General Games Settings Discussion Thread

[Krill]

Yeah, which is why I suggest Pangaea, get the diplo moving soon so things are interesting early on (and if anything like C3CDG warfare happens. War's always fun )

[AdamTG02]

Originally posted by AAHZ The problem with the Warlords DG was that is was Warlords then BTS came out, think a patch or two, then the holidays hit, not the teams themselves.

I can back this theory up, in my case at least -- after BtS came out I lost all interest in the Warlords DG (sorry Keygen,)

In any case, back to the main topic of the thread -- game settings. My votes, with justifications, are the following:

Map: Custom-made with the specs as Rob sets out, for the reasons given by him.

Difficulty: Prince (I usually play Noble, but with the more advanced players here Prince shouldn't be too problematic.)

Civilizations: Chosen by the teams, no duplication, but either first-come-first serve or random draw determining any conflicts. (It seems more realistic not to allow duplicates, and also promotes different playstyles, but we ought to have some method of resolving it when two teams want the same Civ.)

Map size: Determined by the number of teams we end up with; if only, say, five teams, for example, a Small map might be best.

Game speed: Marathon (It's what I usually play on, plus it makes things more realistic; i.e. takes fewer decades/centuries for a Classical Age army to reach a faraway city.)

Starting era: Ancient (I don't think there'll be too much disagreement on this; we want to get the full Civ4 experience.)

Game options: Standard except:
Raging barbarians (make things interesting)
City flipping after conquest (ditto; forces you to keep a city close to your opponent's cultural power centers garrisonned)

I'm possibly open to the other two nonstandard options Fleime suggested but would like to hear justifications for them.

Victory conditions: Standard
(We're unlikely to run into a Time victory in the first place, but if we do, it seems fairer to run things with all victory conditions enabled.)

Multiplayer options: Withholding vote for now as I'm inexperienced with multiplayer.

So those are my thoughts, at least. Anyone else want to share theirs?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Krill
The problem with Earlier DGs were tahat they were PBEM, so it was roughly 1 turn per week, and the lack of stuff to do lead to inactivity. If we have a turn time of 48 hours (which I think is about right) then there is no reason to be inactive because enw stuff is always happening.

C4W DG was Pitboss game with a 48h turn time as well, yet it died faster than any previous DG. Clearly that alone doesn't remedy the problem.

[RobWorham]

Originally posted by Fleme

Ancient start Is there any other way??

No tech Brokering Adds a twist to tech swapping while still allowing it. Also will be new territory for a DG

Raging Barbarians Keeps teams on their toes from the word go.

City Flipping After Conquest Slows down blitzkrieg tactics

Choose Religions - Not bothered

Random events are on Adds a twist, with the patch the killer events should have been eradicated, so nothing too major to worry about

Goody huts are on Promotes early exploring, contact and diplomacy

All victory conditions except time. It's unlikely for anyone to get a diplo win but atleast you could tinker around with the AP and later on the UN, which would be nice. Might as well enable them all.....

[Keygen]

Originally posted by AAHZ

The problem with the Warlords DG was that is was Warlords then BTS came out, think a patch or two, then the holidays hit, not the teams themselves.

I don't think it has to do with just being [i]Warlords[i].

It attracted people for being something fresh and in some extend for introducing something completely new, like PitBoss. When the game was finalized and then started many lost their interest completely.

Prove me wrong but when the Demo concept made its debut a few years ago it attracted a large amount of people. With the years the interest decayed, so in my humble opinion if we want this to succeed we need something real fresh, strong, innovating. Being simply a Demo game is not enough anymore.

[AdamTG02]

Well, Keygen, as I said in my post, for me I lost interest because BtS had come out. Even before that, though, I had begun to lose interest since with the patch to Warlords I could not access the game to check its status.

In any case, now that I'm back on this site I may stop by the team there from time to time.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Well, Keygen, as I said in my post, for me I lost interest because BtS had come out. Even before that, though, I had begun to lose interest since with the patch to Warlords I could not access the game to check its status.

The Warlords game suffered from a number of problems, of which the release of BtS was only one. Yes, some people like you undoubtedly lost interested because of that, but as I pointed out by the time BtS was released at least 3 teams were already down to a single turn-player. As Keygen pointed out, that game was in trouble almost from the moment it started. I think map settings, small teams, server problems, lack of novelty, lack of public signs of activity, natural decay, etc all had a lot to do with it. IMO we should tackle each of these issues to make sure this DG has a better fate.

[RobWorham]

I also think that the setup times these democracy games drag on for also helps burst the bubble before things even get underway.

I'd like to streamline the process as much as possible and leave a large proportion of the decisions to a non playing admin......

:cough: Step forward Keygen....... :/cough:

[Nugog]

Pangea map would be best - speeds up contact and diplo etc etc

[FlameFlash]

More just subbing to thread.

Sounds like fun and all. Pangea does sound good, though needs to have enough water too to make sure that those techs aren't wasted/ignored.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by RobWorham

I also think that the setup times these democracy games drag on for also helps burst the bubble before things even get underway.

I'd like to streamline the process as much as possible and leave a large proportion of the decisions to a non playing admin......

:cough: Step forward Keygen....... :/cough:

I'll gladly help you out with this Rob

[RobWorham]

Not a +1, just a show of appreciation.......

Honest!!

[Fleme]

After some consideration, I think I'm inclined to suggest a Terra Map (Or even Earth) with all the civs starting in the old world. (And some resources found only on the new world) Would promote seafaring, colonization and still make it possible to have early diplomacy from the get-go. Also, this way there wouldn't be civilizations who are in a disadvantage due to their UU or UB (seafaring civilizations).

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Difficulty: Prince (I usually play Noble, but with the more advanced players here Prince shouldn't be too problematic.)

The level should only affect number of extra happiness/health and boni on unit costs etc., and the level at which each player feels comfortable at is irrelevant if no AIs are in the game.

Game speed: Marathon

I vehemently disagree. To keep the momentum in a DG, there has to happen something or it isn't fun. Marathon plays way too slowly, especially the beginning, so I'd suggest Epic instead.

Raging barbarians (make things interesting)

I think the focus of the DG lies on human interaction and not on fighting the game/AI. We need barbs to prevent too reckless expansion/scouting though, so I'd prefer normal barbs instead.

City flipping after conquest (ditto; forces you to keep a city close to your opponent's cultural power centers garrisonned)

I absolutely hate that game mechanic, but maybe that's just me...too much luck involved for my taste.

The rest I agree with,

-Kylearan

[AdamTG02]

I could live with those settings; the ones I listed are just my personal preferences.