New AU PBEM course

[Aqualung71]

You could of course use one or more Agricultural civs to offset the power of a Persia/Ottoman combination.

[Addled Platypus]

Quote * Administrator: Make sure things move along. Step in to play turns if necessary. Oversee replacement players if necessary. Judge, jury, and executioner if things come up and rulings need to be made. Depending on how many games, we may need more than one.

Still looking for a volunteer? Or are you looking for an offical admin person type?

[Aqualung71]

PR....for games such as this we need good fast players. My experience is that you are one such player. Therefore, please play and do not administrate

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Dominae
How about these combinations:

Japan (Rel/Mil) - Korea (Sci/Com); Samurai + Hwach'a
Arabia (Rel/Exp) - Ottomans (Sci/Ind); Ansar + Sipahi
China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

I think Dom's suggested civs are ok too, though I would substitute a kick-arse Agricultural/AA UU civ such as the Celts or Iroquois instead of Japan, to offset the relatively weak Korean civ.

Under such circumstances, I'd be happy to play Korea (seems like the only way I'll ever get Korea into an AU game, despite numerous attempts so far )

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Theseus
* Playing for money: Optional.

This aimed at me?


If a game was willing I'ld more than happily head a merc concept tem.

Otherwise I'll be fine simply doing my best to demonstrate team playing to folks through DARs.


Looking at the proposed civs, I'ld play any civ mentioned, being a random player even in PBEM's. Korea included, even paired with Japan as is. So, slap me anywhere you have a hole with lack of participation.


Q: Would the teams be sharing info prior to in-game contact? (I am thinking probably so given the setup)

[Dominae]

If Agr. civs are on the table (no reason not to, since the civs/teams will be balanced), then we could give the novice players Agr. civs and pair them with non-Agr. veterans.

Sumeria (Agr/Sci) - Arabia (Exp/Rel); Enkidu + Ansar
Iroquois (Agr/Com) - China (Ind/Mil); Mounted Warrior + Rider
Celts (Agr/Rel) - Scandinavians (Mil/Sea); Gallic + Berzerk

The Celt/Viking combo is more for flavor and is consequently a bit weaker than the other two, but could still pack a punch in the right hands.

[Theseus]

OK, we have three suggested combos:

My initialset:
France (Com/Ind) - Scandinavia (Mil/Sea); Musketeer + Berserk
Persia (Sci/Ind) - Ottomans (Sci/Ind); Immortal + Sipahi
China (Mil/Ind) - Japan (Mil/Rel); Rider + Samurai

Dom's first set:
Japan (Rel/Mil) - Korea (Sci/Com); Samurai + Hwach'a
Arabia (Rel/Exp) - Ottomans (Sci/Ind); Ansar + Sipahi
China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

Dom's second set:
Sumeria (Agr/Sci) - Arabia (Exp/Rel); Enkidu + Ansar
Iroquois (Agr/Com) - China (Ind/Mil); Mounted Warrior + Rider
Celts (Agr/Rel) - Scandinavians (Mil/Sea); Gallic + Berzerk

I'd like to keep the flavor of cultural linking, but am happy to reconsider the mixes for better balance and variety... so, how about:

France (Com/Ind) - Scandinavia (Mil/Sea); Musketeer + Berserk
Sumeria (Agr/Sci) - Arabia (Exp/Rel); Enkidu + Ansar
China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

Talk about variety!!

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Dominae
If Agr. civs are on the table (no reason not to, since the civs/teams will be balanced)

Unless we were to make locked alliances an option. I'm with snoopy in the view that team games are a PBEM anomaly and would rather see this with open alliances.

[Tassadar500]

If we go with open alliances, this may not end up being very AU-esque. If co-ordination is not the lesson, what would be? Just straight diplomacy? We could make the course about Machiavellianism, which could make the course rather interesting. Since I'm not going to be the one playing it, it's really up to you guys. Perhaps a poll is necessary?

[Rommel2D]

If the victory conditions (which will have to be artificial for locked alliances too, I believe) were to pertain to any two allied players, it would still mean a focus on co-operation, albeit one that would relate to any PBEM game in general.

[Tassadar500]

Then you would have the best players aligning with each other, which doesn't sound very much like an AU game.

[Kloreep]

While forming the permanent alliances on the fly does sound interesting, I agree with LN: you'll just have the two most powerful civs linking up and wiping the floor with the rest.

[Rommel2D]

I thought the focus of the AU method was about the reporting of one's progress and studying other's reports to compare with your own. The civs played would have to be balanced (which could include handicapping by player's skill). The games themselves would probably be organized according to player skill.

[Hermann the Lombard]

From the viewpoint of a relative novice, that China/Japan combo looks devastating if they live long enough to bring their UUs into play, so it behooves the other teams to dogpile, as Dominae mentioned. So I'd advise against that one.

Question: what sort of turnaround time/pacing are we talking about here? I'm *not* the sort of fast player mentioned by Aqualung71. My last PBEM games were Starweb and Feudal Lords, games that were played on Cuneiform Computers Actually, that's not true, my most recent PBEM games were Lords of the Earth (the source of my handle, in fact), and *those* turns took just a *bit* more time to prepare!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Theseus
France (Com/Ind) - Scandinavia (Mil/Sea); Musketeer + Berserk
Sumeria (Agr/Sci) - Arabia (Exp/Rel); Enkidu + Ansar
China (Mil/Ind) - India (Rel/Com); Rider + War Elephant

Substitue Persia or Ottomans for Sumeria (only Agr. civ) and that list looks good to me.