General Games Settings Discussion Thread

[Hercules]

Originally posted by 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).

Now that's an interesting proposal. I could support that.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Keygen


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.

I've said that for a while now. Hence my attempts at throwing kinks into things with the likes of Mercenary and Pirate teams.




As I'm not founding a team, a couple concept teams I never got around to for anyone wanting to try one:


Feudal Team:

Idea is that each individual member of this team would "own" a city and/or units. And would have votes based on what they own. A member owning a science city would have more say over science, while a member owning a soldier pump might be the general. Etc and so on.

Needs active members. Needs good leadership. How the government would actually work would need to be hashed out by it's members.


Unnamed religious Team:

Dedicated to spreading their religion. Violently when needed. Will not go to war on civs sharing their religion unless provoked.

Diplogame Team:

Very recent idea I've been bumping around. Haven't hashed out all the details yet.

No private forum, just all info posted out in the open.

Weighted voting:
The other teams get 1 vote in matters once contact (kind of a foreign embassy), unless their team ends up at war, then no votes, while members of either the team itself or the public at large all get 1 vote.

Votes posted in character count as double?

Work best for a pangea setup.

Of course, the obligatory Mercenary Team:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140419

[Methos]

Settings:

• Difficulty: At least Monarch, if not higher. This way resources and any other and modifiers play a larger role in the game.
• Starting Era: Ancient
• Map Size: Depends on the # of teams.
• Map Type: I'm wondering if Inland Sea would be good. Whatever we choose, I believe it should require some sort of naval warfare. I prefer the variety navies add to the game, so I disagree with pangaea.
• Speed: Epic. Marathon is too slow for this type of game and noble is too fast for the wars.
• Civ: Random would be interesting.

[proviisori]

- Start: Ancient
- Map type: No pangea, naval units must be important too
- Speed: normal... I could live with epic too, but normal is better

[Hercules]

As somebody said, getting the Warlords DG game started was the biggest disincentive, complicated by patches and launch of bts.

And then because a lot of people left, getting the game moving from amongst the remaining players (finding someone to play their team's turn) caused further delay. There is only so much you can discuss about where the worker (due in 4) can move.

As has already been mentioned let's get a move on.

We might even want to choose an Advanced Start such as in BigFree's game: Full Frontal Nudity.

(you get gold to build a city or two plus units and/or improvments to help the game get out of the blocks fast).

So it's not too advanced a start and gives plenty of things to discuss within the teams, from the outset.

[Whip[lash]

Originally posted by RobWorham


There is no plan as of yet CS, we are making it as we post.......

The only concerns shown (via PM) have been that it would be better to have fewer stronger teams with a good stock of active posters and potential turn players, rather than more weaker teams who decay into one man teams after the first couple of millennia......

You could assign more than one civ to a team. The team civ's would be allied from the start. It would make for a game of epic proportion.

I'm hosting a pitboss as a 4v4v4v4 with four teams (two from civfanatics, one from the MP ladder, and one from StrateGamer) each having 4 civ's. So we have four teams and 16 turn players, not a problem in PitBoss.

This format raises the dimension of teamwork and stragey. It also provides the opportunity for more players to actually play the turn.

[Hercules]

Hmmmm Definitely interesting.

[Whip[lash]

This format also helps to keep people interested in the game as they are playing their own civ each turn.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by RobWorham
And the biggest problem with the Warlords DG is that it is 11 teams on a huge map. Far too much real estate for each team, not enough pressure, not enough dynamics.

And IIRC it was one continent per team on top of that (or was it another one?). I wonder who may possibly enjoy such a retarded game. IIRC i quitted at turn 3.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Methos from CFC
Settings:

• Difficulty: At least Monarch, if not higher. This way resources and any other and modifiers play a larger role in the game.
• Starting Era: Ancient
• Map Size: Depends on the # of teams.
• Map Type: I'm wondering if Inland Sea would be good. Whatever we choose, I believe it should require some sort of naval warfare. I prefer the variety navies add to the game, so I disagree with pangaea.
• Speed: Epic. Marathon is too slow for this type of game and noble is too fast for the wars.
• Civ: Random would be interesting.

Map is random so higher difficulties increase the importance of a lucky map. IMHO it isn't that good for MP.

Speed: note that all Ladder games are being played on "quick" - good enough for wars So i think Normal will be fine, things will progress faster.

[Fleme]

What if the map is premade? I think it should be, and that the difficulty level should be atleast Monarch because it's silly how large your cities can grow without any real need for resources on lower difficulties. Expansion to resources should be promoted and like I suggested, the map type should be Terra (or another type of map requiring expansion over water) and some resources should only be available in the new world or on some tropical island (Corn, spices, sugar come to mind first)

Well, that's what I think atleast.

I still would like for the speed to be Epic.

[proviisori]

Originally posted by Ellestar

And IIRC it was one continent per team on top of that (or was it another one?). I wonder who may possibly enjoy such a retarded game. IIRC i quitted at turn 3.

No, it is not one continent per team.

[Krill]

It works out that way for some though, that he does have a point about it being broing as hell.

[UnOrthOdOx]

And I thought snakey pangea had won all the polls in that one...

[Zoid]

To keep this game interesting and speed up the game I propose we use a standard map (with 5 teams anything else wil be to big) and since there'll be no AI I think we should go with emperor. Monarch is too easy for DG's IMO. No raging barbs. Game speed should be epic, so we can use all our new shiny troops while they're still fresh. Pangea is a good map for early diplo.

I also wholeheartedly support Rob's proposal of an admin setting the parameters of the game. I don't want a three week set up period like we had with the Warlords DG...