Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PBEM using Advanced Start option

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GeoModder
    replied
    Okay. Beta, I trust you still have my email? Cerberus delivered his to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Beta
    replied
    Originally posted by EPW
    I'm going to start the game with the following settings:

    Lakes on Normal sized map.
    Advanced start (600 points)
    Random Leaders
    Noble difficulty, no AI

    Objections need to be made within the hour.
    That was 33 minutes from the time of this post to the sending of the first save.

    All looks good to me. But I will be waiting until tomorrow to play my first turn. Too much wine this evening.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPW
    replied
    Originally posted by Hercules
    I would have played but it seems that possibility has passed.
    I'm afraid so



    The Turn Tracking Thread:

    http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...hreadid=174022

    Leave a comment:


  • EPW
    replied
    Turn 1 sent to witt

    Leave a comment:


  • Hercules
    replied
    I would have played but it seems that possibility has passed.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPW
    replied
    No tech brokering sounds good too

    Leave a comment:


  • EPW
    replied
    I'm going to start the game with the following settings:

    Lakes on Normal sized map.
    Advanced start (600 points)
    Random Leaders
    Noble difficulty, no AI

    Objections need to be made within the hour.

    Leave a comment:


  • Beta
    replied
    Originally posted by GeoModder


    It allows two or more players to band together for mutual protection and joint victory without the fear of a backstab. Once signed, there's no going back with this option.

    No no no NO NO to any concept of a joint victory!!!!

    Sorry, but I feel really strongly about this. GOW and Neu Demogyptica used it in the Civ3 team demo game, and it created a sucky and cheesy ending to that game.

    The idea of civilzation is for one team to try and win - not two - and not three. One. What that creates is the dynamic of an allaince that by definition, will get shaky as it eliminates the competition - because they know they have to take on each other. And that gives non-alliance teams a chance to break the bloc.

    If two teams have agreed to a 'joint victory', either by out-of-game agreemnt, or thru the permanent alliance thingy, then they have the advantage of not having to worry about each other. Particularly in the first case - as happened in the above-mentioned demo game - had the other civs known what the two teams were doing, then they would have reacted differently.

    In the second case, where it is a permanent alliance, it severly limits the dynamic in a 5 person game. Maybe if this was an 18 player pitboss game, I would say sure, give it a try. But with 5 teams, if two form an alliance, then two others have to almost by defeinition to stand against them. So why not just create a team battle game.

    Sorry Geo, but this is real pet peeve of mine. It is critical that the victory conditions be known ahead of time for obvious game dynamic reasons - and IMO, joint victory - other than in an agreed upon team game - has no place in civ.

    End of rant.

    Leave a comment:


  • GeoModder
    replied
    Originally posted by EPW
    One player will be left out though,
    The top dog you mean? That's the idea.

    Originally posted by EPW
    and whats wrong with backstabbing?
    Nothing I guess, if one is into that kind of stuff.
    Perm Alliances doesn't actually stop backstabbing, as long as it isn't signed. Nobody can be forced to sign a permanent alliance.
    It is, IMO, an extra option to keep things flaming until the end of the game. Besides, this sort of stuff can't be put in effect until the necessary tech is discovered, which is in the latter third of a normal game.

    If it is to you, as game starter, a big nono, guess that's the way things are then.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPW
    replied
    Originally posted by GeoModder


    It allows two or more players to band together for mutual protection and joint victory without the fear of a backstab. Once signed, there's no going back with this option.
    One player will be left out though, and whats wrong with backstabbing?

    Normal sized map and one landmass of sorts? Lakes map with high sealevel perhaps? And perhaps mucho peaks if this maptype allows this kind of settings.
    Lake map sounds good to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • GeoModder
    replied
    Originally posted by Beta
    Permanent alliances, Geo??? Not sure why. Please explain.
    It allows two or more players to band together for mutual protection and joint victory without the fear of a backstab. Once signed, there's no going back with this option.

    Originally posted by Beta
    As to the map - stringy pangaea?? Or one landmass of some sort.

    Normal size map with 5 civs
    Normal sized map and one landmass of sorts? Lakes map with high sealevel perhaps? And perhaps mucho peaks if this maptype allows this kind of settings.

    Leave a comment:


  • CerberusIV
    replied
    All seems OK by me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wittlich
    replied
    Meh, which ever is decided upon I will be fine with.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPW
    replied
    Agreed

    600 points(default) for advanced start also

    No to permanent alliances

    Leave a comment:


  • Beta
    replied
    I hate when Apolyton is flaky. Posted something earlier today which did not take.

    I say go with 5 players. Six seems to really slow a game down for some bizarre reason.

    No AI's is my suggestion.

    I concur with Geo on no tech brokering?

    Permanent alliances, Geo??? Not sure why. Please explain.

    As to the map - stringy pangaea?? Or one landmass of some sort.

    Normal size map with 5 civs

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X