Clash of the Continents - set up thread

[MrWhereItsAt]

Civs
I like the idea of having civs modded a little to change our names, titles, city names etc. New Zealanders or similar (I need to decide this) is fine for me, and I would choose Kiwi city and leader etc names. We should probably all come up with the exact things we want, namely:

Civ name, civ colour, leader name, leader titles, city names.

and get the modder to change to these. Then we would also choose our UU and traits. Once we have chosen these two we may need to discuss them here a bit for balance's sake. As for starting techs, as I think it is a bit imbalancing to be able to completely specify all three of UU, traits and techs, I think we should get the starting techs of whatever regular civ has the same UU as that which we choose, just so we don't all choose the most expensive or useful starting techs. Sound fair?

Map considerations

A Pangaea sounds good to me, to make things interesting early on. I have no opinion on the slow/fast tech progression if we go with Pangaea, but if we split the land up, then I do NOT want a slower progression, as the makes things a bit dull, where you have done all your exploring and you're trying to advance through one method or another to keep things interesting.

The idea of having all 4 of one group on each half of the continent or each group having separate continents came I think from my idea, where we either forbid trading with members of the other group, or forbid it as soon as you discover at least one member of your group, at least until everyone knows all of their own group. I thought of this because, for example in the team game of 2xplayer teams, there is some exchange between members of supposed opposing teams. I think this is inevitable for a time, but I would hope we can encourage a team effort rather than just another regular civ game. What do you think of these ideas? Perhaps if each team all started on their own separate half of a Pangaea this would be sufficient to encourage teamwork.

This could require a careful map preparation though, so that the same-team civs were located far enough from each other to be able to build a decent core without running into their teammembers too badly, and with enough of a gap between them and the other team that they would be more likely to contact their own team first. Another idea I have is to make the connection between the two teams not only large, but very valuable, full of specials, making conflict in this area a certainty.

[Aqualung71]

I think this game is about working as a team against another team, with tactical and strategic wars being generated intermittently throughout the game, either between both teams or just between isolated team members. Therefore I strongly favour a Pangea map, perhaps even slightly crowded (which is why I initially suggested Small size, though standard would also be good).

A cooked map would definitely be the best. I think some nice natural terrain features like defensive mountain ranges separating the teams, or certain civs of the teams, or even team members from each other to provide more challenge. I don't necessarily think that all 4 team members should be on one end of the continent and the other 4 team members on the other end. Perhaps one member of each team should start isolated from the other 3, thus bringing some interesting defensive teamwork strategies into play.

There's a whole myriad of these type of issues that can be set up in an interesting way through the map generation and start locations.

As for modding the civs, I'm not real big on it. I think one of the factors for each team is how well they pick their 4 civs, and how well they play to their traits as a team.

I guess we'll be playing with locked alliances also.

Why don't we start with 2 settlers and 2 warriors, to get things moving quickly?

[Aqualung71]

Also, there are plenty of pre-prepared maps around if we look....like real earth maps or middle-earth maps. Maybe we could play with one of those.

[snoopy369]

Now, real earth would be interesting. One group in Europe, one in asia, as advertised?

[snoopy369]

Or even the "Fall of Rome" scenario map. That's a good map of europe + asia, lots of resources and whatnot, and a pangea.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
I think this game is about working as a team against another team, with tactical and strategic wars being generated intermittently throughout the game, either between both teams or just between isolated team members. Therefore I strongly favour a Pangea map, perhaps even slightly crowded (which is why I initially suggested Small size, though standard would also be good).

A cooked map would definitely be the best. I think some nice natural terrain features like defensive mountain ranges separating the teams, or certain civs of the teams, or even team members from each other to provide more challenge. I don't necessarily think that all 4 team members should be on one end of the continent and the other 4 team members on the other end. Perhaps one member of each team should start isolated from the other 3, thus bringing some interesting defensive teamwork strategies into play.

There's a whole myriad of these type of issues that can be set up in an interesting way through the map generation and start locations.

As for modding the civs, I'm not real big on it. I think one of the factors for each team is how well they pick their 4 civs, and how well they play to their traits as a team.

I guess we'll be playing with locked alliances also.

Why don't we start with 2 settlers and 2 warriors, to get things moving quickly?

Aqualung..... I am with you on most points. I like th eidea of some tough interior terrain. And the two settler start helps.

[Aqualung71]

Team members are free to trade all and any information whenever they wish......as in directions for meeting, map info, tech research info, etc.

The only thing we should really ban would be "friendly" GA triggering and leader farming. Even gifting of cities within a team is ok, as it is part of the team strategy to make sure the team is well balanced.....or not.....depending on objectives.

This opens up a lot of strategic possibilities, and as long as it's done by the team, no problem.

We could of course play with a slightly larger map and have a few AI thrown into the mix!

Thinking more about the map, I'm not sure that an earth map would be the most fun. I think a tailor-made map with some mountainous/tundra/desert boundaries might be kinda cool.

I'm with Rhoth on difficulty......Demi-God or Deity, though corruption will be horrible under Deity......and it would sorta make the AI option unworkable.

On MWIA's comments regarding promoting team play by limiting tech trade between teams, I don't think this is necessary. I think we have to assume we will all play "for the team", or else we shouldn't be here. Thus, trading between the 2 teams becomes a simple decision. Either both teams want to, or it doesn't happen. But I like the idea on having the "no-man's land" full of nice resources, etc.

[snoopy369]

We could play the standard game of "resource battle", where we have some resources in our areas, but most of the luxes, and perhaps particular strat resources as well, are in the middle no-mans-land area ... always leads to good action, since you *have* to fight over them. It's a standard RTS map.

Deity or Demigod is fine, but no AI please either way - i hate playing with them in PBEMs.

[McMeadows]

Pffff discussion is moving fast...

Pangea vs Continents
My thoughts originated from the invite. I thought the idea was to decide which team is best at C3C and therefore I was looking for building, war and luxes/resources tactics components. For fairness I suggested identical land masses.
Nonetheless if the organising committee expresses strong wishes to play Pangea, I'll settle even more so, now that it appears the majority is supporting that.

civs
I still think it's intersting stragey planning to let the teams decide how to distribute the traits among themselves. There are 8 and each team has 4 players. On the UU's same choice strategy. And what does it matter if we would, in the end all have the same UU?

trade / cooperation
I agree with Aqua. The focuss is on team work, so less as possible limitations there. I do also agree on his restrictions of leader farming and GA triggering. I would hesitate to trade with one of the "enemy" civs.

terrain
I don't care that much.

start
In the expanding game we started with 3 settlers, 4 scouts and 3 workers. I'm fine with a little headstart. A normal start is also fine

level
never played beyond emperor, but if someone fills me in on what the consequences are, I'm fine with it all.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Aside from a bit of tech stagnation, a lower likelihood of good stuff from huts and tougher barbs (not much), levels above Regent only affect the AI significant;y, so we could safely choose any level, as long as there is no AI. I'm happy with any level.

As for the restriction, sure, sounds like we may not need them. I'm happy with that, and just wanted the idea brought up. As for the ban on GL farming and friendly GA generation, that's fine too. There are a lot of other exloits that could come in, for example if you gift a city correctly, both of you get the trade for it, when it should only give one amount per turn. Hopefully we can have a gentleman's agreement on these sorts of things rather than listing them all, and consult with another learned member of our own team if we are in any doubt. I'd certainly volunteer to be that member for my team, as, being as heavily involved in the ultra-competitive intersite DGs as I am, I think I have heard mention of most such exploits that there are.

The no man's land full of medieval and later resources is still a good idea to me, though, and I hope others like it too. We could have Horses and Iron available in limited quantites to each side, and in this centre part all of the saltpeter, coal, oil, aluminium etc (bar perhaps a single amount on a distant isle somewhere) as well as more Iron and Horses.

[Beta]

Some quick thoughts of my own before we head off for the weekend.

Aqua - the limit is 8 civs in pbem so that rules out any ai's.

As to civs - I am thinking of theme here - and the asian-european split gives lots of trait choices. I don't know - I just think this will enrich the game, and give more ammunition for trash talking. The enlightened east versus the barbarians to the west - sort of like thing. It was sort of the original idea upon which the game idea was absed, and I would like to stick to it.

And I still say we limit the sides to one agri civ each.

Agree 100% on leader farming, and similar exploits. I think the simple rule is that teams on teh same side can never go to war with each other.

No!!!! to an earth map.

A pangaea map - large enough to separate the civs at the start., and with some tough terrain in teh middle.

And I like the two settler start.

As to difficulty - Rhoth's suggestion makes sense. As you move up in difficulty - three main considerations. Barbs are tougher. Only one content citizen. And research takes longer. That is what he was getting at. With a four team civ, we are simply going to quadruple ordinary research, so lets make the tech curve a littlle steeper.

AANOTHER MAJOR CONSIDERATION: we use the rule about no out of game contact with team-mates until you meet in game. What that will do is force some early tough decisions regarding research, as you will not know what your team mates are going to research. (we will need to be on the honour system on thie one folks).

I am away for the weekend, so see you on Sunday.

(Paddy - why did you open this up for debate. We will never get the game started now. )

[Rhothaerill]

I like the Europe-Asia civ split, limited to one agricultural civ.

No to leader farming and GA starting, and any other things deemed exploits in the PBEM rules thread...but I think all of us have been around PBEMs/demogames enough that we all trust each other.

Pangaea map with tough terrain and a middle bonanza sounds good...and of course I'm still voting for deity level difficulty. The only difference between deity and emperor for us is slightly more barbs from huts and a slightly lower tech progression. Sid is out as it nerfs the expansionist trait too, along with everything else, and I don't think we want that.

2 settler start is fine with me.

And finally, I like Beta's idea of no out of game contact until with teammates until we have in-game contact. As long as we can get together to choose our civs beforehand of course.

Let's get this game on the road.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Beta

............


I am away for the weekend, so see you on Sunday.

(Paddy - why did you open this up for debate. We will never get the game started now. )

have a great weekend

bet we can add more to this by the time you get back

as to starting it - well yeah looks like some good ol' fashion discussions going on

[snoopy369]

I dunno, i sort of like teammate collaboration. How about the only thing we can discuss pre-contact is where on the minimap we are? IE, unless we're on separate sides of the map, ie all 4 of us americans on the west side and all 4 aussies on the east side, in which case it matters little, we can say "i'm on the southwest side of the minimap, halfway down", but nothing else?

Otherwise it will take too long to find each other, and the team part is not as interesting (as we can't really be teamed up).

Unless we are on a pretty small (ie, standard) map, and we're allowed to tell each other once we meet where the other folk are?

I want to be able to meet up pre-2000 BC with at least 2 of the 3 teammates, if i'm expansionist, for example.

Oh- and if we do asian-euro i think we should be asian and you aussies be european. Otherwise i'd worry we'd beat you too soundly ...

[Aqualung71]

snoopy.....talk as much trash as you like matey, but never assume you will beat us with any civ combination!

Ok, time to get passionate! My strong recommendations are:

• Unlimited intra-team discussion and information exchange on all issues, at all times. This is a team game with only one objective for all team members, and IMHO at no stage should we be playing as individuals
• I'm even in favour of all starting locations being made public on turn 1. That allows for some pretty interesting strategy discussions off the bat! (of course, I expect some opposition to this one )
• I think it would be more fun if all 4 members of each team are not all located adjacent to each other. This raises interesting war tactics like cutting off an opponent from his allies, etc.
• No-mans-land resources sounds like fun. Definitely Pangea.
• Maximum of 2 settlers each.
• No-attack rule for the first 20 turns
• Limit on Ag civs is no big deal, but I'm happy to agree
• Exploits - I think we all know them. Most of us play a bunch of PBEM's and so I'm sure you would all agree that even regardless of the questionable ethics, it probably doesn't even occur to us to use them given the number of turns we have to get through each night
• Map size - I still think Small would be fun, but certainly no bigger than Standard. You don't need dozens of cities.
• Terrain - I love lots of mountains! Not so keen on Jungle. Let's have that mountainous barrier, or mabye evern 3!
• As for difficulty level, remember that corruption becomes more of a problem at higher difficulty levels due to lower OCN. Map size is also important here. Small map = 17 cities, standard map = 20 cities. Adjusted OCN at Emperor is 80%, Demigod 70%, Deity 60%, so at the higher levels it can have a big effect on your outerlying cities. I'm still with Rhoth - my recommendation is Deity, which will both limit the tech pace and test our economic management skills the most.

[end of rant]