The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fast PBEM duels - a try to start a new kind of Civ2 entertainment
Fast PBEM duels - a try to start a new kind of Civ2 entertainment
I didn't know where to put the following post. It should be in Civ2-Strategy, because I think it may be interesting for slow SP players, it should be in Civ2 Multiplayer, because it presumes games are played mostly in sessions like MP games, it should be in Civ2-PBEM, because it is a PBEM...
So it is here now.
The aim of this thread is to gather people for a specific kind of multiplayer game. It will be especially suitable for slow players.
Preface
Recently I have tried one MP game and the game speed was quite high for me - I got confused easily, I wasn't able to control every detail of the game as I do in singleplayer. Then I joined one 7-player PBEM and it is quite slow... For me a disavantage of a standard PBEM game is that time periods of my concentration on the game are too short. I get deeply in the game...and it finishes for the present day.
So ... my thinking is heading towards something between MP and standard PBEM:
Standard PBEM vs. PBEM in sessions
I can imagine 2 ways of playing PBEM:
A) Slow PBEM
A player finishes a turn and goes away. He doesn't know when his opponent will play and so he supposes he won't be able to continue for at least several hours (or days). This is how standard PBEMs are played.
B) PBEM in sessions
Players agree on a playing time. They can do something else on the computer, but they have enough time for a PBEM in the meantime. This way 5, 10, 20... turns may be managed in one session (it may last 1, 3, 10... hours). (This is a way of playing that is similar to MP: Both players must agree on time of sessions. Game is slower than an MP game, but on the other hand there is no time pressure and players needn't focus on Civ2 only. They can do other things concurrently.)
So I would like introduce a new term... Fast PBEM duel
In "Fast PBEM" players combine both Slow PBEM and PBEM in sessions. Sessions are preferable, but the game can continue also by Slow way when there is lack of time. Also some players may not be able to play in sessions. A duel is desirable since PBEM is slower with more players.
Empire-building games
I don't want to force them at any cost but... I prefer them. I mean both standard (vanilla) Civ2 or empire-building scenarios and mods.
Now let us get deeper:
Exigency of clear rules
Most standard PBEM games are played without clear rules, but then some players start to reload battle outcomes (this is not a joke!) and the others wonder about that. Therefore I believe in PBEM there must be a clear boundary between allowed operations and disallowed ones.
Cheating
I have heard tales about people cheating in PBEMs, but I don't think this should be a problem. I suppose everybody plays the game because of thrill from anticipation, sense of responsibility for one's own decisions and all those similar entertaining things. People that would cheatwould lose all that fun. If someone wants to win by any way or without having to think, then he can start SP, go to cheat menu, and reach the Alpha Centauri in 3900BC. That is much easier than to bother with sending many e-mails.
.hot saves
Although most PBEMs are played in the .net (multiplayer/internet) mode, I suggest the .hot (multiplayer/hotseat) mode. The main reason is that a .hot savefile is opened much faster than a .net one (opening a .net game involves going through many windows).
Accelerated start
A partially accelerated start is possible - for example 2 Settlers, two warriors and 100 gold to start.
Several starting positions
A possible modification:
My idea is that each civ should get two or three starting positions (settler + warrior or something similar) on distant map positions. Then empires will be fragmented and the game will be more interesting.
(A note: For example, with two positions I consider this placement of starting positions
AA
BB
less interesting than this:
AB
BA
(because in the second example both civs will have to fight for the central area))
You can count me in as one of those ready to play that kind of game and willing to test the proposed features.
Here is the question #1 I have in mind:
What about x2 production ?
My limited experience at MP makes me think that x2 prod leads to a very different game where 'high shields' terrain and some kind of ICSing have a huge advantage.
Any thoughts? (especially from experienced MP players)
Slow, you should put a little advert in the PBEM forum and ask for contributions from them.
I've never played any kind of MP Civ2 (apart from SXNs ), so I'm not in a position to comment on this, but I may well dip my toe into the MP waters when my new laptop arrives, so I'll be taking interest in this thread as it seems to propose a more gradual learning curve than finding yourself annihilated by rah at 3000BC in your first game.
I'm not sure that the set-up you described is ideal, but as far as you are concerned then it will be. I think that the choice of settings, etc should be left to the players so they can build the game of their choice (and there wouldn't be any moaning when someone lost if everything had been agreed beforehand).
The way the game would be conducted sounds great though. It'd be extremely dumb for anyone to try to cheat as this can often lead to total MP estrangement, depending upon who it is and how long they had been doing it for. Not sure about here, but records are often kept of who has been caught cheating and in which games to give potential opponents something to consider. I'm sure that the system currently in place could be extended to your head-to-head PBEMs.
Originally posted by duke o' york I think that the choice of settings, etc should be left to the players so they can build the game of their choice.
I agree perfectly! Nothing is forced, the base is a slow MP duel. Also PBEM may be replaced by extremely slow MP (for those that don't have dial-up).
Originally posted by La Fayette
What about x2 production ?
As noted in last paragraph, anything is possible.
Concerning my person - I don't like 2x production nor 2x movement.
Originally posted by duke o' york
Slow, you should put a little advert in the PBEM forum and ask for contributions from them.
I did it, along with Civ2-Strategy and Civ2-Multiplayer. The problem is that people in Civ2-MP are mostly concentraced to games where an empire of 30 cities is played in 1 - 2 minutes, and people from Civ2-PBEM play mostly scenarios where you start with 50 cities and 100 units (I magnify a little ).
But I would like to see them here!
I'm not sure that the set-up you described is ideal...
Be concrete...
BTW I finished one .hot PBEM duel with debeest now (he is interested to participate here too) and so I feel a little experienced.
It'd be extremely dumb for anyone to try to cheat as this can often lead to total MP estrangement
I am not afraid about cheating, I think a cheater would have to be completely dumb, because he himself would lose the game entertainment in the first place.
I must say many Civ2-BBEM forum players worry from cheating, but I don't share this fear and I don't share the policy they use (You can read about it here: AI relocating workers; Hotseat mode, Saving and reloading turns ). I think the best policy is a trusting athmosphere. I simply suppose we are not dumb here.
You know I'm in, SlowThinker. I learned some things from our recent duel, my first-ever game involving a human being, and I'm eager to try again. I can rarely manage ongoing sessions, but I'd like to play multiple PBEMs at a time.
Get in touch with me, anyone, and we'll give it a go.
Jackrabbit, the Euro-time versus other times isn't that much of a consideration. My whole game with SlowThinker was played as single turns, no sessions. Sessions would be ideal, but aren't essential; and even with time differences, there may be opportunities on weekends, etc.
players.
Tweet
Comment