Destruction of Foes (DoF) - Diplogame Light

[Toni]

You two Ozzy & Deity talk too much First say that you are in the game, well i presume that you are

[Robert]

Indeed, signup

Did deity signup?

[2metraninja]

Tier 1: No religions, no financial, no industrial, no marble or stone near capital,

No financial leaders for the tier1 players is absolute OK.

To my knowledge, its a bit controversial whether going for religion or wonders early in the game is good tactic long-term-wise. Considering this, I wonder is it a good idea to lure the non-tier-1 players for doing this, which are supposed to be not so good in game terms anyway, by denying the misticism-starting-nations and industrial leaders from the tier1 players.

Nothing special, just thinking

[Robert]

I agree with 2metraninja.
going for wonders, for science, for religion, for commerce, for growth or for strength is a strategical decision.
We decided to ban financial for tier1 civs b/c it's an easy advantage that doesn't require any adaption to the player.

The industrial/stone/marble starts do not give an advantage. They just open up for a certain strategy.
Not to mention that things'll become too complicated.

[Robert]

@Ozzy: we can vote on the name of the game later on.
FoE will be the working name for now.

[2metraninja]

Also,

I'd love for the next full diplogame to be DoE2 also

Destiny of Empires is not a title best describing a diplo-game. "Empires" suggests enormous multi-nation and multi-ethnic states which in the current full-diplo DoE format is not much possible to happen. Most of the civs will stay small and independent nation-states till the end of the game. Destiny of Nations is much-much better describing what is happening in this diplo-game IMO.

[Robert]

Destiny of Nations is pas possible after we played Delusions of Man, but first comes Dictates of Lunatics.

[St Jon]

I would certainly like to play

My feelings are that the rules, effectively no rules, of DoD worked very well. If the attitude of the players is good then the game will flow well without harsh words and ill will. I do have a few points regarding set up:~

1. Does it matter what the game is called?
2. I am unconvinced of seeding as FIN Civs do not seem to enjoy a great success rate.
3. Even if the game is 'seeded' who you are playing is far less important than where you start on the Map. If you are surrounded by experienced players and unable to reach new lands to colonise then it does not matter what attributes you have.
4. I definitely reckon we keep it No Spaceship Victory. I would also be inclined to ask that Cultural be removed so that someone is forced to go for Domination.
5. Can Random Events be turned off as they are unfair in MP. I was glad that, by accident or design, Huts were removed and I certainly think we should stick to that.

[OzzyKP]

Can we play a real world map?

[Robert]

Can we play a real world map?

Two games on the real world map.... I'd prefer it not.

@St Jon: forcing domination victory sounds cool....
Maybe then bring vassals in as well....

[OzzyKP]

We've been playing Civ4 for what, 5-6 years? Only one game on a real world map, I'm really sick of the random maps we play on. I'm not sure I'll bother if it is another generic map like usual.

[dot80]

Can I join too?

[Robert]

Hey dot80, of course!
Welcome!

@Ozzy: you already used the: "I won't play without an earth map" blackmail for DoE
It's against the rules to play it twice in a row
You can use it again next game :P

Let's see what the other participants want.
First we signup, then we discuss!

[OzzyKP]

Its not blackmail. I'm just bored of doing the same old game over and over again. I've sat out plenty in recent years, DoE's world map has reignited my interest. I know I'm not the only one who likes games on a non-random map.

[dot80]

I second the earth map