Lung's FAST! pbem game settings

[Lung]

As there is some debate regarding the proposed settings for my fast pbem, i will follow Shavlor's suggestion that i start a post for such debate.

You all know the proposed settings. Shavlor suggests harder than Warlord, with a mod to ensure multiple settlers. Mods cause problems on my PC, but it's worth investigating. Stavros questions the flat world, and Jon questions some of my settings also, so we do have some issues.

Please post your thoughts here.

[Stavros]

I'll reiterate, to get the ball rolling. I prefer a doughnut world, because it brings the whole happy family just that little bit closer together And I consider it more realistic ie the concept that the world is a sphere, not a cylinder.
Otherwise, I like Shavlor's idea of a 3 settler start. His "mod" is only a scenario, not a true mod, so you don't have to change any defaut files etc. Should work OK. But like you, I would like to get the game rolling as soon as possible.

[Shavlor]

Lung I can change my "mod" to start with 2 settlers, 1 warrior or whatever. As far as the size of the map I must say play on Medium. Small is way too small and large is too large. In Hex's PBEM We are playing on large and I will probally never have one of my cities built next to my neighbors simply because the map is so large.
Lung I disagree with getting techs as fast as you want I personaly think that tech should take about 10 - 20 turns to get but that would mean we would have to change CTP.
Also cities grow too fast in Warlord and so I reccamend a higher level. King is fine
oh lastly about the world settings. Lung I notice one thing about Lung's DM. The only reason that production is so high is because of the rivers. but in this game it looks like because of all the ocean mountains will play a more important role.

[Stavros]

I Agree with Shavlor on map size. I like a couple of rounds to "stake my ground".Rather a larger map and one or two more settlers to get the mobility going. But as I said, I'm EASY, let's just get it going.

[Lung]

"Small is way too small and large is too large". O' mighty Shavlor, your wisdom is infinite!!! Hehehe...i couldn't resist

Anyway, medium map size is fine as long as the land percentage is reasonable. 50/50 is good, but 60% land mass is better. In order to negate the effective weakening of naval strategy, we can crank up islands over continents to minimise that - to say, 70%. I forgot the other setting i.e. diverse/uniform, so about 9/10 diverse is my preference.

Sophix has sadly failed to meet the challenge, as he has opted out. I suggest we don't replace him if we're going to use medium map size. If we were going to use large, i would find a sixth player.

Please post here your GMT playing time, your leader name you wish to use, and your preferred civ. I will be away this weekend, so i won't have the chance to start the game until monday. Shavlor, can you create in the mean time a scenario/mod/whatever to have two or three settlers? I prefer two, but i'll accept three if that's what everyone wants. The settings proposed now are;-

*King level
*2 x settlers
*Barbarian level the one immediately less than raging hordes (whatever that is)
*Medium size map
*Doughnut World
*wet 10/10 dry
*warm 3/10 cold
*diverse 9/10 uniform
*island 7/10 continent
*many goods 8/10 few goods
*ocean 4/10 land

In the above table, 10 is far left and 0 is far right.

Shavlor, please play test and see if all five civs get rivers always/mostly/occasionally/rarely/never. If it doesn't look good to you, then get back to me. Otherwise, just send me the file, and i will create the game. Personally, i think it would be easier just to play warlord, but with lots of rivers, science could be really fast.

Sorry fot the delay, guys, but i want to get this right, as we will be playing this for the next year or two, so these weeks are an investment in our game.

[Stavros]

Shavlor, after play testing the settings could you also give us some sort of idea what we should expect from the world with those settings. I can't quite imagine it myself.

I'm GMT +1, I suppose Lung will want to be Australia, So I'll take Germany. Name ... Hmmm... Ludwig, after the mad king that loved to build those fairy tale castles

[Paul]

I'll be Paul of the Dutch. I already e-mailed my playing time, but I'll repeat it her: 15:30-20:00 GMT.

[Shavlor]

Shavlor --- Romans ---- GMT -5
Usally check email most often 1 - 2 AM GMT

I will check the map out tomarrow. Since I am very tired and have work tommarrow. Lung I know my quote was amazingly intelligent .
[This message has been edited by Shavlor (edited July 13, 2000).]

[Jon]

I'll have the Indians and I'm OK for 0800, it's got to be there, and 1900-2100 GMT during the week. Weekends are pretty easy as, drunk or sober, I will hit the PC at many times during the day and night.

Those times are are GMT not BST.

I still reckon with six Players it should be a Large World and that we should have a Phalanx per Settler and an exploration Unit, Mounted Archer, just to speed things up and reduce the chances of 'bad luck' elimination within the first 10-15 Turns of having really done nothing but 'Press End'.

[Shavlor]

Ok I have done a review
I definately think that we should play with more water and definately play on a normal map. I booted up 12 different games and took screenshots of them and grabed the minimap. Go to my site http://shavlor.virtualave.net/ctp/lung.html. It will be a long wait but while worth. And well your at my site why not sign up. Anyway like I was saying.
The world with not be cramped but we will met each other sooner rather than later if we play on a normal map. Please look at the pictures and decide what you think.

[Lung]

Man! You've been one a busy little beaver, haven't you, Shavlor! Well done, old chap . The 2nd option is the best. That's about 50/50 land/water. However, i wasn't sure which side the options were. I wanted the opposite with islands, and also the opposite with goods i.e. more towards islands, and more goods. The goods are definitely sparse, and that is not good. I also wanted it even wetter, yet the maps seem about right. I will play test myself when i get back after the weekend, but i don't know if i can get the goddamned screenshots to happen.

Cheers for now!

[Shavlor]

Yeah Lung I didn't realise what I was getting into when I agree to play in this PBEM . Sorry getting the settings wrong. The options are 1st most land 4th most water. If you want I can email you my scenario but I was wondering how many units you wanted? 2 settlers? warriors? you get the point

[Lung]

2 x settlers, no warriors. As far as i'm concerned, if you die straight away, then so be it, but i have not seen it in less than 8 civs on a small map, so i don't think that it's a major concern.

Yes, please e-mail me the scenario (with instructions - they don't work without putting up a fight on my PC), and i will look at it. Please try and correct the settings beforehand with your 2nd option, lots of trade goods and islands over continents. The wet/dry level seems to be okay, but it's worth looking at maximising it to wet.

[Lung]

Shavlor has now sent me the scenario. If i can get it to work on my PC and the settings are okay, we'll start!

[Lung]

False start!!

Well, i got the 2-settler scenario to work just fine, but there was only one problem...only one settler!!! Well, at least for the other players. In playtesting, i noticed that while i got 2 x settlers, everyone else got one.

Shavlor, if you can change the scenario to make it 5 civs with 2 x settlers each, then please recreate the scenario as such. Perhaps you could crank up the wet level a notch, but that is not essential, as the land distribution is quite good. If you can't, we may have to go with warlord.

Sorry, everyone! It should only be another day or two now...