Testing Direct IP

[Acemo]

this is a continuation...sorry

[Acemo]

Hey guys, something came up that I need to do first thing tomorrow morning, as a result I will not be able to play past 11:00 tonight sorry
If you don't want to even bother, I understand, otherwise I'll see you around 10:00. I will be available just about every night this week I think.

[notyoueither]

Nevermind. It is too early.

[War4ever]

ok well let me know when this one is over and then i can play hopefully in the next one

[notyoueither]

Sure thing. You would liven things up, I think.

[delmar]

Judging by the name, he surely would.

While I wouldn't mind to see our current game going to the end, I would like to let you (Acemo, nye) know that I won't be offended if we stop our current game where it is and start a new one with War4ever right away. We could even pick up this game later on -- it might make an interesting Industrial Age scenario.

In any case, I think we should start a small discussion about which settings we should change for the next game. Here is some food for thought:

- Number of tribes: I feel that a 4 human + 2-4 AI game on a standard map would be good (assuming here that 6 humans is not feasible for some technical reason - if it is, I would love it).

- Map more suitable for competition: See map size above -- I think the current one is a bit too big (I hope it's not standard). Maybe we should also set the water percentage to the lowest possible even if we keep everything else random.

- Game style: I would consider playing turn based. Haven't ever tried it, but I played a turnless game with extensive battles and it seems to be a pain in the ass. As someone on another thread put it: "whoever clicks the mouse faster wins".

Comments?

[Acemo]

I would like to keep playing this one.

I think 4 human, 4 AI would be good on a standard map, this IS a standard map.
To me this map size is good, I like the distribution of resources, I think some other map sizes have weird distributions sometimes. Also smaller maps (and less water) favor warmongering, not really my cup of tea.
IMO turnbased would take too long. With 4 humans take a turn and come back 20 minutes later, especially with wars going on. turnless games are too hectic for me. I prefer si-move, I have found it the best option. Also no AI in turnless.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Acemo
I would like to keep playing this one.

OK. On weekdays I am not very flexible, but I think I could play from 10pm to 1am EST on one day, for example Wednesday, and from 9pm to 3am EST on Friday. Is this good for you guys?

this IS a standard map.

Bummer!

To me this map size is good, I like the distribution of resources, I think some other map sizes have weird distributions sometimes. Also smaller maps (and less water) favor warmongering, not really my cup of tea.

Can't comment on the resource issue (well, actually I can: I like this distribution too, especially if I'll have rubber and oil as well... ), I assume you are right. As for warmongering, I don't like it either but I feel that we might have gone too far towards the other extreme in this game. I guess I would like to play against a "reasonable" warmonger who tries to kick my ass but is prepared to continue the game if his first assault fails. War4ever, do you fit the above description?

The main reason behind this "wish" is that I hear horror stories about how mean certain people are when playing MP and how cautious you have to be when playing against humans and I would like to see if there is some truth in this. Or, for example, these so-called warmongers are just really taking a gamble, and simply quit if their first wave of warriors find themselves in the meat grinder between two "peaceful" builder type civs.

IMO turnbased would take too long. With 4 humans take a turn and come back 20 minutes later, especially with wars going on. turnless games are too hectic for me. I prefer si-move, I have found it the best option. Also no AI in turnless.

I think I wasn't precise enough: I played a si-move game and the battles are just not what they used to be (and IMHO should be). If you are saying that turn-based takes way too long (haven't tried, so again I'll believe you), then here is a workaround: let's play si-move, but let's play the game turn-based style if someone starts a serious battle. I know that you can't technically switch from si-move to turn-based, but we could agree among ourselves that the fighting parties move their units one (civ) after the other (civ), not at the same time. People not involved in the conflict can do whatever they please. How is that?

Or let me ask you this: are you perfectly happy with how battles are fought in si-move style?

[notyoueither]

Wed and Fri are good for me.

[Acemo]

I also can play wednesday and friday starting at around 10 pm EST. please make sure to post of we are playing wednesday night.

delmar, AFAIK one can change from si-move to turnbased. I havent tried it, but I think it should work.
for the most part I am happy with battle in si-move. it is a little weird sometimes, but i think it makes up for it by increasing the game speed.

[notyoueither]

I will be on at 10est tonight.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Acemo
I also can play wednesday and friday starting at around 10 pm EST. please make sure to post of we are playing wednesday night.

I am online.

delmar, AFAIK one can change from si-move to turnbased. I havent tried it, but I think it should work.

That would be great.

[jshelr]

So

What do you guys think. Is this a good way to play??

[notyoueither]

It is working well. Not perfect. We had a couple of OOS errors a few sessions ago. I think Acemo fixed that with some adjustments to his router.

It is the only way delmar can play. He does not want to open so many ports on his router/firewall, so he cannot play at all on GameSpy.

Oh, if your the host, try to make sure your ISP is not going to change your IP every couple of hours...

PS. I think it works better than GameSpy.

[jshelr]

If you want someone else to work with, give me a buzz. Thanks