New AU PBEM course

[Dominae]

I like the idea, but for two things:

1. Starter pack. I prefer playing stock Civ3.
2. Continents. Coordination would be more interesting on a Pangea map.

Edit: Oh, and I want to team up with Aeson.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Dominae


I like the idea, but for two things:

1. Starter pack. I prefer playing stock Civ3.
2. Continents. Coordination would be more interesting on a Pangea map.

Edit: Oh, and I want to team up with Aeson.

Why would you rather play Stock?

[Dominae]

I find the early-game really interesting and skill-testing. Although there's the disadvantage of having to wait a many turns to for anything to major to happen, I'm hoping a rapid pace of play will not make this a major issue (unlike some PBEMs I'm involved in...ahem).

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Dominae


I like the idea, but for two things:

1. Starter pack. I prefer playing stock Civ3.
2. Continents. Coordination would be more interesting on a Pangea map.

Edit: Oh, and I want to team up with Aeson.

Uh, that'd be three things, the last being fairly notable. Again, though, I think it'd be better to pair newer and experienced players (except for the inter-site games, if any ).

I'm not committed to the starter pack idea... in fact, on reflection, while I recognize why Paddy suggested it (the painfully slow starts of some of the games out there), I think it prolly unnecessary for an AU game. Going from the experience of AU 601, those games that were played were played quickly.

Re continents versus pangaea, I was thinking that purposefully gearing the games towards Medieval age conflict might be a tad more interesting, and provide for both builder-ish and warmonger-ish coordination within each of the teams.

I'm going to work on suggested civs tonight.

BTW, Nukie, would you be willing to be the first admin?

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Theseus
* Teams: 3 teams of 2 players each. Civs should be culturally linked, and pre-selected, so players are selecting their teammates and which of the three culture pairs that are offered. I'm leaning toward (if possible) one player having a Ancient UU, and one having a Medieval UU. Team civs to be placed near (but not too near) each other.

Theseus, this idea is very similar to the Trial By Trait PBEM I started some time back.

There were 3 teams of 2 players, civ pairs were selected by hand very carefully, and teams chose which of the 3 civ pairings they wished to play based on a predetermined order.

The civs were matched by their differing traits, and one of the objectives was for each team to combine to maximise the effectiveness of the 4 traits they shared between them.

The tracking original thread is here if you want to take a look.

[Rhothaerill]

It sounds good to me.

As to starter packs, I can go either way. I don't normally like them, but if they are a go then I'll play them.

As to the continents vs. pangaea, PBEMs in general, and especially team PBEMs, seem to work better on pangaeas because of the potential for earlier and more conflict.

[Tassadar500]

I'll admin it, for sure. I have an interesting an idea for picking the teams. As Theseus suggests, one new player (Warlord-Monarch), and one experienced player (Emperor-Sid). There would be a specific thread that players would post in to say what level they play on, what civs they would prefer, what their best at, worst at, etc. I then assign civs and teams, according to abilities and civ prefence. How does that sound?

[Tassadar500]

And here are some possible sites to advertise it:

CFC
GWT (Although they hate 'Poly now)
CDG
BAT
PAL
CGN
MZO
GCA (Well, I don't know. Same problem with GWT, and they cheat.)
RBC
SE

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Dominae
Another idea: a standard PBEM, but with mandatory DARs.

The purpose is to teach/learn PBEM skills. Players would report on their experiences in a standard AU DAR structure (perhaps more frequently). These DARs would be open to everyone, including the other players. Therefore it would not be possible to "hide" anything from other players (there would be a rule against misinformation via DARs). This is not necessarily a bad thing, as periodic looks into each other player's civ could cause some interesting diplomatic tensions ("So, you've been prebuilding Horsemen, eh!?").

This sounds very appropriate to me. A 6 player PBEM would probably be a Civ3 swan song lasting past the release of Civ4 in most cases. The AU has honed gameplay to a fine art- why not have everyone lay all their cards on the table and show how they like to read and play the odds? It seems like the most logical approach for the AU to take toward PBEMs.

When determining map makeup, the main stumbling point I see with seperate land mass is not so much traveling by ship, but the ability to connect harbors for trade or attaining remote resources prior to the end of the middle ages. An admin would have to design the map with very artificial resource allocation to specifically accomodate this if going with continents...

For playing level, the most noticible effect is barbarians- combat bonuses and goody hut odds (esp. the impact on Expansionists). There's also the overall effect on research speed- not anything I've ever really noticed, but theoretically its there.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
And here are some possible sites to advertise it:

CFC
GWT (Although they hate 'Poly now)
CDG
BAT
PAL
CGN
MZO
GCA (Well, I don't know. Same problem with GWT, and they cheat.)

I'll see if I can get anyone from SE to come, though I don't know how many will partake.

[Theseus]

Add RBC to that list.

So, pangaea seems to be recommended.

Still don't have a clue as to the best difficulty level.

Re civs: I tried at first a couple of paradigms, e.g., ancient UU/ medieval UU, or by trait, or whatever (vodka didn't help )... I ended up just picking culturally linked civs with a range of 'coordination difficulty':

Europe: France/Scandinavia

Middle East: Perisa/Ottomans

Asia: China/Japan

Thoughts?

PS: Aqua, any contributions from how 'Trial by Traits' has been? You guys are pretty far along (albeit at .35 tpd).

[snoopy369]

LN suggested I look at this, but I think i'll pass ... Teams as you suggest just don't work in my opinion, and I have to say that although the team play concept is interesting, the diplomatic options of not playing as teams I think are more interesting (choosing your own team, essentially, based on the situation in the game).

Also, the fact that most PBEMs (80% plus) don't involve teams implies to me that if you want to actually just teach PBEM play, you would be doing a better job teaching people to play PBEM if you had a solo game where people teamed up or not on their own ...

If you end up making a non-team based version of the game, however, please sign me up

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Theseus
Still don't have a clue as to the best difficulty level.

Monarch or Emperor leave decent odds on goody huts for non-Exp. tribes. I'd just recommend beefing up barbs some to prevent them being complete fodder- archers or swordsmen for basic, and Mounted Warriors or Keshiks(?!) for advanced.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If you end up making a non-team based version of the game, however, please sign me up

I actually have no problem with that... people can volunteer for either type of game. There's something to be said for the "lesson" to include / contrast fixed versus negotiated alliances.

Please note though that the set-up will generally favor the same teams anyway.

At first, that is.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
Theseus, this idea is very similar to the Trial By Trait PBEM I started some time back.

Indeed. I'd definitely be up for another one; this one has been interesting so far.

Theseus: It's mostly been expansion. The one war has been between myself (Persia, one of the larger civs in the game) and Greece (one of the smaller civs in the game). I eliminated Greece, so we'll now see how the game proceeds with one player being teammate-less...