YASP - Yet Another Sabrewolf Pbem

[sabrewolf]

i prefer sending the passwords as the original biq-file may be too tempting if things go bad

lets agree on details here and then i'll post the specs to conqueror.

thanks again for volunteering!

[Andydog]

Okay I’ll start things off then.

As Conqueror has generously offered to set a map up for us (thanks again Conqueror!), we have the opportunity to get a really interesting game going.

What does everyone think of my earlier idea about each of us having a continent? I’ll elaborate further:

As there are 5 of us, the world would consist of 5 continents. Each would have roughly the same landmass (although shapes may vary), and equal amounts of resources (to keep things balanced). I would suggest a standard sized world. Continents would be separated such that it is very difficult to establish contact with each other until astronomy (although mapmaking may make things easier if you want to divert your production from developing your continent to producing suicide galleys).

Thus the early game would be all about building and researching, leading to a very interesting middle game!

[sabrewolf]

i consider myself a builder too. but i'm a bit worried about the whole "own continents" idea. invasions get extremely difficult and the only way you have a chance is through technological advantage. distances are too far and reinforcements take too long to effectively wager a war.

the option of an early attack is basicly out, which makes some civs useless. eg. why have a chasqui scout (sp?) if you can't go settlerbopping? otoh, seafarers will rule as their curraghs will find the others and others left out have more or less lost from that point on.

there won't be a rush for that ivory which is just in the middle of 3 civs and the risk of placing a weakly defended faraway city, just to grab that resource...

also, 5 equal continents will make everything quite artificial. conqueror will have to tweak quite a lot to make the situation reasonably fair. distances to the next player, corruption issues (being on the far side of an island would be death), productivity, bonuses, etc. make a great difference.

i'd prefer having well defendable but connected continents, a bit like north and south america or asia and africa are connected.

don't get me wrong, i'll happily agree to play andygod's () settings, i'm just trying to point out some possible difficulties...

[Andydog]

Just a few comments to that sabrewolf:

the option of an early attack is basicly out, which makes some civs useless. eg. why have a chasqui scout (sp?) if you can't go settlerbopping?

True, but on the plus side, less early attacks won't lead to someone getting eliminated or severly disadvantaged from a very early stage of the game. With the continents idea, I imagine the ancient era would consist of very careful city placement, and lots of planning etc, perhaps risking a few curraghs at the expense of growth.. or wonders.. ultimately everyone would get at least an Ancient Age worth of excitement.

Also, for this type of game, I would think that civ traits would be more important than UUs - early growth and science being key.

there won't be a rush for that ivory which is just in the middle of 3 civs and the risk of placing a weakly defended faraway city, just to grab that resource...

Imho the SoZ is overpowered anyway. With less emphasis of early age warfare, this wonder wouldn't be so powerful. I still think it would be useful though in this type of game.

also, 5 equal continents will make everything quite artificial. conqueror will have to tweak quite a lot to make the situation reasonably fair. distances to the next player, corruption issues (being on the far side of an island would be death), productivity, bonuses, etc. make a great difference.

There would be quite a bit of work involved in trying to balance each continent, I guess it depends on how much time Conqueror is able to provide. But you mention something interesting there - if you do choose seafaring thus opting for a better chance at establishing early contacts than the non-seafaring civs, then the trade off is that you're capital will be at the far side of the continent..

Guys honestly I don’t mind what world we go for. I just though the continents thing would lead to a different sort of game that would force you to play and think differently than usual. For example, do I choose a seafaring civ and hope for an extra contact or two before the others? Or should I choose agricultural and hope for rivers/lakes so I can grow faster than the others? Do I take the Byzantines and cause someone chaos with the Dromon? Or do I take the industrious scientific Ottomans, grow flat out with fast workers early on, gain extra techs, and later to pounce on my neighbours with my Sipahls triggering an almighty golden age in the process? Do I take the Vikings and try to stunt my neighbours growth with beserkers, or would I rather have a non-militaristic trait to better help with production? Shall I play a warmonger style to foil the builder, or concentrate on good relations and trade for that extra luxury so I can hike science up by another 10%?

Again, I really don’t care guys, I’m happy to go with the flow, and the continents idea was only a suggestion.

And now I better get back to work!

[sabrewolf]

ok, but to make own-continents more interesting, i'd propose raging barbarians (they're also a nice playing ground for elites ).

speaking of elites: imho, make the military academy NOT require a victorious army, as this will make it more balanced.

btw, playing PBEM with a mod/map means iirc no SGLs. is there a way to solve this? maybe conquest (the mapmaker) replacing conquest.biq (the default rule-package) temporarily with the mod.biq and starting it as regular PBEM? i don't know.

btw, are we chosing civs? or are all random?

[Krill]

If we are choosing civs, can I be the Maya? My only complaint against random is that some civs are not good at this sort of scenario.

And I would suggest that the continents be placed within 10 tiles of each other, so we don't have to spend ages exploring.

[Andydog]

I'm keen to choose your own civ, if everyone else likes the continents idea.

Guys speak up if you would rather play a different world, I'm not trying to dictate terms here by any means..

I would say that continents should be placed within 8 tiles of each other, that means that curraghs spend 2 turns in ocean for a seafaring civ and 3 for a non seafaring civ (if you're lucky enough to point them in the right direction!).

What's this about no SGL's and mods? It would be a pity if we couldn't have them.

[Krill]

No SGLs? fine either way, I'm happy.

I would say that continents should be placed within 8 tiles of each other, that means that curraghs spend 2 turns in ocean for a seafaring civ and 3 for a non seafaring civ (if you're lucky enough to point them in the right direction!).

Seems fair, so I agree with this.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Ill play on whatever map you guys end up choosing , but I wont choose my civ untill I know the final spec on the map

I am happy to have a random civ if everyone else does, but if your choosing then so will I

[sabrewolf]

no, please not more than 1 turn away off the coast! seafaring civs not only have faster movement, but also much higher survivability rate. they'll cross an 8 tile ocean with about a 50% (0.75^3) chance, whereas non-seafarers not only take more turns, but also a higher sink rate (50% survival rate each turn, iirc) which comes to a 12.5% chance... far too low! imho 3 ocean tiles distance is plenty...

krill, you misunderstood me. i DO want SGLs, but afaik they're deactivated by default because of the MP community

as for chosing civs: i agree with CM... it depends on the game specs. if continents are 10 tiles apart, i want seafaring. with raging barbs, i want the maya too, etc etc etc

btw, what do you people think of the idea of a nice goody island in the middle. you can send over your settlers to get the yummy cattle but risk losing them, while pure builders will concentrate on their own island. that would add some spice to the game

and generally: i hope conquerer can surprise us here and there (as long as everyone has the same advantage )

[Krill]

i hope conquerer can surprise us here and there (as long as everyone has the same advantage )

Same here.

And I'm willing to have a different civ, such as Carthage, even if we have little ocean, or china etc

[Andydog]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
no, please not more than 1 turn away off the coast! seafaring civs not only have faster movement, but also much higher survivability rate. they'll cross an 8 tile ocean with about a 50% (0.75^3) chance, whereas non-seafarers not only take more turns, but also a higher sink rate (50% survival rate each turn, iirc) which comes to a 12.5% chance... far too low! imho 3 ocean tiles distance is plenty...

The idea was to make it difficult to establish contacts and wage warfare in the ancient age, thus enabling us all to get a thriving civ together on balanced continents in time for the Middle Ages. This is when printing press enables communications trading, and astronomy enables boats to travel over sea squares. It wouldn’t be until the end of the Middle Ages (Navigation) when all of us were completely free to travel our world’s oceans and start seriously scrapping with each other. I would therefore envisage the Middle Ages to be a period of intense diplomatic wrangling where we all attempt to get ahead in tech, get those missing resources, etc, leading to some very interesting role playing.

If you decide to choose seafaring, then yes obviously you would have a better chance at establishing an early contact (42% as opposed 12.5%, assuming you point your curragh in the right direction), but bear in mind that the seafaring civ will have higher corruption on their continent due to their capital being on the coast rather than in the middle of it. They will have also sacrificed production or growth or gold bonuses by choosing the seafaring trait over the commercial or agricultural or industrious trait. I would expect for example the Netherlands to grow well, but not as quickly as Maya. Therefore Maya could have the ability to send out more ships than the Netherlands which increases their odds.

Someone may even decide to not send any ships out and wait to be found – choosing instead to pump all production and gold into growth and science. Imagine your disappointment as a seafarer if you met someone who already had all your techs, or was not willing to trade with you because they had a faster research rate.

I would suggest we adopt the Iron Civer code of conduct, so two players would have to have embassies before entering into tech alliances, and would have to declare that alliance to the others. This would then give the others the opportunity to try and find each other so they can enter into a similar alliance should this eventuate.

What does everyone think? Continents separated by 8 tiles or continents separated by 3 tiles? 3 tiles would mean that we could easily see where the other continents are and thus contacts would be established early for everyone.

btw, what do you people think of the idea of a nice goody island in the middle. you can send over your settlers to get the yummy cattle but risk losing them, while pure builders will concentrate on their own island. that would add some spice to the game

I would be more inclined to let Conqueror decide if he wants to add such an Easter egg in.. I like to be kept guessing!

[sabrewolf]

andydog,
basicly you mean every non-seafaring player has to research all the way to astronomy, before being able to meet the others?

as for seafaring missing out on trade because of corruption: not really... every coastal city gives 1 more trade unit. harbors are a lot cheaper so coastal-connection is faster and corruption sinks with connected cities. and not being seafaring doesn't mean you won't end up on the coast...

3 tile ocean passages still gives seafaring the double survival rate, but at least the others have a resonable fair chance of ever meeting the others (you can forget early warfare as no one will risk transporting units if they can sink.

we've both had chances to explain why we want 8 vs. 3 ocean tiles, so let's see what the others think...

aaaanyhow, whatever we decide, our choices of civs are going to be a problem (except with random civs). i therefor prefer that everyone choses 2 traits they want, so if 3 people like the dutch, conqueror just changes eg. spain and the english to agri/seafaring. or if several want inca.... you get my point

please everyone discuss more about the specs. this weekend i'll set up a list of points which we are not unanimous in and then we'll vote. agreed?

[Andydog]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
basicly you mean every non-seafaring player has to research all the way to astronomy, before being able to meet the others?

Not necessarily - the may be found by a seafarer or send their own suicide boats, even though they have a higher chance of failing.

as for seafaring missing out on trade because of corruption: not really... every coastal city gives 1 more trade unit. harbors are a lot cheaper so coastal-connection is faster and corruption sinks with connected cities. and not being seafaring doesn't mean you won't end up on the coast...

true, i was referring mainly to distance corruption penalties.

aaaanyhow, whatever we decide, our choices of civs are going to be a problem (except with random civs). i therefor prefer that everyone choses 2 traits they want, so if 3 people like the dutch, conqueror just changes eg. spain and the english to agri/seafaring. or if several want inca.... you get my point

sounds fine to me!

this weekend i'll set up a list of points which we are not unanimous in and then we'll vote. agreed?

Sounds fair to me!

[Moonbars]

If we go with this 5 island plan, I nominate myself for the Byzantines

I think I would prefer a random map checked by Conq. to ensure fairness, with some tweaks and easter eggs as he sees fit. However, I am also happy to play 5 islands, but would suggest we tweak the start conditions to include 3 settlers and some workers.