Balanced Pangaea PBEM

[alexman]

This is a 6-player, small pangaea PBEM, played on a balanced map supplied by Catt. The settings encourage ancient-age warfare and weaken the Industrious trait.

Some Rules:
No discussion of unknown techs. No diplomacy unless you have in-game contact. No exchanging maps unless you have Map Making. No alliances without an in-game alliance. Alliances are considered temporary (just as any other per turn deal) and can be broken after 20 turns without guilt. No trading zero-extra resources back and forth every turn, but pillaging and roading is allowed. Tech resale permission decided as part of each trade, and copyrights must be honored if so decided.

Modifications
Stock rules, but Industrious civs start without Masonry.

Settings
Emperor
Small (80x80)
Pangaea
Normal Climate
Temperate Temperature
5 billion years
Random Barbs

Luxury resources
In MP war weariness is reduced, so we weakened the Republic a bit by having a shortage of luxuries. Just one luxury is available to each player in the beginning, and the 7th and 8th luxuries are remotely placed, or even completely absent.

Strategic resources
They are not abundant, but if a player lacks a resource near his start, he has a couple of alternative choices for obtaining a source. As for the number of strategic resources, they are approximately the same as what the random map generator would produce.

Bonus resources
All six starting locations are reasonably balanced in terms of extra food. Other than that, the map generator's quantity of bonus resources are preserved.

Players
(in order of play)

Sir Ralph: Egypt
Nor Me: Arabs
jshelr: Carthage
Dominae: Chinese
alexman: Babylon
DaveMcW: Iroquois

[Catt]

I had some time this morning and the map is well underway - just about done. I've tried to implement everything fairly and in accord with alexman's description -- hopefully it will make for a fun game.

I don't MP, and haven't tried to set up an MP game before -- just remember, you get what you pay for

What should industrious civs start with instead of Masonry?

Also, someone (alexman?) needs to let me know if I need to do anything regarding civs / MP mode / etc. in the editor. I don't see any toggles (other than restricting the playable civs which shouldn't be necessary), and I assume that making changes only to the map will allow the first player to launch the game as a PBEM, with each subsequent player selecting his civ and passing it on? Finally, I used PTW 1.21f to create the bix -- I understand that the bix will work just fine when launched and played under 1.14f.

Should be able to finish the set-up later today or tonight (tomorrow at latest). I'll try launching it myself as a 6-way PBEM (with me as all 6 civs) just to run through the first few turns and make sure something weird doesn't pop up.

Catt

[Harovan]

Industrious civs start with 1 tech only.

It would be nice, if you would set up the game after finishing the scenario. You can set up the civs there. Make sure you set an admin password (and remember it!), this way it's impossible to load up the wrong file. You should deliver a 4000BC savegame to the first player (me, as it looks).

My email is sirralph at gmx dot com

[Catt]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Industrious civs start with 1 tech only.

It would be nice, if you would set up the game after finishing the scenario. You can set up the civs there. Make sure you set an admin password (and remember it!), this way it's impossible to load up the wrong file. You should deliver a 4000BC savegame to the first player (me, as it looks).

My email is sirralph at gmx dot com

Any chance of roping someone in to start it that plays with 1.14f. I've upgraded and don't want to reinstall and short-patch (or set up the dual boot you discovered)? If everyone has 1.21f, I'm happy to do it, but I thought NorMe might be on 1.14f?

Catt

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by alexman

Some Rules:
No research partnerships, but fair trades.

Can you clarify that? I assume this means you can't tell anyone what tech you are researching until you finish it. And what is the definition of a fair trade?

[Nor Me]

Re: Balanced Pangaea PBEM

Originally posted by alexman
No long-term alliances. No research partnerships, but fair trades.

I've not seen a discussion of either of these!

We should at least have the right to play the game to win.

[alexman]

Catt, no problem, we will get someone else to make the 4000 B.C. save with 1.14f. Thanks again for making the map for us!

Dave and Nor Me, the no long-term alliances, no research partnerships was proposed by Sir Ralph in the PBEM 4 thread, because that game turned into a non-aggression game of cooperation against the evil Shaka.

It's not as restricting as it perhaps shounds. It basically means that you can't make an agreement with another player to share all techs without keeping track, or to never attack each other (effectively merging your empires into one nation). I don't think it was intended to mean that you can't plan your research, although not being allowed to disclose your current research is certainly an interesting idea.

[alexman]

Oh yeah, I picked Babylon, so that means all the civs are set.

Sir Ralph, since you're going first, and if nobody objects, I propose you make the 4000 save from the BIX file yourself, if you cover the mini-map area in the MP setup screen. We'll trust you. Just delete the BIX file when you're done, so you don't play an SP game on it by accident!

[Catt]

I played through pop growth to confirm that the difficulty level was emperor and there were no other flukes; I also set the playable civs to the 6 civs in the game. I think I'm done. It will be up to Sir Ralph to launch the game and input the player names, etc. unless you've another approach. If someone confirms that 1.21f is a no-no and you therefore don't want me to start it, I'll send the bix along to SR.

Oh, and I'll check this thread occasionally to see how it progresses

Catt

[Harovan]

1.21f is a no-no for Nor Me. Thanks Atarigreed for not being able to localize a simple patch for so many months.

You can send the bix to me, I will cover the minimap and delete the file after it.

[Dominae]

Some questions/comments:

1. No long-term tech deals: I suggest we implement this by 1) requiring that you can only propose a tech in trade if you currently possess it, and 2) barring any out-of-game tech planning. IMO it is too easy for two players to agree to a long-lasting alliance, and split up the tech tree between them. The goal here is, as far as possible, only use the in-game mechanics (i.e. the diplomacy screen) for tech-trading.

2. Fair trades: I see no way to enforce this without restricting our options. What if you want to gift a tech in order to avoid being attacked? If my suggestion in (1) above is adopted, I do not think we need to also require that tech trades equal out in point cost.

3. No long-term alliances: How is this going to work? If war breaks out in (say) a 2v2, does each side have to change allies every 20 turns!? Diplomacy is what makes PBEM fun for me...I want more fighting than the last game too, but also I want to avoid making this game a pure slug-fest.


Dominae

[Harovan]

I set up the game and played my first turn. Before I send it to Nor Me, we should entirely clarify the ruleset.

[Catt]

Bix sent to Sir Ralph at the address above. SR - I didn't tie the specific civs to specific play order -- you will need to do so when you set up the game as the admin.

Have fun!

Catt

[Nor Me]

Even if we agree not to say so explicitly, we could still end up with unspoken alliances or even research partnerships. Trying to outlaw these is going to seem artificial. It's just often the most sensible way to play.

IMO it is too easy for two players to agree to a long-lasting alliance, and split up the tech tree between them.

You're right but it's easier for three in science. Hopefully a 6 player game will not see any of this at least until players start getting eliminated.

but fair trades

Now this I really object to. I need the right to give away tech etc.


4 player games just become 2 vs 2 alliances. They'd normally only be broken if 1 player thought he could win against the other 3. It is possible to form a secret alliance with someone on the opposite side though obviously I've never had the opportunity to try that in civ.

[Nor Me]

Did I not mention that a problem could be people having the same alliances in different games or giving up in favour of someone else. This is why it should be at least polite to play to win and not to be eliminated etc. Not that that could be enforced.

DaveMcW thinks we ought to play with 1.21f. Obviously this is possible.