Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Setup Thread]

[Exploit]

To help keep things moving and set expectations, here is a proposed timeline for getting the game started. Whoever is hosting the game should determine if this timeline is acceptable or modify it as necessary and let the rest of us know.

August 20, 2010: Start Date

August 19, 2010: Map Creation Complete (map creation could take much less time depending upon which options are chosen)

August 15, 2010: Voting ends on Game Options/Map Creation Begins (2 days for voting should be plenty as long as everyone knows in advance when the voting dates are).

August 13, 2010: Submission for voting questions ends/Voting on Game Options begins. (Allows Trev time to return from his trip and other players to be recruited plus submit any voting items).

[Exploit]

Although we were instructed not to vote yet, if the goal is to achieve consensus as stated earlier in the thread then it helps to know everyone's preferences to start therefore here are my preferences (in bold) based upon the voting items as I understand them so far.

1. Tribal Villages (On/Off, plus suggestion for huts only in "New World")
2. Map Type
- Terra random map (all players begin in Old World and settle New world)
- Torroidal World wrap random map (needs map type to go with, fractal?)
- Earth 18 Civ Scenario map
- Huge Earth 2 random map
3. Random Events (On/Off)
4. Tech Trading/No Tech Brokering/Voucher system/No Tech Trading
5. Vassals (On/Off)
6. yell-penalties () (I could not find this mentioned in the draft rules can someone point me to what this is refering to)
7. New World (see map type Terra)
8. Timer (my preference is 12h turn timer till 0 AD and 24h after that)
9. Game Speed (Normal/Epic)

[Rempedaalops]

I agree with The Priest though, new worlds give a huge advantage to the already leading civs. Not to mention that in all those diplo games there never happened real interesting stuff on these new landmasses.

Yeah, true, if you mean like what kinda happened with India in the last diplo game. But still, the balance will always be a little off; that's just the way the 'world' works. I've hardly ever played a civ game in which it didn't happen that one civ eventually manages to pull away. There will always be geographical advantages for some I suppose. I personally don't mind that much; being locked in can be fun too, I enjoyed that position when playing Egypt because it forced me to really use diplomacy. So, I don't really mind which map we play, I will go with the majority on that one.

[Robert]

Exploit is right, let's start planning things.

1. we must get the final list of players. I'll contact those who didn't confirm yet. I suggest that by August 11th we have the final list. Who then did not confirm is out.

2. then we vote, let's say last vote on August 14th.

3. Then we follow up with the civ-picking proces, let's just do it how we did it for former games. That takes a couple of days. (I'll explain later)

4. In the meanwhile the map can be made (if we need a new map). mzprox volunteered to do this. That's great!

By August 19th or 20th we can then start.
All agree?

[Black Knight 427]

I agree.

[Rempedaalops]

Agreed!

[Exploit]

By August 19th or 20th we can then start.
All agree?

Agreed

[BranksDilly]

Can anyone list me the top 3 actions they recommend in the early game?

I've only played 2 diplo games but I feel as if I am not competing as well as I should. When I play regular mp I usually do fairly well so I want to figure out what I could do differently.

[St Jon]

There is a difference between 'hemmed in' and 'strangled at birth'. I have played England on a real-world map and there is no fun in it being a physical impossibility to build more than a couple of cities until Seafaring. By the time you can expand further all that's worth anything has gone and you are so far behind that the game is over.

[Robert]

Can anyone list me the top 3 actions they recommend in the early game?

Build workers, get the techs you need to improve the land around you, use the workers to improve. Then get bronze working and start chopping, use the chopping-production to get out a settler. When you're done with that, get axemen or archers (archers if there's no bronze around! Don't go for archery if you have bronze!), build enough axes to protect yourself against barbarians. Say 5 or 6. Place them in a circle around your territory. On hill tops if possible. Many civs lack a good start b/c they don't improve the land around them, they are behind because they lack production and city growth. And of course commerce.

It's not too much to start with 2 workers! Only after that a warrior or a settler.

[Robert]

There is a difference between 'hemmed in' and 'strangled at birth'. I have played England on a real-world map and there is no fun in it being a physical impossibility to build more than a couple of cities until Seafaring. By the time you can expand further all that's worth anything has gone and you are so far behind that the game is over.

Sailing is an easy tech to get, with sailing it should be possible to reach other shores. Depending on what other civs are in the game, you can goto scandinavia, spain, northern africa, greenland, and maybe america....

And of course the advantage of needing no defence at all. Just focus on growth and wealth.
And if you don't believe in such a strategy: don't pick England

[deity]

Can anyone list me the top 3 actions they recommend in the early game?

Cyber pretty much hit the nail on the head...

The way I see it (obviously varied by civ and traits and position):

1) Grow to Size 2 building a unit OR Workboat if on seafood

2) Build Worker at Size 2+ depending on the above

3) Beeline Bronze for chopping (assuming you have trees)

then chop a second Worker; then grow but switch to settler production on the chops then switch to grow...

I find this generalised paradigm works well most of the time.

[The Priest]

On the map, I am basically with St Jon on not being sure about earth maps. However, if we are going to have one, then we need someone to think carefully about what civs we have in the game - so we decide on a list of civs first, before any are allocated, and we do that to give at least some balance - e.g. we don't have france, germany, engalnd and vikings all squashed in.

New world sill worries me though. Remember portugal in BtP? It almost completely took over the main new world continent and rose to massive power on the back of it. I had no complaints - thye were my ally and used my ports to do it - but almost all their eventual military strength came from new portugal. In DoC the two nations who really from the new world were I think India and Persia - leading powers in the old world.

[Exploit]

There are up to 5 civs that normally start in the "New World" (America, Aztecs, Inca, Maya, Native Americans). As long as 2 or 3 of these civs are in play then there should not be an imbalance of power due to easy expansion.

Normally, I would disagree with the concerns about a packed europe since it is a huge advantage to early warmongers to be able to capture cities without moving very far. In a game where you cannot wipe out your neighbour though, I can see there will probably be an issue if europe is overcrowded.

Dividing the world into sections and setting a range for the number of civs per section makes sense to avoid overcrowding of certain areas. I'd suggest dividing the world into Americas, Africa, Europe, Middle East and Asia.

[The Priest]

Sounds sensible