30% Iron Civer Tournament

[Rommel2D]

Re: Re: Iron Civgroup

Originally posted by bongo
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?

If noise is the problem perhaps we should use the Multiplayer forum. This is an MP variation after all...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Rommel2D


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



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...

Well, part of its function is to ADMIT ICAA MEMBERS ...

[snoopy369]

Seriously though, it's set up that we "apply" to the civgroup but the Admin of the group (ie you) has to accept us.

[conmcb25]

Rommel when the CivGroup was set up MarKG should have sent you a link to a webpage where you can go an authorize people. Thats the way it works for private forums for demo games.

I would question why it was set up that way in the first place unless you want to worry about authorizing people.

Is there a private forum for "iron civers?" I wouldn't think we would need one, and thats the only reason I can think of to have to authorize someone to join the civgroup.

[bongo]

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

Note to self: Another issue to discuss in my AAR

[Paddy]

Originally posted by conmcb25
Rommel when the CivGroup was set up MarKG should have sent you a link to a webpage where you can go an authorize people. Thats the way it works for private forums for demo games.

I would question why it was set up that way in the first place unless you want to worry about authorizing people.

Is there a private forum for "iron civers?" I wouldn't think we would need one, and thats the only reason I can think of to have to authorize someone to join the civgroup.

if there is a private forum set up for us - it would answer the questions on where we discuss all the issues

[Paddy]

ok, I just did a check around - and I could not find a private forum at this time

[Rommel2D]

No private forum, just a member list where con's pile of spam can be measured against everyone else's post count. (It also says something about him and Snoopy being yahoos? :-)

BTW- I don't have minister status, but can assign it. What does this do, give someone a pointy hat?

[bongo]

Can anyone join then? The other reason I can think of to have an authorize function for this list is to limit the group to those who actually are(or have been) a part of the ironciver tournament.

And rommel, look at Paddys postcount, he makes even con look like an amateur

[Rommel2D]

Yep, the icon is only for those who have the right mettle.

Paddy's post count has more to do with the 42 active PBEMs he's in (although 2 player tracking threads border on spam). As was pointed out in another thread, if you filter out con's posts with the words 'lazy', 'suck', or 'pirate', he's still at chieftain level...

[jshelr]

back on the next tourney, i'm in favour of a 2-person game tourney as mentioned above in order to get away from the dogpile problem.

i have no problem with human diplomacy as an interesting game feature, but i also agree that games that eliminate human diplomacy are interesting in their own right. if you don't like the 2-person game idea, maybe you would prefer silent pbem to get around the human diplomacy impact.

[bongo]

You can also lessen the risk of dogpiles by adding players. With only 4 players, any player with a strong wonder (pyramids and SoZ comes to mind) will be percieved as too strong by the other 3 and they will feel like they *have* to take hime out (OT ramble: I am the only one who feel the urge to shoot the TV when a survivor participant talks about 'his strategy' or who he considers to be a 'threat'?).

By increasing the number of players to 5 or 6, you make each of them relatively weaker to the others. Any dogpiles are likely to develop into one alliance fighting another, which is soo much better than the 3 vs 1 dogpiles. The weaker players can then afford to be more relaxed about it when one civ pulls ahead.

The downside is of course that games with 6 players are prone to be much slower

[snoopy369]

I prefer games as a whole with 3 or more players in them. 3 player can be quite interesting, if you get the right map.

But, 2 player games can be pretty cool, too, and move FAST, more than 2x as fast as 4 player games because you can easily have fast turn sessions. The problem with a tourney of them is precisely the AU problem: Some people have been done for weeks now, while people like me are in 800bc (only 1 fast turn session, and my partner and I only occasionally play at the precise same time, and we both work a lot at a non-civ work), and probably a long ways out of finishing (possibly even a few months). You'll have people who won games lose interest ... I'd consider anyhow a 2 player tourney "winner" to be something dramatically different from a 4 player tourney winner. I consider myself to be better at human diplomacy than AI manipulation and/or playing vs. AI, thus I (probably) do better against 3 opponents than vs. an AI group and one player. Conversely, some people may be the other way around, and own against AIs but not play well against humans.

How about semi-locked enimities? I know that cuts against the grain for some, but you could have, say, a 4 player game where each player is at war with 1 and only 1 other player *permanently* ... ie A vs B and C vs D, but A and C *or* D is acceptable alliance, and B with the other one (or not allied)? It allows some diplomatic play, doesn't require A and C or D to ally, and with good map placement would make for interesting play (ie 4 equidistant civs on a normal pangea, or 4 civs around a center huge lake a-c-b-d order around the wheel), but eliminates dogpile (A cannot ally with both C and D, not really -- you could make it against the rules, or just explain calmly to C and D that they can't both ally with A because then they'd be allies while at war ... Sorry, Con )

And thanks for the iron lightsaber. Now I can slice the head off of anyone who disagrees with my opinion on Battle Reports!!!

[Rommel2D]

I don't think we should go into such a wide-open topic in the topped thread dedicated to the currently ongoing IC games. So...

[Rommel2D]

Before going on to the subject of a new tournament, I'd like to nail down the settings for the final game of this one.

My proposal:

Tiny Pangea with 60% ocean
All victory conditions except wonder
Cultural conversions and Scientific Great Leaders on
Emperor level
Climate/Temperature/Age Random [or n/t/4 ?]
Roaming Barbarians
No culturally linked start
Y-Wrapping on
I will preview the map to make sure there are no island starts (and to get the Y-wrap to work right...). All seafaring tribes will be assured of a coastal start.

Aqualung can start thinking about what tribe to choose... (but don't give me any hints- the settings might change before we start and I don't want to be accused of any undue influence. )