Game Settings

[OzzyKP]

Yea, that's the ridiculous thing. These folks try to strip the game of all sorts of "unbalancing" elements like huts, and nukes, and espionage, and war elephants (really?!), but then pride themselves on the ability to stumble across an opponents undefended capitol on turn 5.

[mzprox]

and they said something like " they are at least two years ahead of us in setting game terms" .. lol

[OzzyKP]

Based on the discussion on CFC it looks like one person, in one game, really took advantage of the civic switch mission and it was forever banned after that. These people have one strategy that they use in every single game and try to ban anything that doesn't fit into their specific game plan. So, going back to Calanthian's point we are probably well served in being flexible and thinking outside the box a bit.

[mzprox]

Btw if they are so sensitive about balance, i don1t mind if they make the map.. so at least they wouldnt cry about it later.

I wouldn't mind if they build a map like this:

http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5085

just it should bemuch bigger, with ocean etc. it's kind of mirrored but still looks somewhat natural.
We just ned to now how many teams we will have. I don't think we should have too many 9-10 tops.
I also think to help things moving faster if we send 1-2 representative from each team to dicuss the terms. this voting won1t go too well, because each team wants his own setting so we need to do some haggling and convincing.. it doesn't work well with too many voices.

[mzprox]

after giving a tought I think the civ/leader choosing is fine as it was suggested in cfc:

we make a random order, we get details about the map (size, type and maybe even the picture of the start loaction)

then the first player chooses a leader or a civ then the second and so on, then everone chooses the other thing but in reversed order (so the last one can choose both the civ and the leader in the same time). I think it's a good compromise.

[Calanthian]

Agreed.

[mzprox]

Hey everyone, I'd really like to see this game preparation moving fast so I think we should propose a game settings for apolyton preference (it can still be discussed later) I would send it to 2metraninja and at least have a common point between apolyton and cfc and maybe with ohers. I predict the one site/one vote system will not go seamlessly because somehow we need to have chance to convince each other.

So I try to gather all the important points for the game and see if I got it right as our site's prefered options.

But one thing before that: I can see that for example us and RB had different vision of this game. We imagined it as one of our diplogames, where the players are not equaly skilled, but it doesn't matter because winning is not the only important thing-for these reasons game balance is also not as important for us. RB on the other hand is all about competition. after giving some toughts I think for this game their approach might suit better. It will be about competition if we like it or not, and if we don1t try to make it balanced there would be crying which we don't need.

Soo.. this is what i put together from our votes and from seeing the preferences of CFC, RB and the spanish community If I have it wrong please speak up, I will write some comments here and there:

General settings : we play a 9-10 team pitboss game, huge map, modded rules, ancient start, normal speed, simultanous turns.

Map: hand made, balanced, not mirrored, wrapped from both axis(torodial), prefered map has place for sea battles tough it could be pangea aswell -MZ: if you check the map i linked before, it is mirrored, but in a special way, actually looks like natural, if something like that could be made I'm not against that. so far it seems RB is the most concerned about the map so I propose let them make it.

Leader/civ choice unrestricted leaders, no more than one instance of leader/civ,no banned leader/civ, chossing according to a random order (1st player in order chooses leader or civ then the second and so on, if all choosed once then they choose again but in reversed order) -MZ: it's debatale if we want to ban some leaders/civ.. also it's a question how much information shoul we have before choosing. In an RB game you had a screenshot about your start and I believe it's the most fair option-not that necessary tough.

No tech trade
No huts
No events
No barbarians - MZ: haven't really discussed it, but we are already getting rid of all random elements
Always war off -MZ: No always war, but we need to do something about city gifting
Espionage on - MZ: see below


modded stuff settings which probably require mods are put here:

No nukes
Espionage: civic and religion switch actions are removed
Corporations are NOT removed
Spanish double move mod-majority thinks it's unecessary
*edit, two more things:
No-score mod
increased known tech bonus MZ: I think we favor these options, but they are not that important for this game.


other notes:

Even if it's not always war city gifting is either modded out or banned.
Even if we don't use the double move mod we need well established rules to ban double moves during war.
We see no reason to ban any units (War Elephant)
We see no reason to ban ancient blockades or any other tactics not yet mentioned (we could be convinced otherwise)


I hope this is the most of it. I think we don't have any settings which we really insist on. ofc we prefer without always war and with corporations on. i think we coul use the settings above as base-again if you think I got it wrong please speak up .

[OzzyKP]

I think that sums up our feelings.

I really did want to try the Spanish mod though, oh well. We'll have to give it a whirl in the next diplogame.

[Calanthian]

Agreed.

But from diplomatic point of view:
Communicate we want barbs, nukes and corps in.
Then we can drop nukes and barbs.

[Hercules]

Agreed.

But from diplomatic point of view:
Communicate we want barbs, nukes and corps in.
Then we can drop nukes and barbs.

I would just look for nukes and corps in and then drop nukes. but overall agree.

[OzzyKP]

Agreed.

But from diplomatic point of view:
Communicate we want barbs, nukes and corps in.
Then we can drop nukes and barbs.

Agreed.

[DNK]

Sums it up well for me also. Not a huge fan of the pick system, but it's the most fair I guess.

[Dinner]

I'm more or less just going to watch though I do like the Zulu for the early rush if it matters.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well what about going for huts? I thought we were going to go along with huts?

[mzprox]

I saw Calanthian posted our suggested settings on cfc and said we want nukes in. Those who voted so far were against it 5:3.
I think we shouldn't give up modern warfare and we would if we allowed nukes. The only reason our games haven't turned into nuke fest is because we always agreed ooc not to use them.. so why don't we ban them outright? The one who reaches nukes first can rush buy/slve so many ICBMs that he can bomb his rival back to the stone age. 2 rockets kill any number of units in an area, nukes would make defending impossible.



also one setting we haven't talked about yet: victory conditions
I actually would favor if it was domination only