?

cause i am so good at diplo i need to play as two people to give me a challenge

[Rasputin]

if we playing three turns per day how do i queue the moves of my scout i dont want him on auto move

[Pinchak]

if we playing three turns per day how do i queue the moves of my scout i dont want him on auto move

Well, first of all keep in mind that you will try to play as many turns yourself as you can. Maybe you make all three in a day, maybe only one.

As far as queueing a scout... I would say just "pre-move" him in the direction you want to explore. Try to log-in when you can to adjust his movements. It is not a perfect solution, but running a fast timer seems to be the most practical solution to the slow start of pittboss games (expecially if we plan on using epic speed).

[Robert]

pre moving anything:
- hold shift while right clicking on the maps he should go to. (first click: first goal, 2nd click: 2nd goal, etc. etc.)

- assign worker tasks: hold shift while moving (see above) and assigning tasks. Thus while holding shift you do: click on target, click on the worker action button, ie: build road, click on the next worker action, ie: build irrigation, then right click on the next goal, click on the next worker action, etc. etc. all while holding shift.

I very much like pinchacks ideas.
8 hour turns first, then later switch to 24h turns.
People who want to manage their turns can manage their turns, others can automate and check back 1 or 2 weeks later.

I say: let's not vote for points, etc. we can never keep that going with 18 players anyway.

No Tech brokering is good enough, I think.
With 18 civs everybody must be able to trade some techs with someone.

We can have a code of honor that alliances aren't bigger then 3-4 civs. And also have the code of honor that top 5 civs won't allie all together. (ie. an alliance of 3 top 5 civs)
Just as a code of honor, where nothing is being forced. (ie. #6 civ becomes #4 civ and has to break away from an alliance immediately)

Regarding the 2 or 3 continents start, I really like the idea, though I hope that we all together will make contact asap as well. If not only for the tech trading among the 'weaker brothers'. Maybe galley-ocean-gaps?

@Rasputin twice: I did it! It's my birthday, you can't yell at me!

[Wittlich]

This game hasn't started yet?!?

If it has not and if there is an opening, I would like to join you all.

[Robert]

It most probably won't start untill the next patch has been released!
Welcome on board!

1. CyberShy
2. Heraclitus
3. Toni
4. Pinchak
5. OzzyKP
6. MMC
7. Rasputin
8. Deity
9. Beta
10. Whip[lash
11. Blackdragon921
12. Wittlich

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by CyberShy
pre moving anything:
- hold shift while right clicking on the maps he should go to. (first click: first goal, 2nd click: 2nd goal, etc. etc.)

- assign worker tasks: hold shift while moving (see above) and assigning tasks. Thus while holding shift you do: click on target, click on the worker action button, ie: build road, click on the next worker action, ie: build irrigation, then right click on the next goal, click on the next worker action, etc. etc. all while holding shift.

This is exactly why I have said on several occasions that I like the concept of the pitboss games. It is concivable to go on vacation and set things up to run for 15 or so turns.

Originally posted by CyberShy

I very much like pinchacks ideas.
8 hour turns first, then later switch to 24h turns.
People who want to manage their turns can manage their turns, others can automate and check back 1 or 2 weeks later.

I like this as well.

Originally posted by CyberShy

I say: let's not vote for points, etc. we can never keep that going with 18 players anyway.

I don't know, you originally said do away with the score system (which is ok by itself) but keep rewarding players for diplomacy and story. I think the system will in fact work better with more people. I would miss it very much, and it would present a porblem how to maintain the diplo spirit without it (with several new players, and more players than we have evera had). It just removes any sort of motivation to play the game differently from a standard MP game.

Originally posted by CyberShy

We can have a code of honor that alliances aren't bigger then 3-4 civs. And also have the code of honor that top 5 civs won't allie all together. (ie. an alliance of 3 top 5 civs)
Just as a code of honor, where nothing is being forced. (ie. #6 civ becomes #4 civ and has to break away from an alliance immediately)

I'm sorry this is overly complicated and ineffectual the easiest way to prevent permantent alliances is to put limits on tech trading. This has worked birllinalty in HOTW12.

I think we should perhaps instate a 10 tech trade limit together with tech brokering. That reduces the rules players need to remember to one.

Maybe go with the improved system, known as a voucher system, in that system you get the ability to trade your rights to trade techs. It is basically a 10 tech rule 2.0, since it has no drawbacks but can help backward civs a bit.

Originally posted by CyberShy

Regarding the 2 or 3 continents start, I really like the idea, though I hope that we all together will make contact asap as well. If not only for the tech trading among the 'weaker brothers'. Maybe galley-ocean-gaps?

I'm agianst that, I realy do thik dividing the world into two groups with two story threads would reduce interactions to reasonable ones untill Optics or Astronomy (at some point after that a common story thread would start).
The early interactions among the two continents would be unrealistical and considering the number of players confusing.

Unless we go for a different map, then we could all be on the same continent maybe have everyone start in the Old World of the Terra map.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by CyberShy
It most probably won't start untill the next patch has been released!

I'm wondering will the saves from 3.13 be compatible with the next patch? If so why couldn't we start before the prophecised patch arrives?

[Robert]

I think that we can have trust that the saves will be compatible

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I think that we can have trust that the saves will be compatible

Hey, Its a fair question in many games the last patch removes save compatiblity.



So considering this, why couldn't we start before the patch as soon as we agree on the map settings and rules?

[Whip[lash]

Firaxis has a history of releasing backwards compatible patches. The only reason to wait for the patch is that you expect some "balance" changes. To exagerate, maybe a new trait would be "enlightened" and civ's with this trait get Philosophy for free. And maybe some units get nerfed, like Praetorians become -50% against archers.

I doubt that drastic balance changes will be in the new patch; but if they were some players would be boosted and some would be snuffed.

I would prefer that we go now with the expectation that patching later won't have major impact. If it turns out that drastic balance changes are part of the patch we can decide to restart; nothing lost if we were gunna wait anyway.

[Pinchak]

Wittlich and Beta, glad to see you guys will be in this one.

Looks like we are getting alot of the details hashed out early. Very good. I think we should decide some issues here in the thread, then have a vote on the other issues (barbs on or off, random events, etc...)

I think that we can have trust that the saves will be compatible

We should be SURE about this. It would REALLY suck if we had to start over because they were not compatable.

I very much like pinchacks ideas.

Me too.

I don't know, you originally said do away with the score system (which is ok by itself) but keep rewarding players for diplomacy and story. I think the system will in fact work better with more people. I would miss it very much, and it would present a porblem how to maintain the diplo spirit without it (with several new players, and more players than we have evera had). It just removes any sort of motivation to play the game differently from a standard MP game.

This, IMO, is huge. This needs alot of further discussion.

Oddly enough, I am more for the point system now then I was before. With this many players, it will be hard for any one civ to "run away with the cake" so to speak.

I fully agree that the storys and voting HAVE to remain a part of it for it to retain it's diplo feel. However, due to the number of players and the pittboss format, perhaps we extend the "frequency" of voting to once every 100 turns? The host of the game can automaticly remind all players to cast their votes via the ingame pittboss message system.

I'm sorry this is overly complicated and ineffectual the easiest way to prevent permantent alliances is to put limits on tech trading. This has worked birllinalty in HOTW12.

The 10 tech trade limit in HOTW12 has totally destroyed alliances based on tech trading. However, it also produced the nasty side effects of 1.) There is practialy no more tech trading since everyone used their trades already... 2.) Civs behind in tech now suffer since they cannot be "gifted" up to speed.

I think the answer to this is either to cap the number of trades to each individual civ, or just go with no brokering. With 18 civs I don't think the perm alliances will be as much of an issue (they will exist to some extent, but due to the number of players will not be as noticable or influential). Also, if we go with epic speed it may be adventagous to not limit tech trading with any caps since free trade will accelerate the game. No offence CS, but I am very opposed to artificial limits on alliances. If the top 3 decide to group together, I would hope the rest of the nations would have enough good sense to deal with it, such as boycotting trade with them or even declare war to bring them down to size.


Regarding the map... I would like to see something close to how earth is set up. Several different continents, some bridged some not. A major divide that can only be linked via astronomy would make for an interesting midgame change. Perhaps have an unpopulated "new world" somewhere obscure?

Let me make the map and I PROMASE one of the best setups ever seen. I could preset the starting locations, number them, send the finished product to a 3ed party via email, then have another 3ed party choose my "number". In this way, my only advantage would be knowing the big picture as far as landmasses. One player knowing this out of 18 isn't going to break anything as I would also swear to not devluge any info or even keep a digital copy.

Basicly, I would make it as fair as possiable, but more importantly, as interesting as possiable.

[Vampgelus]

Sounds interesting, i have read the HOTW12 thread, and i kinda like the diplo-thing. Pitboss seems to be an efficient way to deal with timezones, so if there is still a place for me, i'll be in.

[OzzyKP]

More new blood.

1. CyberShy
2. Heraclitus
3. Toni
4. Pinchak
5. OzzyKP
6. MMC
7. Rasputin
8. Deity
9. Beta
10. Whip[lash
11. Blackdragon921
12. Wittlich
13. Vampgelus
14. ...

No comments on my idea to queue up turns in the early game and play them through rapidly with a very quick turn timer? We could cover a lot of ground that way with minimal pain.

As for tech trades... I'm really quite enjoying the set up in HOTW12. Alliances really have been destroyed. This is one of the most open and fluid games I've seen in a long time and it makes a big difference in enjoyability. Part of that is the tech trade limit, though part is also anonymous and just an unspoken commitment from the players to avoid long term alliances.

It is true though that this system, as feared, has hurt civs that are behind the pack. A system of being able to trade X times with each civ would be a possible solution, but it seems even more artificial, takes more decisions away from the player, and would be extremely tricky with 18 players.

I think overall 10 was a decent limit. Maybe we can expand that to 12 or 13 overall, but I wouldn't want much more than that. With the limit being less than the number of players, trades will definitely be spread around.

Maybe, to give more help to lagging civs we can go with the tech voucher system (which I don't think anyone has yet taken advantage of) and give out 1 extra tech trade to the last place civ every 100 turns.