Total number of teams & minimum members limit

[Krill]

Originally posted by classical_hero
I really think that the number of teams that you have already is too many. Over at CFC we have tried with 5 teams and that was too many since the current MTDG for Civ4 Vanilla is quite slow, even with one team being eliminated. So having so many teams will be a great challenge that might stop this game eventually.

As this game is probably (I'll hedge my bets) going to be PBTS the number of teams doesn't matter except for the amount of people on each team.

[classical_hero]

Originally posted by Krill


As this game is probably (I'll hedge my bets) going to be PBTS the number of teams doesn't matter except for the amount of people on each team.

That is one problem with the MTDG at CFC. In think many teams have well over 25 people per team and they are mostly lurkers. The team that I am on is the most active, due to the fact that it is doing the best in that game. I doubt that even using Pitboss will solve the problem.

[Krill]

Having many people on a team is a double edged sword; at the end of the day, you only need to have 1 person around to play a save, you only need 1 person (though I like to have more to get a concensus quickly) to run a diplomacy chat, and if you aren't doing either of these all you can is talk about what to do in the future. 15 people on a team is probably going to be about enough to keep up a decent level of activity, especially if we have something like a 48 hour turn timer so that the game keeps on moving.

[Paddy]

48 hours -

lets be brave - 24 hour turn timer

[Whip[lash]

I agree!

[Zoid]

24 hours are not enough time to have serious discussions unless your whole team is in the same time zone. We need at least 36 hours for this one IMO.

[conmcb25]

I don't even want to talk about anything less than 48, this is supposed to be a Democracy Game.

[Krill]

Teams decisions...not individuals.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by conmcb25
I don't even want to talk about anything less than 48, this is supposed to be a Democracy Game.

I agree completely.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Krill
Teams decisions...not individuals.

And if the teams stay active and involve everyone - then chances are, IMO, that they will retain interested players.

[Hercules]

Towards the latter stages of the game, 48 hours may well be necessary, simply because the play will have become more complex. In the early period, team play may be naturally quicker.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Paddy
a fair bit has been said about numbers of teams, and numbers within teams, yet as the following pic shows, having good numbers does not help when all the members leave a team

I wouldn't consider having 5-10 people on all teams 'good numbers' by any stretch of the definition. In fact, you just proved why we should ensure teams have at least ~15 members each -- that just reduces the risk of teams dying even if the predesignated turn players drop out (which inevitably will happen)...

Taking a little liberty on the sign-ups (i.e. including the Spanish team, PAL members who haven't posted here but signed up on their own site and people of whom others say they will join but haven't yet) we currently have around 90 people interested in this game, the vast majority of them casuals. That's enough for six teams IMO. Seven could work if they're well-balanced in terms of size and turn players but eight is really pushing it.

Originally posted by Zoid
24 hours are not enough time to have serious discussions unless your whole team is in the same time zone. We need at least 36 hours for this one IMO.

Originally posted by conmcb25
I don't even want to talk about anything less than 48, this is supposed to be a Democracy Game.

QFT. I'd prefer around 72 hours in fact, give people plenty of time to do the democratic part of this Democracy Game, though I suspect that idea will have little support. If you want fast games sign up for some regular Pitboss games in our PBEM forum, 48 hours is the bare minimum necessary to allow for this to be more than an MP Succession Game.

[FlameFlash]

Something that worries me:

How many unique posters are there in this thread (not including myself)? :hmm:

[Zoid]

17 not inclding you.

[Aidun]

In my experience, some teams need ore time on some occasions and others need less time. A war in the Ancient era is just as difficult to manage as ome in the industrial era. In fact, teams typically need more time when their team faces a crisis of some sort.

We need to be a bit flexible. There should definitely be an upper limit, but not to low. We need some commitment from teams to play the turn as soon as possible, but with an option to take time up to the upper limit. If it doesn't work, we can always implement more strict rules later on. There's no difference between deciding on more strict rules now or then.

However it is also worth considering that in reality ministers and senators can also not have meetings for days in the case of a war. In such a case the circumstances demand a quick reaction. However, they have a bit better ways of communicating than we are and are able to meet at any given moment.

We also have to maintain some speed so the game doesn't become too dull, like the C4 Warlords Bureaucracy Game, to which Paddy referred.

I generally liked the speed of the C4 MP DG, just as an example. I'm not sure what timer is used there.