Pitboss Diplomacy Game

[Vampgelus]

The main reason for me suggesting no leader restriction is that if someone chooses Louis for instance, the other french leaders would no longer be available because of the overlapping civ. And there are great leaders among the civ's with multiple choices.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Vampgelus
Maptype can be anything but Pangea and i'll be fine with it. Pangea leads to linear games in deed.

No mod's seems to be required in order to avoid organisation issues.

As for leader/civ selections... i think the fairest option is what Pinchak suggested.

I would enjoy playing without leader restrictions anyway (keeping in mind that there would not be same leader or civ twice). But i understand if anyone would dislike this.

On the other hand, i see no reason to exclude Capac, Bismark or Elisabeth. They are strong, but not overpowered, especially if there is a Genghis next to them :P.

I never played non-cooperative MP, and i wonder about vassal states. Can a player civ become vassal to another one ? If so, we should put a restriction here, in order to prevent someone from getting 5 vassals or so...

I very much agree, I would prefer a map where we had some old world vs. new conflict (that means 2 or even 3 continents, but with the thrid continent being smaller having fewer civs and being reachable by galley from one of the two continents).

I would be ok with a connection between the old and new world that requires you found an arctic city to reach it. Thath way the can terorise the new world.

I also think Bismarck (his strenght only comes to bare in the industrial age) and Elisbeth (can do very well but can do poorly as well) aren't overpowered. The Incas are something entirely different.




Also how can we have Pinchak start making the map if we haven't agreed on the map type? Lets not circumvent players, this leads to bad feelings remember the HOTW12 organsiation thread?

[Vampgelus]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


I very much agree, I would prefer a map where we had some old world vs. new conflict (that means 2 or even 3 continents, but with the thrid continent being smaller having fewer civs and being reachable by galley from one of the two continents).

I would be ok with a connection between the old and new world that requires you found an arctic city to reach it. Thath way the can terorise the new world.

I also think Bismarck (his strenght only comes to bare in the industrial age) and Elisbeth (can do very well but can do poorly as well) aren't overpowered. The Incas are something entirely different.




Also how can we have Pinchak start making the map if we haven't agreed on the map type? Lets not circumvent players, this leads to bad feelings remember the HOTW12 organsiation thread?

Capac is strong, Incans are strong. Take the one without the other one, and it's almost balanced. BTW, i don't thnik the incan to be overpowered in a diplogame in which early rushes are forbidden. (well, i think they are).

I totally agree on waiting for evrybody to be fine with map type before taking any decisions.

[classical_hero]

Originally posted by Vampgelus
The main reason for me suggesting no leader restriction is that if someone chooses Louis for instance, the other french leaders would no longer be available because of the overlapping civ. And there are great leaders among the civ's with multiple choices.

Are you talking abut unrestricted leaders? Or are you talking about having duplicate civs but not duplicate leaders?. I know you can have duplicate leaders in BTS. I am very confused as to what this game is all about, so can someone please expain what is going to happen with this game. If their is going to be an accelrated start then there should be specific times to see what is available to the player, since their is a massive time difference between the various players.

[bamf226]

Are there any spots left? Where will the diplomacy happen (E-mail, threads, civstats)? Having never played a diplomacy game, is this similar to the workings of the board game Diplomacy except on a much larger scale?

[OzzyKP]

I am very much against allowing duplicate civs or leaders. There are like 34 different civs, it would definitely enhance the game to have some more variety. It gets boring when everyone always chooses the same civs every game.

It is for that reason that I'd like to ban Bismark, Elizabeth and Capac. Each are chosen with about double the frequency of any other leader in diplogames. They aren't necessarily overpowered on paper, but something must definitely be up if they get chosen every single game.

I think it would make a better game for everyone if we had more variety.

Another question I want to pose - what do people think about running a civ with a fantasy theme?

[Vampgelus]

Are you talking abut unrestricted leaders?

Yes. Sorry, i play the game in frech, so i often try to translate litterally, hoping the people will get it.

I am very much against allowing duplicate civs or leaders. There are like 34 different civs, it would definitely enhance the game to have some more variety. It gets boring when everyone always chooses the same civs every game.

Same thing here.

It is for that reason that I'd like to ban Bismark, Elizabeth and Capac. Each are chosen with about double the frequency of any other leader in diplogames. They aren't necessarily overpowered on paper, but something must definitely be up if they get chosen every single game.

Wasn't aware of that. So it might be a "good" idea...

I think it would make a better game for everyone if we had more variety.

That's why : Each leader and each civ would have to be picked only once.

Another question I want to pose - what do people think about running a civ with a fantasy theme?

Meaning ? I'm didn't like the FFH mod, so if you talk about something like it, i would disagree.

[OzzyKP]

I mean for role play purposes. Usually everyone tries to emulate world history. So if they pick England their leaders (in their story) are King Henry, Elizabeth, James, George, Victoria, etc.

Using a fantasy theme would be like calling your civ the New York Yankees and writing your stories with characters like Joe Dimaggio, Babe Ruth, Derick Jeter, George Steinbrenner, etc.

Generally it can be jarring for folks expecting more of a historical game to have something like the New York Yankees civ next door, so it is good to check beforehand. I have a non-historical civ idea that I'm toying with using, but just wanted to see what people thought.

It wouldn't be a mod or change gameplay at all. Just affect the stories and role playing.

[Vampgelus]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I mean for role play purposes. Usually everyone tries to emulate world history. So if they pick England their leaders (in their story) are King Henry, Elizabeth, James, George, Victoria, etc.

Using a fantasy theme would be like calling your civ the New York Yankees and writing your stories with characters like Joe Dimaggio, Babe Ruth, Derick Jeter, George Steinbrenner, etc.

Generally it can be jarring for folks expecting more of a historical game to have something like the New York Yankees civ next door, so it is good to check beforehand. I have a non-historical civ idea that I'm toying with using, but just wanted to see what people thought.

It wouldn't be a mod or change gameplay at all. Just affect the stories and role playing.

That seems funny to me If noone here is a hard core historical gamer, this shoud in fact be awsome !

PS: BtW, makes strategy changes through the game much more easier to explain via storytelling.

[MMC]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I mean for role play purposes. Usually everyone tries to emulate world history. So if they pick England their leaders (in their story) are King Henry, Elizabeth, James, George, Victoria, etc.

Using a fantasy theme would be like calling your civ the New York Yankees and writing your stories with characters like Joe Dimaggio, Babe Ruth, Derick Jeter, George Steinbrenner, etc.

Generally it can be jarring for folks expecting more of a historical game to have something like the New York Yankees civ next door, so it is good to check beforehand. I have a non-historical civ idea that I'm toying with using, but just wanted to see what people thought.

It wouldn't be a mod or change gameplay at all. Just affect the stories and role playing.

Doest thou remember the Happy Funglish from the English Happy Funland?

[Robert]

My civs are never really historical accurate anyway
I only use some names from that civ and then screw a bit around.
I'm fine with phantasy civs.

Let's try to get no double civs, if we can't, we can always discuss the possibilities.

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. Jon
15. WarningU2
16. bamf226
17. ...

Welcome aboard bamf226!
The story telling will be in a seperate thread
The diplomacy will be both in the thread and mail/pm

The core of diplomacy is that you rule your civ as a real leader. You have in-game reasons for what you do. You don't just attack your friendly neighbour for no reason.
If you want a war, you work towards that war. Ie change governament, start building up tense relations. That can happen both explicit or implicit.

Another important thing is that we try to keep the game fun for everyone. Thus we don't raze (important) cities, we keep everyone alive, in wars the winning civ give reasonable capitulation offers to the loser, etc. etc.

It's not about winning in-game.
It's about having fun together, and being able to use human techniques to win the game, rather then only game mechanics.

In a diplomacy game everyone shows self control.

Though it's defenitely not meant to be a builders game.
There can be huge wars. Cities can be token. Armies can clash. Defenitely.

Players who are 'losing' (bottom of the score list) continue playing because there's not such a thing as 'losing'.
You can capitulate to a strong neighbour and be his vassal (not nessecarily using the game mechanics).
Then you can win as a team.

You can also have in-game goals, like spreading buddhism to 50% of the world, gaining an oil monopoly and write a story about that. Etc. etc.

It's a combination of game mechanics, story writing and diplomatic skills.

Making vassals is allowed. Let's not split off AI vassals though!
A human vassal gets the change to break free every 10 turns, even after capitulation!
Vassalage is not new in diplogaming. It's not bad to be a vassal! It can even help you during a weak period.

[Vampgelus]

Originally posted by CyberShy
It's not bad to be a vassal! It can even help you during a weak period.

If you have a master who cares about your security...

[Robert]

In a diplogame a master should care

[Vampgelus]

Just kidding :P

[deity]

I suggest that the recognised top players NOT pick any civs/leaders with the financial or industrial trait.

Maybe nominate yourself as being in this category.

ozzy, deity and Toni are most definitely in this category.