Announcement

**Kloreep** · January 12, 2006, 19:05

Re: Game Conditions

While we might want to leave some of these up to the other teams, there are some places I definitely would like us to vote on for ourselves.

Map settings: For the sake of us people with near-minimum req. machines, please no larger than a Standard map.

* Which victory conditions - all, only conquest, or in between

All, please, so as to not favor any playstyle.

* Level to play on - Noble, Prince, or higher

I agree with Enigma Nova that a high level would favor Expansionist, and perhaps some other traits. While I think we could go a little higher than Noble if people want, it should be somewhere in the middle range of the difficulties. (Raising the difficulty would increase city maintenance costs, which means a different flavor of expansion, and I believe it also increases tech costs, which might be a good thing to keep us from going up the tree too rapidly.)

* Speed

If we go higher than normal, I will throw a public tantrum and get sent to Mingapulco.

But seriously, please no higher than normal.

* Era

It seems to me that a later start disadvantages some UUs, but I'm not sure it's all that vital.

**polarnomad** · January 12, 2006, 21:59

Re: Re: Game Conditions

Originally posted by Kloreep
If we go higher than normal, I will throw a public tantrum and get sent to Mingapulco.

But seriously, please no higher than normal.

I pretty much only have one comment at this point. Out of any team, we would benefit the most from playing on epic... Seeing as we have to get troops to distant civs to be able to rent them out, if we play on normal then in all likelihood they will be obsolete by the time they get there, at least until we can airlift with airports.

*braces for Kloreep's hissy fit*

EDIT: Not to mention that the longer a civ does not have a particular tech to itself produce military units needed in a conflict, the longer we will get business.

**Kloreep** · January 12, 2006, 22:13

Heh, good points.

Mainly I'm just worried about this game ending on a sane schedule.

Though on an equally pragmatic note, I don't think everything scales right just yet. I believe there are still issues with rushing.

**UnOrthOdOx** · January 13, 2006, 00:55

The one thing I'm wary of is a Terra map.

The "old world" is typically pretty crowded. Which could kill us before we start. I'ld probably say incan were out as a possible civ in this case. It does promote early often war and contact with all civs quick, though. Both big bonuses to us.

One note on difficulty, I HAVE seen a goody-hut settler (rather cheesy for a demogame) on Noble, but never above that.

**polarnomad** · January 13, 2006, 10:42

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
The one thing I'm wary of is a Terra map.

Agreed.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
One note on difficulty, I HAVE seen a goody-hut settler (rather cheesy for a demogame) on Noble, but never above that.

I have never gotten a settler out of a hut, so it's not really worth hoping for.

**polarnomad** · January 13, 2006, 10:43

Originally posted by Kloreep
believe there are still issues with rushing.

Yeah, that's a good point, though how big of an issue might it become?

**Enigma_Nova** · January 17, 2006, 06:30

I'm in favor of a Huge map that takes a long time to load, in the hopes that this will frustrate the players with crappier computers and hopefully give us a head-start in diplomacy when we have a team or player scapegoat that we can blame for poor turn progress.

Prince, it seems - I don't want Settler huts to effectively give any team (but us, lol) a "You Win" message.

Pangaea maps. They'll suit us best with multiple people to sell to.

And aside from that, go with the defaults.

**snoopy369** · January 25, 2006, 19:59

Can you guys please post your votes on the map settings, thanks

Announcement

Game Conditions

Game Conditions

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment