Game Settings

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a matter of fairness and even play, not negative events.

And how is a random event like huts unfair? It leads to a greater spread of outcomes, sure, but it doesn't favor one team or another.

I prefer to take my games with less random chance than the "default" and keep them off as well. It's an option in the game setup, you know...

Whereas I prefer keeping the huts on. Personally, huts are a very big advantage to those willing to take the chance and tip more of them than anybody else. Taking huts away takes away an opportunity for us to obtain an advantage.

This is a really strange conversation for me to be having - you are risk adverse, while in this case, I prefer risk.

[DNK]

You seemed to claim that being risk averse to this extent made one ineligible to play Civ; I was responding. I fail to see how taking huts away takes away an advantage to us as the odds are the same for all. We have no greater or lesser expectation with them unless we take a Hunting civ, but since we seem to be against it now, to the contrary huts put us at a disadvantage.

There are enough dice rolls in Civ as-is, adding rather large ones to the start of the game makes for a far more random game outcome, and ultimately this is a test of ability not one of luck, though the latter can't be helped in many instances like combat outcomes.

[Ben Kenobi]

You seemed to claim that being risk averse to this extent made one ineligible to play Civ; I was responding. I fail to see how taking huts away takes away an advantage to us as the odds are the same for all. We have no greater or lesser expectation with them unless we take a Hunting civ, but since we seem to be against it now, to the contrary huts put us at a disadvantage.

It's working with training wheels. Everyone starts there, but it doesn't make that much sense to see you end up there.

There are enough dice rolls in Civ as-is, adding rather large ones to the start of the game makes for a far more random game outcome, and ultimately this is a test of ability not one of luck, though the latter can't be helped in many instances like combat outcomes.

Disagree. The greater the spread, the more likely the absolute best players will do well, and the more they will be rewarded for doing so.

People who are used to playing the game one way don't like it when they get driven out of their comfort zone. The more stuff we can toss in there to get people outside of their common techniques, the better I believe we will do.

People are used to not having their game upset by random events. I just lost an OCC due to barbs crushing my undefended city. I built a wonder emptied the cit with caravans and the barbs spawned exactly that turn and dumped troops one square away. Or another game where the barbs developed feud and since they started with a larger city base, proceeded to roll AI civs.

[OzzyKP]

Guys, there is no point in arguing over this. The settings are finalized. Save your energy.

[Dinner]

Yeah, what's done is done.

[mzprox]

I was reading one of Sulla's report of a similar set game we are doing. And bam, one of the civs gets eliminated while building it's first worker.. and as sulla said it's pure luck.. I hate taking this kind of risk but we will have to.. no one starts with warrior, no one will sits with his warrior at home so from then it's just luck.
I say it here, but I don't suppoze there isa chance to agree on a forced peace for the first 30 turns or something...

here is the report if someone is interested:

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ4/RBPB2-1.html

gives some analysi on leaders/civs too

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, what about Byzantium? I haven't seen anyone mention Byzantium yet.

[Hercules]

I was reading one of Sulla's report of a similar set game we are doing. And bam, one of the civs gets eliminated while building it's first worker.. and as sulla said it's pure luck.. I hate taking this kind of risk but we will have to.. no one starts with warrior, no one will sits with his warrior at home so from then it's just luck.
I say it here, but I don't suppoze there isa chance to agree on a forced peace for the first 30 turns or something...

here is the report if someone is interested:

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ4/RBPB2-1.html

gives some analysi on leaders/civs too

Yes it is a good read and also some of the post game comments. I think I wil rescore Ottomans

[Calanthian]

Final Settings

Tactics
Nukes - OFF
Corps - ON
Spies - ON
City gifting - Banned

Game
Difficulty Level - Emperor
Speed - NORMAL
Barbarians - ON
Huts - OFF
Events - OFF
Always War - OFF
Tech trading - OFF
Vassal states - OFF
Unrestricted leaders - ON

Mods
Mod - Only Double move (No BUG mod included)

Map
Map - MAPMAKER'S CHOICE, something random/special, decent amount of land, not archipelago
Size - HUGE (game setting) - In reality something between 80-100 x 40-60
Wrap - TOROIDAL

Mirrored starts - NO (capital locations are very similar though)
Fair/balanced starts - YES
Allow all teams pre-optics contact - YES

[Calanthian]

!!! Apparantly we don't get a Pangaea map!!!

Then I really would have wanted to play Carthage!

[Ben Kenobi]

Then I really would have wanted to play Carthage!

I believe I was one of two people who voted for Carthage.

[Hercules]

I wonder who the other one was.

[Dinner]

Final Settings

Tactics
Nukes - OFF
Corps - ON
Spies - ON
City gifting - Banned

Game
Difficulty Level - Emperor
Speed - NORMAL
Barbarians - ON
Huts - OFF
Events - OFF
Always War - OFF
Tech trading - OFF
Vassal states - OFF
Unrestricted leaders - ON

Mods
Mod - Only Double move (No BUG mod included)

Map
Map - MAPMAKER'S CHOICE, something random/special, decent amount of land, not archipelago
Size - HUGE (game setting) - In reality something between 80-100 x 40-60
Wrap - TOROIDAL

Mirrored starts - NO (capital locations are very similar though)
Fair/balanced starts - YES
Allow all teams pre-optics contact - YES

As long as the final map is pretty fair then the settings look pretty good.