Too Many Units!!

[Mercator]

Originally posted by curtsibling
All in all, we all have our tastes, and I see no rifts or rivalries...

No-one's talking about rivalries. The point is that the Civ2 community is only getting smaller, yet there are 3 or 4 different tiny Civ2 communities on Apolyton alone (single-player scenario creation, multiplayer PBEM, multiplayer and strategy) and there's very little contact between them. It would be nice if they would mix a bit more.

But I agree with the first half of that. We all have our own tastes. So I can't really see that changing. I do visit the Civ2 General forum here, and several Civ2 forums on CFC too, though.


@Pap1723: So I can tell you CivFanatics is not dead. It's just focussed on different areas. I'd say CFC is getting more new blood than Apolyton is.

@battosai: For one thing, there have been a number of people on there who've tried to do some "reverse engineering" to fix some things in the executable. One of them, Skyer, fixed the hostile MGE AI. Or at least, I think he did. I don't have MGE so I don't know whether it works.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Eurisko
So it seems that for some strange reason, designing scenarios and playing PBEMs seem to be mutually exclusive.

But I think this is true, in a way.

Generally, the most entertaining SP scenarios are hopelessly unsuited for PBEM and vice versa. Precisely for the reasons you've pointed out, it's quite difficult to make a scenario that can be consistently challenging in SP mode. Making a well-balanced PBEM is difficult in a very different way. So it's little wonder that the makers tend to specialize as suit their tastes.

SP has several advantages over MP: the immediate gratification and modest time commitment are the biggest IMHO. But also, in PBEM you're liable to run into problems because of all the tricks and exploits in CivII and all the different playing styles. What seems a brilliant strategy to me may strike you as a cheesy exploit or blatant cheat, and vice versa. Even attitudes toward basic game etiquette can be radically different.

In SP mode, it's fairly simple to adopt house rules, or tweak event files to keep games challenging. In PBEM, that is a much more involved process.

[battosai]

That for it is a great achiefment if somewher a reliable PBEM-community develops. In the German Webring such a thing has been happening over many years and is even developpong further in a very positve way cause of some reasons I want to mention.

In contrast to former times, there are not many PBEMs to be played the same time now. Some years ago we had between 4 and 6 running, now they are 2 active ones. The most intresting thing that has been changed that we have inegrated the scenario designers (or the designer integrated us) into the PBEM (Thoddy, Eivind), which causes a high loyality to his house rules. Another thing is, the part of players that are not very steadfast and often ruined games by long delays or spontaneous quitations has gone down. The ones who stayed are reliable, are intersted in improving the game joy by common houserules, have time to move almost everyday or make very clear notations about their disappearance before they go, can handle with reasonable diplomacy and so on. With that class of players as which I call Civilionaut, Dario, Eivind, Eurisko, Historical Atze and Sephiroth (who is the best example of how easy a long time single scenario player is transformed to a ethusiastic PBEMer) almost nothing can go wrong if they agree to play a scen together.

[McMonkey]

Horses for courses!

Would be good to mix it up more. I liked the look of Saladins new Napoleonic scenario but was too slow to grab a civ. Just volunteered to stand in for someone in the First Strike game so I will see what the world of PBEM is all about!

Single player does have the advantage of being quicker and you can make up the rules to suit yourself. I often impose my own set of house rules to make the game more realistic or more of a challenge. Events can compensate for the AI a fair bit too!

[battosai]

The single player scen community here has all prequesistes for a good working PBEM game. Enough people around (to do turns in assistence) that know and trust each other (my personal impression), have of course interest for the scenario itself and the realism that is a huge advantage compared to only vanila multiplayers who mostly have a mentality of winning at all costs, which is so often destructive in PBEMs, at least they KNOW the scens pretty good. Why don't give it a try?

[McMonkey]

I think the thing that would frustrate me the most about a PBEM game is waiting days for it to be my turn again. Pitting my whits against a real life human does seem appealing although there seems to be a lot of arguements in the PBEM threads. Might it work better (quicker) with a few (2-3) people who control several civs each?

[McMonkey]

HELLAS PBEM

Anyone interested in a PBEM of Hellas for PBEM virgins? Seems like an excellent five player game and would be a great way for some newbies to get into the PBEM world. I would think Eivind would be the first person to get on board as he is the PBEM King but I need three other inexperienced volunteers.

Nations would be:
Athens (Player)
Sparta (Player)
Corinth (Player)
Thebes (Player)
Chalcis (Player)
Other Greeks (AI)
Persians (AI)
Barbarians (AI Barbarians)

If have modified the graphics and will post the new files on the SL wiki if I can find enough players.

[battosai]

Originally posted by Werd100
I think the thing that would frustrate me the most about a PBEM game is waiting days for it to be my turn again. Pitting my whits against a real life human does seem appealing although there seems to be a lot of arguements in the PBEM threads. Might it work better (quicker) with a few (2-3) people who control several civs each?

Yeah it's a smart solution for increasing speed in a PBEM to accumulate the civs under less players than possible or let the AI contol them. In the first case the diplomacy may suffer, in the second warfare and/or diplomacy, so you have to wage if the scen is still balanced if such compromises are made for increasing the turn frequence. But hell yeah, of course speed is critical for a great PBEM enjoyment. With Hellas you grapped one, where I used to do 2 or 3 turns a day sometimes. (But a Human Persian player is very exciting in this scen, he cans start to trouble as Carthagian, then stress the Greeks in Asia Minor and finally swap over Thracia.

[McMonkey]

I have a lot to learn about PBEM. It has been suggested that someone plays the Persians which makes sense.
Sounds like there is the possibility of a Hellas game starting on the German Civ site so unless anyone really wants to try to get one going here I think it is worth considering this thread closed! (Was in the wrong forum anyhow)

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by kobayashi
What's this nonsense about SP games not being entertaining? If a scenario is made with PBEM in mind, I suppose the AI can be quite stupid sometimes.

BUT, if the scenario is made properly with SP in mind and the proper events are used, I don't see how much of anything said here applies.

Simply due to the fact that the AI cannot engage in meaningful diplomacy of any kind with others it is hopelessly inferior to even a modestly skilled human player.

Personally I consider single player games a short-term distraction whereas a PBEM is a long-term investment.

Originally posted by techumseh
I tried playing PBEM games when they were all the rage about 3 years ago. Most petered out amid long delays waiting for players to move, finding repacements and accusations of cheating. Looking at your forum, it seems like nothing has changed.

"Our" forum? That is a rather interesting formulation. However, there is another community which is rather excellent keeping up a good speed in PBEMs. But yes, generally Apolyton has been getting slow as of late.

Originally posted by RobRoy

But I think this is true, in a way.

Generally, the most entertaining SP scenarios are hopelessly unsuited for PBEM and vice versa. Precisely for the reasons you've pointed out, it's quite difficult to make a scenario that can be consistently challenging in SP mode. Making a well-balanced PBEM is difficult in a very different way. So it's little wonder that the makers tend to specialize as suit their tastes.

SP has several advantages over MP: the immediate gratification and modest time commitment are the biggest IMHO. But also, in PBEM you're liable to run into problems because of all the tricks and exploits in CivII and all the different playing styles. What seems a brilliant strategy to me may strike you as a cheesy exploit or blatant cheat, and vice versa. Even attitudes toward basic game etiquette can be radically different.

In SP mode, it's fairly simple to adopt house rules, or tweak event files to keep games challenging. In PBEM, that is a much more involved process.

Well, in PBEM scenarios the unbalance of civs can be straightened out by assigning civs of different strength to players of different skill.

In Hellas, for example, Sparta should be played by someone who is not a demigod a PBEMs due to their wonders and units. Similarly, someone skilled should take the Thebans so they are not immediately crushed between Chalcis and Athens.

[Exile]

Hmmmmmm . . . .

I'll weigh in.

The apparent problem of trade units being exploited to subvert the perceived spirit of a given scenario is, imo, a design mistake.

Any unit placed in a scenario should, ideally, have a good reason for being there. Combat units should be a negotiation between historical simulation and gameplay.

IF trade units are placed in a scenario, they shouldn't be placed there simply because you're used to seeing or building them. They should be an integral aspect of the scenario. In Imp1870, trade is essential. The units themselves are cheap, the payoff is huge, and the rewards are tangible. . . which neatly mimics the nature of the period. In AoI, the map itself is a focus on the Med sea, the trade units are cheap, and the tech tree is super-extended, with only a few tangible rewards. If a civ wants to the SPECIALIZE in trade, ala the Italians or Aragonese, then it can work. In John Ellis' Colonies IV, the trade units are only available halfway through the tree, and are otherwise only generated via events . . . which also neatly mimics the period of mercantilism. In short, if trade units are integrated into the scenario in a thoughtful, historically accurate way, there shouldn't be a problem. If you don't want players to engage in hyper-trading, cut them or place them via events. If you want players to do so, give them very good reasons why they should, and be aware of the consequences of a player going full tilt with trade. In other words TWEAK your scenario BEFORE you release it. There is NO substitute for adequate playtesting. If Aggy trades like a fiend, and this isn't what you want from the scen, CHANGE it so that he can't. (Ok, this COULD be construed as a criticism of Curt's approach to scenario construction. It's not, Ciaran. lol. It's a general statement---you're a Maestro ).

Side question; Aggy, have you run roughshod over any of mine? I am a super-aggressive trader when I play the heavy trade scenarios. I can't imagine someone trading more aggessively than I do. How do mine stand up for you?

[McMonkey]

Er, dude. I think you might have posted in the wrong thread or something. Sounds like you wanted 'Ultimate solution to load AI ships'.

These threads are getting really mixed up and its all my fault

EDIT: BTW I totally agree!

[Exile]

Oooops.

Hey where's Cyr?

I already cut n pasted it to where it should be. Please just get rid of my last two posts in this thread.

lol

[Cyrion]

Re: Oooops.

Originally posted by Exile
Hey where's Cyr?

Not far, why?

[McMonkey]

PC Dummy

I have accidentally changed my internet browser settings to Firefox which I do not like (mainly as I cannot set pages to Favorites). Any ideas on how I can undo this change or get 'Add to Favorites' back?