Destiny of Empires II [Organization Thread]

[Russia (DoE)]

About Ozzy's doubts for the larger map and having too much of a space, I think Sommerswerd's idea of fitting ALL the nations in Eurasia is very very good one. We will still have small space initially, so sparks will fire for sure. But then again there will be space for expansion. And this expansion is not a piece of cake. I have heard from experienced Earth players (there is a whole Earth League) that expansion in the New World is very very risky and in a normal competitive games no one is actually doing it, because this leaves you exposed to attacks from your Old World buddies. Just what happened in DoE btw

So, with this big juicy map I think we will still have tension between the players, much interaction, as we will be still tightly packed initially, but not to extreme levels like in DoE where Exploit was able to claim almost all of Europe with placing only one city.

Loading times are consideration, but then

I don't mind loading times as that's when I browse the forums

. Yeah, same habit here.

[Inca (DoE)]

Oh, I'm in by the way. Not sure how much posting I'll be doing this time around, though. Kind of burned out right now and on to newer pursuits, but that can always change.

For the options, I like some of Option 1 and some of Option 2... Can we just vote on each and let the majority (of voters) carry it, keeping in mind if anyone is really dead-set on not having something we'll be lenient and nix it if it's not overly popular? I don't understand the point of packaging them.

What about the mod? In the other thread, there were these ideas:

• no score mod
• greater "known tech" bonuses (50% or more). This seems to be working well in DoF.
• right of passage options (only non-mil units can enter). This seems to be working well in G&H, although it's too early to really tell.
• some cheaper version of the explorer that dosen't have supply costs for RP uses.

And game rules? We had a lot of ideas in the other thread on that, and it's probably just as important as picking the map. I think eliminating "human" troop gifting might be best now, with only naval/tank/plane gifting and upgrading allowed instead. That's most realistic, and it prevents all sorts of ridiculousness. Players can still get advanced arms through upgrades, but they need to provide the men/production. We really need some way to prevent the fairly absurd city gifting that went on in DoE also. Really breaks the game's immersion and, as we saw, didn't end up garnering much in benefit for the players.

[OzzyKP]

There are certainly a lot of things left to figure out. But we need to take stuff one step at a time or we will just go in circles forever.

[Toni]

Destiny of Empires II Players LIST!


1. Ozzy
2. Toni
3. Sommerswerd
4. 2metraninja
5. Calanthian
6. DNK (aka INCA)
7.
8.
9.
.
.
etc

Add yourself in guys!

[Toni]

I love too the idea all of us starting in Europe. All else left empty. Still I see it as a problem with continents like Asia and Africa. Euro countries closer to that region would have an advantage when expanding there. How can we manage that?

I like Ozzy fear that we may have more of a builders game with such a large map. Don't get me wrong I would live to get more then the 6 cities I had this game, but I like Oz wish for a dynamic game with much diplo, negotiations and fear of being attacked fromyour neighbors.

PS big YES for the no score mod.

[Sommerswerd]

I would like to address the problem of pauses. But I think Ozzy is right that we should settle one thing at a time. It seems like we have agreed on Rather Map, and are deciding on size. I favor the larger Map, but I am open to smaller ones if folks have loading issues. The main thing is game must be playable for everyoneSomething I would like people to give serious thought (not just knee jerk reaction) to for when the "how do we get less-pauses?" issue comes up:Please consider playing with no rules, but particularly no turn order rules. This would mean that Doublemoves are just flat out allowed, and we never need to pause the game for turn order reasons. Everyone just plays whenever they are able and if you cant play you just miss your turn and get Doublemoved. Most of the pauses were related to turn order, and this one change would elimminate all that.Now of course that raises 2 issues:1. "That's not fair! People without jobs have advantage in war!"2. "That sucks! Now I have to set my alarm to play at 4AM if I am in the wrong time zone." I would say both of these are true, but only if you place great emphasis on fighting and winning wars. If you prioritize diplomacy and storytelling, turn order doesn't matter all that much, a Doublemove can be addressed in a story about a brilliant general, or especially motivated troops, or inept defenders, or inclement/favorable weather, etc.About the time zone thing, the time you play will naturally cycle around so long as the timer isn't exactly 24hours, so everyone will get a chance to have "prime" turn times.I have a lot more to say about this, but I will wait until the issue actually comes up, maybe we can vote on it once people have a chance to think about it and discuss.

[Russia (DoE)]

I proposed we not all start in Europe, but in Europe and Asia - if we aim for 18 civs, half of them can be Asians. Turkey, Russia, Arabia, Persia, India, Mongolia, China, Khmer, Japan. The other half can be in Europe - England, France, Spain, Portugal, Vikings, Rome, Germany. HRE and Celts more to the East. Thats 18. Anyone will choose where he wants to expand. Some will have easier way of expansion early on, while others can aim for later expansion trough superior tech.

About pauses, I think a fully uncontrolled game would be not good. We can adopt few good rules and they can save us lot of troubles. Rule number 1: do not send in-game messages to nations in war. Rule number two - the timer is separated in two if the one who is supposed to play first misses his half of the timer, the other can doublemove and the order is switched.

[Calanthian]

I agree with Ozzy that the most interesting player interaction will probably on the 1000 AD map.
There is also an immediate war going on : Islam vs. Christianity.

(I'd love to play the Arabs even though it will be a hard position)

[Russia (DoE)]

I would love to do some crusades (I tried to organize a crusade in DoE to reclaim the Christian Holly city - had the French Pope's blessing and West Europe support, had my army gathered, hired mercenary fleet to sail my army trough the Med and in the last minute, the Great War broke out and my knights had to be realigned ), but isnt this 1000AD scenario heavily unbalanced? Still the problem with the small land will stay - the Muslims have like 3-4 cities each and if the Christians take even 1 or 2 of each, how playable those will be after this?

On the bright side, the game will be somewhat advanced when we start, so most probably we can make it to modern times.

[Calanthian]

On 1000 AD:
Yes it is unbalanced. But that is not the point.
Each civ is very playable!

Actually the Christians are in a better position. At game start the Arabs have had their period of rapid advance and the Spanish Reconquista is about to start. The Arabs are in war with France, Spain, Germany and England and will start loosing cities right away. Furthermore they will probably fall behind in the tech race..

But it will be a ball playing them

[Inca (DoE)]

I proposed we not all start in Europe, but in Europe and Asia - if we aim for 18 civs, half of them can be Asians. Turkey, Russia, Arabia, Persia, India, Mongolia, China, Khmer, Japan. The other half can be in Europe - England, France, Spain, Portugal, Vikings, Rome, Germany. HRE and Celts more to the East. Thats 18. Anyone will choose where he wants to expand. Some will have easier way of expansion early on, while others can aim for later expansion trough superior tech. About pauses, I think a fully uncontrolled game would be not good. We can adopt few good rules and they can save us lot of troubles. Rule number 1: do not send in-game messages to nations in war. Rule number two - the timer is separated in two if the one who is supposed to play first misses his half of the timer, the other can doublemove and the order is switched.

I doubt we're going to get 18 again, though. It really seems like it was a stretch for DoE, as many players quit early on or mid-game. DoF got 12, G&H 10 or so, and we were down to like 10 in DoE by the end. Aiming for 10-12 seems best.

I agree, though, that we should not just be Europeans, but Asians as well. I think we should do all we can to balance the map, though, rather than letting some have easier expansion than others, unless we do tiers again. It's not that hard to edit a map to limit expansion while keeping it "real Earth": just add plains and remove bonuses. It's fairly realistic anyway, as much of the planet is quite marginal for agriculture, and we can always claim "climate change" if we want to add a few extra plains or grasslands where they shouldn't be...

[OzzyKP]

I would love to do some crusades (I tried to organize a crusade in DoE to reclaim the Christian Holly city - had the French Pope's blessing and West Europe support, had my army gathered, hired mercenary fleet to sail my army trough the Med and in the last minute, the Great War broke out and my knights had to be realigned ), but isnt this 1000AD scenario heavily unbalanced? Still the problem with the small land will stay - the Muslims have like 3-4 cities each and if the Christians take even 1 or 2 of each, how playable those will be after this?

On the bright side, the game will be somewhat advanced when we start, so most probably we can make it to modern times.

The Arabs start with a rather huge empire actually. They probably have 10-15 cities to start with. They start the game with all of north africa, part of spain, all of Egypt & Sudan, all the mid-east, and all of Persia. They start also with the holy cities for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Islam and especially Christianity are very widely spread and *very* lucrative to start the game. They also start with they pyramids (and maybe another wonder in Egypt, I forget). Arabia starts the game in the strongest position out of everyone. The downside of course is that they start the game at war with Byzantium, England, Spain, France, Holy Romans AND India. The Europeans start with units right by Jerusalem to start the crusade.

So yea, Calanthian is right, the scenario is very unbalanced, but FUN. I've played this through many times with just about every civ in the game, and won the game with just about every civ in the game. Each game is different, each game is a hell of a lot of fun. I think it would inject something new, fresh and different into our diplogames and I'd love to try it!

If not of course I still favor using the map, like we did with DoE. But I think the scenario itself is amazing and we should give it a go.

[OzzyKP]

I doubt we're going to get 18 again, though. It really seems like it was a stretch for DoE, as many players quit early on or mid-game. DoF got 12, G&H 10 or so, and we were down to like 10 in DoE by the end. Aiming for 10-12 seems best.

I agree, though, that we should not just be Europeans, but Asians as well. I think we should do all we can to balance the map, though, rather than letting some have easier expansion than others, unless we do tiers again. It's not that hard to edit a map to limit expansion while keeping it "real Earth": just add plains and remove bonuses. It's fairly realistic anyway, as much of the planet is quite marginal for agriculture, and we can always claim "climate change" if we want to add a few extra plains or grasslands where they shouldn't be...

I agree. We aren't going to get 18. This is another reason the big map isn't going to work. Even if we had 18 I'd worry that we'd all have way too much land to work with. But if we have 10-12... it'll just be silly.

As for the 1000 AD scenario, since we start with pre-made empires I think it accommodates having AI civs very well. If need be we can tweak the initial scenario to give the AI civs more units or tech or whatever we need to make it more balanced. The civs in the scenario:

1. England
2. Vikings
3. France
4. Spain
5. Holy Roman Empire
6. Byzantines
7. Arabia
8. Mali
9. India
10. Mongols
11. Korea
12. Japan
13. China
14. Khmer
15. Inca
16. Aztecs

If we populate all of the old world we need 14 players. 13 if we leave Mali AI. I think that is a reasonable goal to shoot for. I suppose we could leave Mongols AI too, and just beef up their military (and aggression) so they are a constant pain in the ass for the wealthy Koreans and Chinese (and Arabs and Russians). But otherwise the Mongols would be fun to play.

This would leave all of the Americas and most of Africa open to colonization/conquest.

[Sommerswerd]

I like it. Especially leaving Mongols, Americans, and Africans as AI. That leaves room for somebody to join the gain or even to switch teams if their situation becomes desperate

[Russia (DoE)]

Mongols needs to be played by human - how otherwise we will have the Mongol invasion?