30% Iron Civer Tournament

[bongo]

That's why I prefer level 0, the reporting will be 100% accurate

[Moonbars]

Perhaps for future tournements, the first tracker thread could be a poll, where each player has to vote on the optional elements, and the save is issued once that is done?

[bongo]

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Moonbars
Perhaps for future tournements, the first tracker thread could be a poll, where each player has to vote on the optional elements, and the save is issued once that is done?

The finals will at least have options logged.

Getting the Coliseum B game started at all was like scheduling a day of dentist appointments- the level of organization I did was leaps and bounds beyond the first tournament and even then a compromise on what I would have liked.

[conmcb25]

Why wasn't Coliseum AA in the news item??????

If I have to put up with all the rules and arguements the least you can do is have me in the news item!

[snoopy369]

Yes! Colliseum AA is totally news

Of course con, i guess one of the two of us would have to take out the other to have a good shot at making real news here.

So when can I expect the empty city built next to my capital?

[Rommel2D]

Iron Civgroup

As those cool blue icons indicate, our civgroup is now set up. I'm not sure what more there is to be done with this. Everyone still in the main games has been signed up, along with those who expressed specific interest previously in this thread. Markos will be starting us off with a news item soon. Can someone tell me everything that 'minister' status entails?

I'm working on ideas for the final round and possibly a second tournament. I guess discussion should still be conducted in the PBEM forum...?

[bongo]

Re: Iron Civgroup

Originally posted by Rommel2D I guess discussion should still be conducted in the PBEM forum...?

Nah, the PBEM forum is to noisy. New threads end up on the third page in less than a day unless someone keeps bumbing it all the time.

The strategy forum perhaps?

[Aqualung71]

With an announcement on the AU Forum too, since we've just had the first AU course dedicated to a PBEM format.

[jshelr]

Re: Iron Civgroup

Originally posted by Rommel2D

I'm working on ideas for the final round and possibly a second tournament. I guess discussion should still be conducted in the PBEM forum...?

How about this:

We set up a 16 player tourney. Each game contains 2 players and 6 ai. All random, no whining. There is a tight time limit on the game. If you don't finish, both players are out.

That would create 3 rounds to get to the championship.

I would include a rule that you cannot form an alliance against the other human player with the AI. But, that's just because I'm still waking up nights screaming after Alex did it to me

[conmcb25]

You have to get authorized for the Iron Civ Civ Group?

That seems strange.

Why didn't the coloseum-AA guys get automatically admitted????

[sabrewolf]

Re: Re: Iron Civgroup

Originally posted by jshelr
We set up a 16 player tourney. Each game contains 2 players and 6 ai. All random, no whining. There is a tight time limit on the game. If you don't finish, both players are out.

sounds good

That would create 3 rounds to get to the championship.

how tight would the timeframe be?
what's the tiebreaker if it doesn't end? score is too manipulatable (early libraries and wide-spaced cities).

I would include a rule that you cannot form an alliance against the other human player with the AI. But, that's just because I'm still waking up nights screaming after Alex did it to me

most greeks had the honour of that "move"

but with humans being allowed to attack AI cities (and the attackee can counterattack this time), alliances wouldn't be that important anymore. or maybe just 1 alliance at a time?

[Aqualung71]

I would suggest that rather than introduce AI into the tournament (making it closer to the AU601 game than a typical PBEM game), we should expand the tournament to encompass as many of the Poly PBEM players as possible. We may be able to get say 8 games of 4 players going, which would then truly make this the genuine Poly PBEM championship. Perhaps the 8 winners plus 4 "wildcard" runners up could progress to round 2 (3 games), with the 3 winners plus 1 runner up fighting out the final - a total of 3 rounds.

As for game setup, anywhere from 3 to 5 players would work. More would be too slow.

We may even want to consider some additional ethical guidelines to limit the "3 on 1 dogpile" that seems to become so prevalent in 4 player games.

[McMeadows]

Considering:

Originally posted by Aqualung71
We may even want to consider some additional ethical guidelines to limit the "3 on 1 dogpile" that seems to become so prevalent in 4 player games.

The occurance of that situation has a reason. An early SoZ calls for countermeasurements by the other players if they want to at least have some chance. It's not SP against AI and it's part of the strategy to decide if one should go for SoZ early in the game, taking the reaction into account. The nuclear weapons of the Ancient era...
I wouldn't be all to happy to be in a game where someone is to be lucky enough to have a ivory source close by and a SGL early game. That game is over if a 3 fold alliance is not allowed, and only decided by luck.

Bongo seems to be handling the situation pretty ok by the way, despite all his complaining.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by conmcb25
You have to get authorized for the Iron Civ Civ Group?

What do you mean by authorized? Does the self-subscribe function not work?

Why didn't the coloseum-AA guys get automatically admitted????

Part of the hazing process for the AA pledges to get into the club is to admit themselves. Oh, and you must explain the minister function to me also...