Clash of the Continents - set up thread

[Paddy]

The North American Mob

Beta, Rhoth, Snoopy & Con



The Down Under Bushrangers
The Wild Colonial Boys

Paddy, Aqualung, McMeadows & MWIA



ok here is our set up thread

lets get our thoughts out and about

we have some great ideas and the opportunity to really have a wild game

the above team names are just what came to mind

[McMeadows]

After the invite, I've allready done some thinking and it might be an idea to play on a continental map with 2 exaclty the same continents with some bonusses and a minimum of resources and lux.

On 1 continent the Austalian civs will emerge, on the exact same other the American civs. Furthermore there are Islands scattered around (no symmetry in the map) with resources and luxeries. This will put more emphasis on a team effort and cooperation. Off course we would need someone to set up the map.

We could even edit the civs (Queensland (my taking ), New South Wales, Western Australia, New Zealand vs the some of the States from the USA), in order to balance the game to the fullest and fight the battle down to the best team.
Queensland could be agricultural and hmmm agricultural ... Anyway there are 8 traits and I think it would be part of the team planning to devide the traits among the players in the teams. Furthermore the uu's could be based on the excisting ones and just renamed. Also free to the teams to choose.

Both teams might need a private forum to discuss the strategy...

[Aqualung71]

I don't like the nam,es. Let's think about it!

And you yankee rebels are toast!

[conmcb25]

hey Beta is a canuck and Rhoth is from California, so they are north americans but I certainly dont accept them as Americans

The map idea sounds good. We need some kind of a twist to this PBEM to spice it up a bit.

Ideas?????

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by conmcb25
hey Beta is a canuck and Rhoth is from California, so they are north americans but I certainly dont accept them as Americans

The map idea sounds good. We need some kind of a twist to this PBEM to spice it up a bit.

Ideas?????

This is a team effort con.

I too like the map idea...but I want to change it. It might be interesting to have to divide up a continent between your own team. The only problem I see with it is that it would take quite a while before any interesting conflicts happen. If we all have to wait for astronomy and navigation before anyone can even attack the opposing alliance then this will be slow right from the start. I'd much prefer a pangaea map so we can have the potential conflicts from the start. And I definitely want someone to make the map for us.

One other thing....we should put this on deity level for slower tech progression or we'll be into the industrial age before 1ad.

The names of the teams are fine with me.

[McMeadows]

That's kinda contadicting to what you're saying Rhot. On 1 hand tech goes too slow (in order to get a war going), and on the other it goes too fast (on a lower level)?

The whole aspect of the game will be different than what we're used to. We would have to fully cooperate right to the point where the whole continent will develop faster than the other continent (builder conquest). After which we would be able to put our best on the table in combined strategy (warmongering conquest). And therefore it might just be a good suggestion not to put the level too high.

Off course it would take quite a while, but it would be just that twist con is requesting. We're all regular PBEM-players, we've allready accepted that games move slowely...

[EDIT: typo's and clarification]

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by McMeadows
That's kinda contadicting to what you're saying Rhot. On 1 hand tech goes too slow (in order to get a war going), and on the other it goes too fast (on a lower level)?

No not really. Tech doesn't need to progress to get a war going. You can have one right from the start of the game if you want which is why pangaea's make for more fun than continents in PBEMs (IMHO ). Also you don't need wars to have lots of fun with interesting conflicts between the two sides. In several of my PBEMs the trash talking is almost as much fun as the game.

As to tech progression, with four nations, each combining their tech research on each side, then we will be blowing through the tech tree very quickly. It will get to the point that all the nations are so far ahead in tech that the build queues can't keep up.

But it's up to everyone. If the majority vote is for normal difficulty I won't have a problem with it.

[McMeadows]

You correctly pointed out we couldn't get a war going untill at least mapmaking was invented, and probably navigation will be required. That would be too slow a game...
A little later you pointed out we would rush through the tech tree with the combined tech investment. Hence my remark on a slow game due to tech availability...

But let's not get to the word of it, we both know what we intent to say.

The high tech rate will probably lead to interesting choices also for build ques, different from standard game play.

[Rhothaerill]

Heh I guess what I mean is that I want a pangaea map with a low tech rate to get to the interesting conflicts and you want a continents map with high tech rate to get to the interesting conflicts.

Either one will be fine with me as long as we don't end up with a pangaea with a high tech rate or a continents map with a low tech rate.

[Paddy]

love a good discussion

[Beta]

The original thinking was pangaea. From my early e-mail:

Also - another twist which might be neat is that we stick to culturally similar civs. For example - one team has four asian civs - the other 4 european.

My preference is a pangaea map - large. 4 european civs on the western side - and 4 asian civs on the eastern side. Yup that sounds just duckie. I will get alexman or SR to set it up for us.

This is the plan I would like to stick with. I also like Rhoth's suggestion of slowing the tech rate.

And I really like the idea of four asian and four european civs. And each side can only pick one agricultrual civ. (probably Sumeria and Celts)

McM ... to be honest - the continent thing doesn't thrill me. Great builder experiment, but the plan here was a 4 on 4 mud fest, with lots of trash talking.

With Pangaea I can see the exploring and scouting aspect being key. And as we should also enforce the no map trading until it is allowed in game - it is going to be at times one of those exercises in directing the person who is blindfolded. (No No No - I said south of the lake you idiot!)

[Beta]

Originally posted by conmcb25
hey Beta is a canuck and Rhoth is from California, so they are north americans but I certainly dont accept them as Americans

Thank the gods!

[Paddy]

so are yee yankees and all going for the asian civs

[snoopy369]

Why not just have custom civs, as mcmeadows explains? You pick 2 traits (or 3 or 1 or whatever) and get the sciences those would normally give, and then pick a UU that's just the same thing as another UU in the game (whatever civs uu you want) ...

I think both ideas are sound. The Pangea idea is admittedly more 'normal' and leads to a more traditional mudfest, but the continents does lead towards a more interesting fight later on, and is so very different from the usual game ... Would certainly allow Seafaring to be a more ... valuable trait?

[Paddy]

I hear what you are saying SnoopCat

The only thing I see is the hassle of all the extra work modding up the civs that can take a bit of time If the map planner is up to it then excellent - party on

As to Pangea / Continents, I must admit to liking both ideas and they both have merit - yet the invite asked for Pangea, so I will vote that way