PBEM, Anyone?

[alva]

I would love to support it too, problem is I work in a kitchen, so I kind of have flexible days/evenings, and don't have many weekends off.

This situation could change soon though, I hope *sigh*

[Jon Shafer]

Ahhh, no heart for the game eh? You'll make a good target then.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by alva848
well , I kind of updated the votes. But Tiberius' vote makes it somewhat difficult

Sorry. Make it then small map and accelerated production off.

[notyoueither]

I'd do that.

[notyoueither]

Random.

[alva]

Originally posted by Trip
Ahhh, no heart for the game eh? You'll make a good target then.

I tried to arrange my vacation to coincide with the release of PTW , is that good enough for you : , unfortunately it didn't work out as planned .

Say, Maybe we could decide on a few other game issues. Now these are just examples, just to see what you guys think about them.

1. razing (allowed or not)
2. GL's
3. communicatins before map making
4.???

1. There's IMO something wrong with this option, it just doesn't feel right(never do it in sp either)

2. I don't wanne play a 'real' mod or anything, but I have alway found GL's to be , well, a bit to overpowering. They can really change a game.

[Buster13]

I have no problem with giving up a few hours to get the first few turns out early. It would get the game going quickly, which would be preferable to 5 emails to warrior....






I see your point about squeezing the game, Trip...I just thought that it would make the game more playable in a PBEM format. I mean, watching your worker dig and playing a turn where there's nothing new built or researched isn't really that different, except that you might have some units to more around, and possibly a domestic advisor to play with...

In any other type of game I would definitely be against Accelerated Production. I've played it a couple of times now, and I like a normal game better in general, but otherwise I'm worried the game will take well over a year to complete.

As I said before, though...I'll go with the flow without complaint.

(General Note: Attack Trip with horseman rush)


I don't think we should make any agreements for "rules changes" out of the game, but technically it IS diplomacy...so make whatever agreements between players that you want, but realize that it is what it is...

I also get off of work at 2300 GMT or thereabouts. I wouldn't have a problem scheduling some time to play the first few rounds. Mondays and Wednesdays are bad for me, and then there IS the girlfriend thing. Otherwise, whatever you guys want to do.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by alva848
1. razing (allowed or not)
2. GL's
3. communicatins before map making
4.???

1. I never liked razing, so I'd say it should not be allowed...
2. GL..? You mean Great Leaders..? Can we play without them...or what do you mean?
3. Communication without contact, shouldn't be allowed...except for "It's your turn"

[FrustratedPoet]

I agree with no.3

The players shouldn't be allowed to talk to each other about the strategy of the game until their Civs have actually met. It won't take very long for our Civs to all have knowledge of each other anyway. If you can see someone on the Diplomacy screen then you can talk to them.

[Tiberius]

I agree with 1 and 3.

WTF is 2 ?

I also agree on horserushing Trip

[alva]

2. GL..? You mean Great Leaders..? Can we play without them...or what do you mean?

Yes, it is quite easy to make sure they don't appear. You could still have armies though. I don't know, it's not a game breaker i suppose. Just to much luck involved IMO and too much favouring the The Dark Side.

[Buster13]

While I agree I don't like razing. I think it should be allowed since it is part of the game. If you don't like someone doing it, that again becomes an issue of diplomacy.

To play without great leaders takes away one of Militaristics biggest advantages, you HAVE to play with them...and I wasn't aware you could play without them...

Ditto on the communications issue...good thinking.

[FrustratedPoet]

EDIT: hmmm, three of us posted at the same time.

I think alva would like us to disallow the use of Great Leaders (either through modding the game so they don't appear, or promising that we'll disband them if we get any). I can see why he suggests this, and it would have some advantages, but I think we should leave it as it is.

[FrustratedPoet]

I'd also like razing to stay on, but if the others feel very stongly that they want it off then I won't complain. I agree with buster, razing is a part of the game, if another Civ does it to you and you don't like it then you should put them on your permanent 'hate list' and never trade with them.

[Tiberius]

Nooo. GL's are fun. Dark Lords can be countered with global "anti dark side" alliances.

We will play with the unmodded, standard rules, won't we?