Destiny of Empires II [Organization Thread]

[Inca (DoE)]

#3

[Russia (DoE)]

1000AD is 2metraninja's vote

[Inca (DoE)]

I'll say right now that I'm not a huge fan of another full Earth scenario, especially not one that starts at a historical moment. Takes a lot of the creative freedom out of the thing.

[OzzyKP]

Map options:
1. DoE world map starting at 4,000 BC
2. The full 1000 AD scenario - 4
3. The huge world map starting at 4,000 BC - 2





Destiny of Empires II Players LIST!


1. Ozzy - Voted
2. Toni
3. Sommerswerd - Voted
4. 2metraninja - Voted
5. Calanthian - Voted
6. DNK (aka INCA) - Voted
7. MNGoldenEagle - Voted
8. Black Knight 427
9.
.
.
etc

[Calanthian]

BTW I think we need to make some minor tweaks on the 1000 AD scenario:

* especially around wonders which haven't been built, but for which the tech is available (e.g. Oracle).
I vote for disabling most of these.
* raging barbs in America, and Aztec and Inca as non-player civs.
* same for Africa, raging barbs and Mali and Zulu as non-player civs.
* let's make all non-player civs stronger then normal.
* the changes to the scenario will be available to all players before game start.

[Inca (DoE)]

Hey, instead of barbs, can't we just set up a bunch of distinct AIs and give them like -500 diplo ratings with the human players. Like, make them all at permanent war that way? Would be better imo.

[Sommerswerd]

I think the map we pick will affect the other things so we should pick our map first. Im not a big fan of doing too much modding or "disabling" other than what can be done in the setup menu and editing the map...

[OzzyKP]

There is no Zulu. But setting it up so that the AI civs like each other and work together, and hate us could be a good idea. Maybe even allow the AI to trade techs with each other. I dunno.

That being said, I still think we should have raging horde barbarians. At least if we could set them to not harass the AI.

But lets not get too side tracked, we still have to finish voting on the map and get another 7 or so players.

[Inca (DoE)]

You can edit those diplomacy ratings in the editor (or save file), I thought. Maybe I confuse this with another game...

[2metraninja]

Yes, in the editor you can put negative or positive diplo-points. About barbarians not bothering the AIs - give each of the AIs a GreatWall in their capitol

[Sommerswerd]

Raging barbs is a lot to handle for the teams on the frontier like Russia, Mongolia, China, Egypt/Arabia. It is really tough setting. It's nothing for raging barbs to wipe humans out. There is a big difference betweenregular barbs and raging. I think maybe raging barbs and AI civs is too much. The game will be so militaristic in these settings.

Raging barbs will be like nonstop war for frontier civs, they will be losing cities and slaving units just to survive. One mused turn will be a disaster, they will be asking for reloads and pauses to deal wirh barbs.

[Sommerswerd]

Another thing is if we have AI civs they will still give gold for resources, even if we edit them to -500 attitude at all human civs so maybe its better to just leave AI as barbs.

Another idea... To foster independent play, Maybe we could actually agree to play without alliances... Here's one way it could actually work:
1. No private communications, No PM, no IMs, no Skype, no ingame chat, no diplo window chat whatsoever
2. All game-related communication must be on the story thread only
3. No treaties or agreements of any kind other than what you can do ingame, but no ingame typing whatsoever

So for example India could post in the story thread "India is planning to punish the evil Chinese, and any assistance would be appreciated. Other teams can give units to India, but they can't ask India for payment. Another example: Russia can gift Mongolia gold, but they can't say "We want X for this gold" or type "For Rifles" ingame. Germany can't propose an alliance with France, but they can announce yet will attack Vikings if Vikings attack France. You can make offers to trade in the diplo window, but you can't chat.

The idea is to allow plenty of trading while discouraging alliance building. There will obviously still be some cooperation, but hopefully not as much alliance forming

[Inca (DoE)]

I like that no PM idea. It forces the use of the story thread, good in itself, plus it would keep things IC more than all the private stuff which, tbh, goes far OOC a lot and breaks the spirit of the format I think. 100% behind that.

Agree that raging barbs is overkill.

Not sure the minor issue of gold for resources (if the deals go through) isn't, well, minor.

[Carthage (DoF)]

Off topic: but I can't help myself

This is a mod which I started playing just yesterday, and it is blowing me away..

Pie's Ancient Europe V

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=352646

It adds more combat tactics, ranged combat, promotions and tons of stuff..

[Toni]

I vote for option 1 then option 3 and last option 2

1. DoE world map starting at 4,000 BC
2. The full 1000 AD scenario - 4
3. The huge world map starting