Ind/Modern/Future Start PBEM?

[Kloreep]

I'm interested in starting a PBEM with an advanced tech start - at least the start of the Ind with the first two ages already known, and possibly a Modern or Future start.

No AIs. Map size depends on how many players sign up, but I'm certainly not thinking of going higher than Standard. Difficulty level would probably be Emperor, though that could be changed. Edit: Note this will be C3C, not PTW.

Players so far: Kloreep
Mickeyj
UnOrthOdOx
Paddy the Scot (of course )
snoopy369

[Crashlander]

Hey what´s up...
well i´m looking for a PBEM game, since i never played civ this way... i´m up for any kind of game you wish, send me a message!
cya

[Kloreep]

Cool.

BTW, I just realized I forget to specify C3C. I'll do that now.

[snoopy369]

I suggest start of ind., or middle of ind. age, assuming you want tech to still be somewhat relevant - that ensures you have plenty of game left before tech becomes irrelevant, but you start out with plenty of military capabilities.

You might start out having researched Nationalism or (even more interesting) Replaceable Parts. That means you've gotten to the point where Cavalry aren't superdominant any more ...

I'll happily make a map for you if you want, I have some experience making a map and scenario like this (my Naval PBEM). I would leave to you the details, but I suggest having prebuilt cities - late starts without cities leave a long time where you're doing nothing, but it's a lesser form of nothing because everything takes so long to build ...

In fact I suggest having a single AI civ with no unit building abilities (perhaps except an immobile defensive unit) owning several developed cities dotting the landscape. That makes military excursions more interesting at the beginning, and eliminates some of the problems I had in Naval PBEM, where we started out with some well developed cities and some empty islands, but now we have cities that are vital and cities that are less useful because it takes too long to bulid them up ... and one player lost one of his core cities early on, and that crippled him pretty much, as that was one less well developped city to research with and get cash with...

But I'm willing to make it however you ask

[Mickeyj]

Crumbs sounds interesting - I'll definitly be up for giving it a try. Thanks for offering to set up snoopy!

[Kloreep]

Thanks for offering to set up, Snoopy. Sounds great.

Originally posted by snoopy369
I suggest start of ind., or middle of ind. age, assuming you want tech to still be somewhat relevant - that ensures you have plenty of game left before tech becomes irrelevant, but you start out with plenty of military capabilities.

You might start out having researched Nationalism or (even more interesting) Replaceable Parts. That means you've gotten to the point where Cavalry aren't superdominant any more ...

Yeah, the start of the industrial age sounds good. Science would take quite a hit otherwise.

And let's not start with replacable parts, so that Industrious has a little time to shine. Let's just go with the beginning instead: Everything in the first two ages researched.

Also, starting with Nationalism means no cheap defense units. It would be tough to get even one out the door. (See my response on prebuilt cities below.) This might not be so big an issue, though; effective attack units are going to be tough to build too. If we turned barbs off, that would be okay.

This would make cavalry "dominant," but consider: you have to hook up horses and saltpeter. You have to build expensive as heck 80-shield units. And then you've invested in offense, and either need to leave some of it at home or send some of it out to fight.

Perhaps it would be good if none of us started with both horses and saltpeter right by the capital, but otherwise I'm thinking it'll be okay.

BTW, would scientific civs automatically get one of the ind techs at the start of the game, or would they need to be assigned one? I guess you can be the one to check that out as mapmaker.

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'll happily make a map for you if you want, I have some experience making a map and scenario like this (my Naval PBEM). I would leave to you the details, but I suggest having prebuilt cities - late starts without cities leave a long time where you're doing nothing, but it's a lesser form of nothing because everything takes so long to build ...

I was actually thinking specifically of starting without anything prebuilt. Just your settler and worker (and scout if you're expansionist). I guess we could turn on Mass Regicide for some early exploration/combat units.

I've never tried building up my civ under the conditions of having all that ancient & mideval tech at my fingertips, and I'm interested in what it would be like. Rail would probably come before you'd be anywhere near ready for it, and suddenly you choose between improving other tiles, and building rails on existing improvements.

I don't think it will be boring - no more so than a standard game beginning. Only thing I'm worried about is it may create some no-brainers - IE, revolt at the beginning of the game if you're Religious (which may be a popular option).

Originally posted by snoopy369
In fact I suggest having a single AI civ with no unit building abilities (perhaps except an immobile defensive unit) owning several developed cities dotting the landscape. That makes military excursions more interesting at the beginning, and eliminates some of the problems I had in Naval PBEM, where we started out with some well developed cities and some empty islands, but now we have cities that are vital and cities that are less useful because it takes too long to bulid them up ... and one player lost one of his core cities early on, and that crippled him pretty much, as that was one less well developped city to research with and get cash with...

If we don't get a lot of players, having AIs would be interesting. Not sure what to do with them, though having mini-empires ready to take would be interesting.

[Kloreep]

And one last thought: If we aren't going to start with extra cities in place, we should ban agr civs from this game. They'd simply be too powerful with a quick gov switch (if they aren't already).

[UnOrthOdOx]

I'm game.

Some holes in your 'no cheap attack or defense units' theory, though:

UU's will not be obsolete.

Iriquois, Egypt, Byzantine, easy horse line upgradable. Defensive UU's are more numberous.

Immortals could be hellish for a defender forced to try to make rifles!!! Lots of potentially easy victories via UU.

If we are going to go no cities built, I'ld suggest no Nationalism researched.

/me says we ban agri with or without emplaced cities.
but I just hate that trait anyway...


One note: I find Mass Regicide tends to negate some of the Expansionistic romance, myself. Not complaining, just sayin.

[Paddy]

this looks great

I will join to please

[Kloreep]

Quite true, UnO. No Nationalism then.

And if it can be managed, perhaps the Sci civs should have Steam Power as their free tech? They shouldn't be punished with Nationalism, and it's definitely the preferable choice between SP and Medicine, showing Coal and enabling rails. Sci seems a little weak as it is, let's shore it up as best we can...

BTW, we now have 5 players. I think this should probably be no AI accordingly.

[snoopy369]

Hmm, well then if i'm not making an actual map i'll join 6 players it is. (Unless i'm counted as part of the 5?)

I don't see why agr. civs are any more powerful than they are in any other game ... quick govt change or not But it's all up to you.

Sci civs definitely should get Steam Power, that's easy to manage.

I'll try playing a SP version of the mod tonight and see how it goes ...

Also, do you want ALL techs from previous eras, or only mandatory ones? IE, Democracy and things like that? And what about former wonders?

One suggestion I have: make the old wonders in the pseudo-AI civ. Single civ, perhaps with cities randomly (or semirandomly!) placed around the globe, with the previous wonders in them (one wonder per city), and only the ability to make 0/6/0 units (essentially immobile riflemen). Obviously some of the wonders would be worthless (any of them that expire!) and they'd lose their cultural value, unless we checked "retain culture on capture", but some of them (ie, pyramids, sun tzu, etc.) would be pretty sweet.

[Kloreep]

I wasn't counting you, no. Welcome aboard; now we are six.

As for tech... hmm. It would be interesting to not do non-required techs, as that would make Feudalism the only government available at the start of the game. That sounds good to me. (And makes Rel all the more desirable...)

As for wonders: As you say, some retain their power, some do not. That'll change which get built, but that's okay. It also boosts scientific a little; not many advances will be made at first, but they have a better chance at an SGL for one of the powerful wonders for those techs they do get to first.

Also, I'm thinking no AI civ at this point. We could have at max 2, and while we could have one uber-AI in Communism, I think let's just have a more standard game.

As for Agr power: It depends. An Agr civ that starts along a long river and can get fresh water to most of their cities is probably about as powerful as they would be with a govt. change at the start of the game. However, the ability to do that govt. change makes Agr a sure bet for the early game; you don't have to worry about starting in dry lands. The Celts would be THE civ, IMO.

Also, I'm thinking no Mass Regicide. This keeps expansionist more desirable, and I believe warriors will still be buildable since Guerillas won't be available, so we'll be fine for explorers and simple garrisons.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Yay for feudalism!

[Mickeyj]

Sounding more and more apealling, I'm up for any format as I'd like something a bit differnt for a change.

Are we going with random civs or do we choose?

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Mickeyj
Are we going with random civs or do we choose?

I was thinking choose. We could also construct our own, though: Choose leaderhead, traits, and UU.