The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Map: So I know it has been done ad naseum since the start of all demo games, but I think we learned a lesson from the Warlords game, one team per continent is BORING. 2 continents, maybe just one would be my preference.
Pitboss: Yes, please, pitboss. Hopefully we don't have hosting issues we had with Warlords.
3. Regular barbs; raging just makes it so barb-centric early in the game.
4. No reason for them not to be on, I guess. This would really come down to teams and their diplomatic skills...
5. Purely aesthetic, so whatever works.
6. Whoo huts!
7. Tech Trading, definitely. As for brokering, as I said in the main thread, that's a diplomatic thing and not something we should try and create rules about.
8. Random events - off. Could be too unbalancing in this type of situation (though they could be fun )
1. Only things I really care about is early contact, and maybe discouraging early rushing a bit (not making it impossible though) -- as someone in the public forum said, death by Chariot sucks. I don't know that demogaming can survive another C4WDG so we wanna make sure everyone has a fun game that lasts beyond 1000 BC...
So one or two continents, depending on the number of teams, and enough space for every team to develop.
2. One thing that's a concern to me is allowing enough time to discuss things between turns. Some people seem to want DGs to basically be MP Succession Games (which is their prerogative), but I for one like discussing strategy between turns (and allow for others to roleplay even if I'm not necessarily into that myself).
If we end up having only 3 or 4 teams (which I think would actually be a good idea but I don't know that it'll garner much support) I think we should play without simultaneous turns and a short turn timer, give people 3 or 4 days to talk about their decisions. With more than 5 teams that's infeasible though, if it takes more than a few days for your turn to come around people will probably start losing interest before long, so in that case simultaneous turns is inevitable. But then I'd advocate having plenty of time between turns: at least 48 hours, maybe even 72. You might not need that much time in the early game but as long as we have largish, vibrant teams that shouldn't be an issue as everyone should play their turns faster anyway.
3. Normally I love Raging Barbs, but we're here to play each other, not the AI. No or regular barbs please.
4. Any reason not to have them?
5. I always have it on, but as Zargon says, purely aesthetic, so who gives a sh*t, really?
6. I know competitive players are allergic to this but personally I like huts, even in an MP environment. Exploration is one of the four Xs in 4X for a reason, if you take away huts you take away a big part of the game IMO. As with leader choice, a little randomness in the game is fun, and it makes your glory all the sweeter if you win with bad luck...
7. Agree with Zargon.
8. Agree with Zargon: as much as I like randomness some of the effects of random events are awfully powerful, which can really swing the balance in an MP game. If there was a slider for the number and strength of events I'd advocate making it low but not zero, but as it's a binary equation I say turn them off.
I'm a normal speed player. Always have been, but recently tried a couple epic speed games, due to some posts on the general forum.
Speed impacts the gameplay more than I ever thought. I can see the appeal of the longer speeds (IMO made the game vs AI easier). Haven't ever played the faster speeds.
But, I'm going to be more or less useless if we go anything outside normal speed.
One who has a surplus of the unorthodox shall attain surpassing victories. - Sun Pin You're wierd. - Krill
Originally posted by Locutus
1. Only things I really care about is early contact, and maybe discouraging early rushing a bit (not making it impossible though) -- as someone in the public forum said, death by Chariot sucks. I don't know that demogaming can survive another C4WDG so we wanna make sure everyone has a fun game that lasts beyond 1000 BC...
I feel the same way. I'd like the game to be set up so that everyone has a fair chance to expand, but also each team shouldn't just be able to expand and not worry about military except for barbs.
2. One thing that's a concern to me is allowing enough time to discuss things between turns. Some people seem to want DGs to basically be MP Succession Games (which is their prerogative), but I for one like discussing strategy between turns (and allow for others to roleplay even if I'm not necessarily into that myself).
If we end up having only 3 or 4 teams (which I think would actually be a good idea but I don't know that it'll garner much support) I think we should play without simultaneous turns and a short turn timer, give people 3 or 4 days to talk about their decisions. With more than 5 teams that's infeasible though, if it takes more than a few days for your turn to come around people will probably start losing interest before long, so in that case simultaneous turns is inevitable. But then I'd advocate having plenty of time between turns: at least 48 hours, maybe even 72. You might not need that much time in the early game but as long as we have largish, vibrant teams that shouldn't be an issue as everyone should play their turns faster anyway.
The way I see it is that if we have 5 teams, which is about right, we aren't going to be able to play without simul turns and keep the game moving. If each turn must be played in 12 hours, there would be alot of times that I couldn't play the turns, ie, if I had to play from 2200 to 1000, I'd have alot of difficulty unlike UnO who can play in the mornings. Unless teams have multiple turns players (and it's not impossible) then there will normally be 1 set time each day that is best for them to play the save, leading to 24 hours per team per turn. This would be much to slow, 6 turns a month, compared to 15 turns a month if simul turns is used and a 48 hour turns timer. It will allow for teams who only have 1 turn player (which iirc is quite normal) to have atleast 2 days to get to the save in if they are busy, and if they aren't then it will give alot more leeway to get another person to play the turn.
3. Normally I love Raging Barbs, but we're here to play each other, not the AI. No or regular barbs please.
4. Any reason not to have them?
I think Vassals should be disabled to stop colonies from cropping up in the game, which they certainly will if Terra is the chosen map. Playing each other and not the AI, indeed...
5. I always have it on, but as Zargon says, purely aesthetic, so who gives a sh*t, really?
Yeah, not the most important, but as someone pointed out, the cathedrals use copper, marble or stone to speed production, so if you know you have the right resource the team can always choose to found the corresponding relegion.
6. I know competitive players are allergic to this but personally I like huts, even in an MP environment. Exploration is one of the four Xs in 4X for a reason, if you take away huts you take away a big part of the game IMO. As with leader choice, a little randomness in the game is fun, and it makes your glory all the sweeter if you win with bad luck...
Yeah, I think that huts have to be, because if they aren't any team that has a scout start will have a slight disadvantage not being able to pop huts.
7. Agree with Zargon.
8. Agree with Zargon: as much as I like randomness some of the effects of random events are awfully powerful, which can really swing the balance in an MP game. If there was a slider for the number and strength of events I'd advocate making it low but not zero, but as it's a binary equation I say turn them off.
I agree
You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.
With regard to game speeed, I think that anything slower than Normal means the game won't be over until CiV comes out, and tbh this game will die if CiV comes out and we aren't near the end...
You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.
2. Five civs is pretty borderline as far as simultaneous turns goes: more is definitely too much to not have it, and it's certainly not ideal but any less and I definitely prefer sequential turns. If we end up with 5 team I could go either way.
4. I've never played a game where I found colonies really necessary, I rather think of it more as a mechanism to cull late-game micro than as an unavoidable part of the game. I can see how some might use it, but I don't know whether that's a bad thing. Colonies are still the puppets of humans, if you create but don't defend them you risk giving up a lot to your opponents. Not a huge issue for me though, I could live without Vassals.
5. Fair point, but that's a very minor issue. Still don't care either way
9. I agree, Normal speed is pretty much required to finish this game in a reasonable amount of time. Even with a 48 hr turn limit an Epic game is gonna take four years, by which point we might be closer to Civ6 than Civ5 even...
Well, PAL want o join the game, but they also want a 24 hour turn timer. Now, I reckon 48 hours is just about the limit to keep the game moving and have a decent amount of discussion, so PAL would also be another team that would probably back the use of a 48 hour turn timer (if they didn't just refuse to play with anything other than a 24 hour turn timer).
They go play pbems if they want turnover that quickly, it removes the democracy portion of the game, and I know I'm not that serious about this game to reliably check in more than 4 times a week.
I don't think a 24 hr turn timer will have majority support so I'm not too worried about that. I think 48 hrs is pretty much a foregone conclusion -- too many people would object to longer times, too many (including yours truly) would drop out if it's much shorter.
1. Map: I agree that two continents is the best set. But one continent would be also ok.
2. Pitboss: 48 hour timer.
3. Barbarians: As we are going to play against each other, normal is the ideal setting. Raging would be too much.
4. Vassal states: I think is better for each team to agree what exactly means that they are vassal, instead of limiting to the game engine definition. So I would say no.
5. Religion: Anything is ok wit me.
6. Huts: I agree they are a important part of an 4X game.
7. Tech Trading: Yes and also yes to brokering. If a team wants to hold a technology, then better not trade to anyone.
8. Random events: In single player they are fun, but in multiplayer some of them are too unbalancing and remove the fun.
"Never trust a man who puts your profit before his own profit." - Grand Nagus Zek, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, episode 11
"A communist is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. An anticommunist is someone who has understood Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)
Tweet
)
Comment