New AU PBEM course

[Tassadar500]

Theseus, would you mind giving me an estimated number on how many people you think will participate?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Theseus
Any final requests?

How will you be handling the victory conditions? If the conditions were to be something like 75% land and population between any two Civs, domination numbers should be upped to make sure one player doesn't trip it prematurely at 66%. Something similar with Culture.

[Rommel2D]

dp

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

How will you be handling the victory conditions? If the conditions were to be something like 75% land and population between any two Civs, domination numbers should be upped to make sure one player doesn't trip it prematurely at 66%. Something similar with Culture.

Good question... I hadn't really thought of this issue.

What then consitutes a team win? Why wouldn't we leave it at 66% combined?

And for the FFA games, allow any two players to combine their % scores?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Theseus, would you mind giving me an estimated number on how many people you think will participate?

I have no clue... 50?

I'd like to see a minimum of 36, for six games, if possible, but the more the merrier.

[Swissy]

The Civ3Players Ladder has about a dozen hardcore pbem'ers. I'm sure we could get up a team for each combo.

[Theseus]

That's sorta what I was figuring on:
'Poly: 20+
CFC: 20+
Ladders: 10+

Plus assorted other players from other sites... heck, we publicize it right, we might break 100.

[Theseus]

Oh, regarding level: Let's go with Monarch, as the happiness issues will be less daunting for newer players (and don't forget, this will be designed to make getting a fullish complement of luxuries somewhat difficult).

And regarding barbs, I do very much like the idea of Archers and than MWs, if people don;t have a real problem with that... puts a bit of emphasis on each team fully exploring their starting continent before two civs hit Medieval, and an extra onus on the FFA gamers to cooperate!

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
How will you be handling the victory conditions? If the conditions were to be something like 75% land and population between any two Civs, domination numbers should be upped to make sure one player doesn't trip it prematurely at 66%. Something similar with Culture.

Hmmm... on the other hand, given what we've seen with the major Demogames, perhaps 66% is not enough...

Teams with smaller land areas have been, er, persistent.

75% combined, then?

Thanks again for pointing this out, Rommel.

[Aqualung71]

As this is being deisgned as an AU PBEM course, with the pairings being biased towards one experienced player assisting one lesser experienced player, won't the participation of players from other sites with perhaps less interest in AU's ideas detract from the original objective?

[Theseus]

Hmmm... I'd say that this is our house, and anybody coming here must do as we do (more or less).

I don;t mean that in an aggressive or confrontational way, just rather that CFC has the GOTM, and if an Apolytoner goes there and plays then it is by their rules/customs, and the same goes for RBC, the Ladder, etc.

I'm very OK with this aspect of setting up this game/course.

(But keep slingin' out the angles I ain't thinking of!!)

[snoopy369]

Don't forget you can (using the map editor) set up versions with and without locked alliances. (Actual locked alliances in-game give the advantages of both preventing several major exploits, like teleporting and free GA triggering, and of giving contact instantly instead of several turns later, allowing Sir Ralph to put the civs a bit further away without slowing contact down.)

Of course I want to play a not locked alliance game ... When do we have a signup list?

Also, definitely consider having a single player victory condition for the non-locked alliance game. Two player, as stated earlier, means that the two teams that end up in the lead in the mid-game will just ally and crush the rest, making for rather boring alliances, rather than the sudden alliance shifting that can happen in a single-winner PBEM game.

I don't think this takes away in the least from the teaching aspect of the game, as you still have a lot of alliance making and shifting. Just less boring = more likely to actually finish.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Also, definitely consider having a single player victory condition for the non-locked alliance game. Two player, as stated earlier, means that the two teams that end up in the lead in the mid-game will just ally and crush the rest, making for rather boring alliances, rather than the sudden alliance shifting that can happen in a single-winner PBEM game.

I don't think this takes away in the least from the teaching aspect of the game, as you still have a lot of alliance making and shifting. Just less boring = more likely to actually finish.

How would this be any different than a regular PBEM with DARs then? I don't think the map is being designed to display much in and of itself.

There are many mitigating factors that could interfere with the two most powerful civs simply allying and crushing the rest, having four other opponents being the most prominent.

Going from a lesson perspective, it makes sense to me to bisect the PBEM game into two basic parts: forming a winning alliance and dealing with your former ally. By organizing these games around team-oriented victory conditions, we might not end up with a clean-cut, satisfying ending, but we should see nuances exaggerated in parts of the game that will make them clearer than they would be under normal cut-throat rules.

However, if the main point is just to have a big, fun, inter-site extravaganza, I wouldn't mind playing in that either...

[Rommel2D]

Argh! Can't tell the difference between edit and quote anymore...

[Dominae]

I think stock rules should be used, including Barbs. We'll get more of a showing from the non-AU communities that way.