Game Settings

[Guynemer]

I agree with all of Oerdin's votes.

Settings Vote:

1. Spanish Double Move Mod?

I'm fine with outlawing double moves.

2. Always War?

Not just no, but, hell, no.

3. Nukes?

Yes.

4. Espionage?

Yes, of course, the game isn't worth playing if the dip****s outlaw everything other then being little Hitlers.

5. Huts/Events?

Yes, lots of huts and events plus raging barbs.

6. Corporations?

It's part of the game and best of all 90% of the MP players traditionally ignore these parts of the game so it gives us an advantage to keep all of this sort of stuff turned on.

7. Barbarians?

Not just on but raging hordes. That way when the war mongering dip****s don't defend their cities (because they've made a stack of doom to attack the neighbor) the barb hordes can rip them a new anus.

8. Difficulty?

Emperor

9. Victory Conditions?

All including diplo. No one will win a diplo victory but the other victory conditions are going to be things the other guys never play with online so that means it will be easy for them to forget about them while we use Liz to max effect and sneak one in the back door.

[OzzyKP]

The mod is fine.

BTW is there an option to allow tech trading but no tech brokering? That way if one war monger gets to far ahead the world can fight back. Since we're likely to have a peaceful build strategy (Phil, specialist strategy) it might be key for us to toss a few techs to the other guys to frustrate the war mongers.

There is an option on tech trading, but all teams are unanimous against all tech trading and I imagine a strong majority of people on our team will be against all tech trading as well so I didn't bother putting it up for a vote.

I agree with all of Oerdin's votes.

Ok, what do you think about the double move mod?

[Guynemer]

I approve; anything to cut down on the inevitable *****ing.

[OzzyKP]

Ok, I posted the results as they stand now. Just waiting on LzPrst & Toni. I haven't heard from Toni since he agreed to join the team and he hasn't requested for access to the team forum yet. Not sure what is up with Lz, but they both got the PM the rest of you did. If anyone wants to argue about any setting or try to get folks to change their votes now your last chance.

[Dinner]

I agree with all of Oerdin's votes.

I know how much it pained you to say that.

[DNK]

8-1 emperor-settler. Come on!

My final votes are the same.

Victory conditions: all

[mzprox]

If we don't ban nukes we risk to ruin the game after about a year invested in it..

[mzprox]

also on raging barbs: the one who builds the GW will have HUGE advantage. And how would raging barb would help to our playstyle anyway? I for one tend to neglect military in favor of early libraries.

GW actually so broken under raging barb settings that we should choose the Inca leader and shoot for it.

[Guynemer]

I know how much it pained you to say that.

Like passing a goddamned kidney stone.

[OzzyKP]

If we don't ban nukes we risk to ruin the game after about a year invested in it..

Would it ruin the game? Or would it just provide a different path to victory that we could take advantage of, or prepare for? And would it do more harm to us or to others?

also on raging barbs: the one who builds the GW will have HUGE advantage. And how would raging barb would help to our playstyle anyway? I for one tend to neglect military in favor of early libraries.

GW actually so broken under raging barb settings that we should choose the Inca leader and shoot for it.

I think the hope was that the raging barbs would prevent the others from expanding too quickly. Since we were planning more on building up then out we'd have a smaller perimeter to defend. It would also help stymie an early rush by any of our neighbors.

[Calanthian]

I think the hope was that the raging barbs would prevent the others from expanding too quickly. Since we were planning more on building up then out we'd have a smaller perimeter to defend. It would also help stymie an early rush by any of our neighbors.

Exactly !

[mzprox]

Would it ruin the game? Or would it just provide a different path to victory that we could take advantage of, or prepare for? And would it do more harm to us or to others?



I think the hope was that the raging barbs would prevent the others from expanding too quickly. Since we were planning more on building up then out we'd have a smaller perimeter to defend. It would also help stymie an early rush by any of our neighbors.

Have you seen any normal multiplayer game which lasted long after nuclear strikes? It's a very cheap way to take revenge, nothing more.
I don1t actually mind raging barbs, but with that we positively 100% must BAN the great wall or we just allow one civ to grow much bigger than the others.
i

[Hercules]

As I read it somewhere, those civs without the GW receive a greater number of the diverted barbs.

[Hercules]

Since there seems to be no one collecting the votes up, I did it and come up with the following consensus:
Nukes - OFF
Corps - ON
Spies - ON, however civic/religion switchs are banned
City gifting - Banned
Difficulty - Emperor
Barbs - ON
Huts - OFF
Events - OFF
AW - OFF
Tech trading - OFF
Vassal states - OFF
Unrestricted leaders - ON
Mod - Only Double move (No BUG mod included)

I didn't repeat map options, because I've long time ago nailed them and they aren't anymore up for discussion.

In my opinion it would be best now to declare these final and move on, but it is up to you to make the final desicion.

In the end I will yet again express my concern concerning the mod and its maturity, but if you want it then by all means use it.

This is from Plako. So effectively I think Plako has chosen from the split vote overall to go with the default barbs on.

[Hercules]

Also just noticed this re the Barb vote in post 62 above.

7. Barbarians?

Off - 5
mzprox
Hercules
DNK
jobe
Felch

Normal -

Raging Hordes - 6
Calanthian
Dinner
OzzyKP
Ben Kenobi
Dinner
Guynemer


Dinner was counted twice.