How Many Teams?

[pikesfan]

I think it would be better to start with few teams to see how it works, and if it works well, then allow 8 teams.

[Jon Shafer]

Well, things appear quite set for a 3-4 team victory at this point. I'm sure most people take that to mean 4 teams... if anyone has a problem with that, feel free to whine.

[BigFurryMonster]

You convinced me! 4 is better than more.

[notyoueither]

There should be 10 teams and 3 or 4 games if there are enough people interested. And believe me, there were 300 or more interested in Civ3.

Let the teams rule themselves, like tribes. The teams can then come together for contests of skill and will.

Twood be great fun.

[Arnelos]

NYE,

You can only have 8 players (AI and/or human) in any multiplayer game due to Firaxis' idiocy on capping MP games at 8 players...

So it looks like 4 human civs + 4 AI civs is the apparent endgoal here.

[Spiffor]

I've just seen the "builder's team" (which I thought had only one person in it) and there are 5 people there already, including myself. I think we should do differently : as many teams as possible, provided these teams have a minimum of X people (now, what's X ?)

After all, it's much more pleasant to kick a sorry tree-hugging whiner's ass than an AI don't you think ?

[Donegeal]

I agree Spiffor. I think that any team that gets the minimum number of players (up to the max of 8 teams) should be allowed. So long as that team manages to get organized before the Dec 1 start date.

[BigFurryMonster]

A problem is: you only play ONE turn via email at a time. The more human teams there are, the longer the wait.

[alva]

true, but the less room there is for any AI

[Donegeal]

If you get worried about how long the game will last, then play on a smaller map...

[zeit]

Until December 1st i bet 6-8 teams would have enough members to be counted as a serious team, and with 1 day per team, This game will be WAY too slow- even too slow with only 4 teams, IMO. Small map is too small for 8 human players. 4 teams per game seems like a logical solution, and seems quite fair, this is also what most people support.

[Spiffor]

I say we repoll

More seriously, I don't think that 6-8 teams will have enough personel full-time to be deemed "ready" by December. We're likely to see defections (I mean, people who completely leave the PtW DG, not defections to another team) until Dec., and the "international" landscape might be changed.

Maybe the question is rushed for now. We should decide shortly before the start of the game, we still have 3 weeks to worry about that.

Besides, it's normal for a DemoGame to be slow... I remember the people who feared the SP DemoGame would be too slow even before it begun.

I assume the first turns will be handled quickly : Leader X recieves the save, clicks "end turn", and sends it to leader Y who will do the same. We will probably have our first settler in the first 2 hours of playing.
After that, well, there should be enough things to do for the game not to be boring

[Jon Shafer]

Actually, the # of teams should have been something decided before the first team was founded...

If 10 teams pop up with over 5 members, what then? We can't even have 10 teams. And that's a moot point anyways. People voted for 3-4, rather definatively. The issue has to be dealt with now otherwise we'll end up with 6 teams come December 1st, when we only voted for half that many.

[Spiffor]

If too many teams are formed, then we could make several MP games, don't you think ?

[BigFurryMonster]

Yes!! And the winning team of each game (=planet) will play each other in the MP version of Master of Orion, when it is released!