looking forward to play an email game?

[Shaka Naldur]

I looked the 2194 email game and I can´t wait to play an email game
I don´t care which scenario,
who wants to play?

[Allard HS]

What about Vikings v3.1 by Harlan?

[Marko]

Or WW2: Pacific Theatre by Harlan? I have finely balanced multiplayer version of it.

[Shaka Naldur]

Allard,
vickins sounds good!!
which civs would be playable??

MARKO,
could you send me your multiplayer version of the pacific theatre?
what about your WW2 scenario?? when it´s goingto be ready? can´t wait toplay it

anybody eelse wants to play?

[RobRoy]

I looked at Vikings again. I think one major problem with that one is that everyone would want to play the Vikings; I certainly would - they're so much more interesting. The Byzantines and Abbasids should certainly be playable. But I'd hate to play the Franks, Holy Romans, or Hungarians if the neighborhood was controlled by humans, rather than AIs.

Someone suggested a modified version of Jesus Munoz' 30 years war. That seems a more balanced scenario, and the proposed double movement might improve the pace a bit (although I've always disliked the idea of using double land movement without also increasing ship movement). Someone also suggested Alex' Sparta, but I never played that one (error messages); there is a nicely balanced John Ellis scenario called Hellas in that period, but it's more empire-building, as I recall.

Looking back at some of the other one's, Kull's End of the Bronze Age scenario is a fairly fast-moving, militaristic one; and I think at least 5 or 6 of the civs would be fully playable. I think Mark Laanan's Fall of Rome would also offer a nice mix of action and balance.

I'd probably take a pass on the WWII scenarios, though. Not that I dislike the period - quite the contrary. Despite the amazing works that have been produced, I just find the game engine's limitations too severe when attempting to simulate that conflict.

[Stefan Härtel]

Hmmm.... OK, if somebody tells me how this works I'd be happy to join. I'd play the Abbasid's in a Viking game, but any other scenario would be just fine.
Just try to locate this on a Saturday, I suppose this is the day on which anybody can play.

------------------
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!

The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.
-George W. Bush

Shahan Shah Eran ud Aneran

Visit my Homepage at: http://members.xoom.com/SHaertel/Index.html

[Jay Bee]

I'd be glad to join but... I agree 100% with Rob Roy both in the WW2 and the Viking issues. Unlike Allard, I'd be for a scen with only a few cities (preferably one) at the start. To get the feeling I-built-that-civ right, you know.

[RobRoy]

Allard - You might be confusing End-of-the-Bronze-Age with Kull's sequel (Seeds of Greatness). In the former, each of the playable civs starts with 15-25 cities and 30-50 units. The questionable civ (Sea Peoples) has even more units, but only one city - I would still call it playable, however. Though there are slightly fewer units than in Vikings or 30 years war, I think there are still too many for a real-time multi-player game, so I'd think it a good PBEM candidate. The reason I keep bringing it up is it seems more balanced than Vikings; Vikings clearly has three very strong civs, and three weaker ones.

I like Jesus' 30 years war scenario, especially for its relative balance. But I doubt it will be as fast-paced as Vikings or End-of-the-Bronze-Age even with the suggested modifications to movement. That's not necessarily a problem, but, given the PBEM format, will the slower pace keep our interest over a long term?

Couple of stray thoughts on Vikings: While I agree that the Holy Romans face a difficult challenge, their position isn't that much more difficult than the French. I think both civs become a bit more viable (but only a bit) if they both have human players, preferably players who realized that they both have common enemies and could benefit greatly from close cooperation. As for the Hungarians - they're lots of fun when playing the AI, but with a human Byzantine neighbor...? Course the Byzantines might want to come to an "arrangement"...

As I ramble, it occurs to me, that you're right, even the weaker players could be fun, even if "winning" in the traditional sense is difficult or impossible. But I honestly think that the game would be better if all three of the weaker powers were represented by humans or none were.

Assuming we played Vikings, how should we assign countries? Country selection for 2194 seemed like "DIBS"; Allard's expressed a preference in Byzantium, me for the Vikings, Stefan for the Abbasids...but that hardly seems fair. Would some sort of preference list be better? Or some kind of random selection? Since life is never fair, I'd almost prefer a random selection - I'm sure we can come up with a reasonable mechanism - but how do others feel? While I would prefer one of the "big three", I'd be willing to play one of the smaller countries (but, again, I'd prefer all three smaller countries be represented).

Another argument in favor of Vikings, by the way (related to "fast-moving") is the maximum turns. Although I suspect in any of these scenarios, the issue will be decided long before the max turns is reached, Vikings has about half the turns of 30 years war or End-of-the-Bronze-Age (but still more than 2194).

So who's solidly interested, anyway? My free time tends to be feast-or-famine, but I suspect PBEM would fit nicely into my schedule, so I'll try to commit. With Allard, Marko, Shaku, Stefan, and J.B., that makes 6! A nice number, but have I over-estimated anyone's interest? And does your interest depend on which scenario and/or which player you will be? Also, Mao and Techumseh piped up on the 2194 thread, but I couldn't gauge their interest.

J.B. - If we were to play an empire building one, like you're suggesting (maybe Kull's Seeds of Greatness?), a better format might be to start it as a standard multi-player internet game, then switch to PBEM when it got too big to be playable under that format. I'm pretty sure we could do that, but the switchover might get a bit tricky.
[This message has been edited by RobRoy (edited January 11, 2001).]

[Stefan Härtel]

I somehow agree with JB, a scenario in which you have to do a bit work in the start is somehow more challenging, especially for an MP game, since you have something like a "race" in the start.

Is there any topic somebody doesen't want??

[Jay Bee]

Rob

Point taken although I've played PBEM's before (normal games not scenarios) and to me there's is no problem at all with having only a few units to move in the beginning. If the thing is well co-ordinated we could play several of these short turns in only a few hours.

I still have strong reservations about playing Vikings this way. I do not think it's playable in this format.

quote: And does your interest depend on which scenario

Absolutely, I love empire-building scens and tend to disregard the rest But I see this as a nice way to compare strategies. So if you go, I'll go. I do not care about wich civ to play. I'd be happy with the one nobody wants

[Shaka Naldur]

well,

by the way, AREN´T WE GOING TO PLAY THE GAME BY EMAIL????

I´d rather play an scenario with lots of cities and units

right now we are six players,
we should play an scenario where the powers are balanced

why don´t we play "time of thunder"??
if we are six player we could left the italian cities to the Ai
the countries are
spain, france, austria, ottoman empire, english and dutch (with just two cities though)

I think it´s a balanced scenario
I don´t care which civ to play but I think that it is the scenario that we should play

the empire building scenario are too many turns, and I don´t want to play an ww2 scenario either
the vicking is okay but there are just three major civs.....

just tell me what you think

[Allard HS]

Thunder is a great idea too! At least then I can play (and die) as the Dutch!

Hey guess what! I just found out how to crack people's passwords from the saved game files! Was quite tough to do, but it works!! hehehe! But I won't tell anyone and won't use it badly.. i promess..

Now if everybody agrees with Thunder, we could start. Everybody agrees?

[RobRoy]

J.B. - so yes you care which scenario, but you'd accept the consensus, and won't be picky about which player? Is that a fair statement?

Stefan - is that a good summary of your position too?

I don't think a consensus has developed just yet, but we've had two nominations and a second for Vikings; and we've had a nomination and a second for 30 Years War; and we've had a nomination and a second for Time of Thunder by my reconning. Even though some of the nominators and seconders (and others) have expressed reservations about these scenarios, they rightly dominate the selection discussion.

If some people prefer a more pure empire-building scenario, which one would it be? We've thrown out a couple of nominations: Kull's Seeds of Greatness; John Ellis' Hellas and/or Colonies3; BeBro's Cross & Crescent. Would any of these be preferable? Or are there others that are better balanced or more appealing? Given the time commitments that are liable to be associated with this undertaking, I don't think we should rush into a selection without making sure all the potential players are relatively satisfied with the scenario choice. I think we can still nominate alternatives, or second one of the options that've been bandied about in this thread or the 2194 thread, and discuss the pros and cons of the options. I'm anxious to play too, but would like to be sure we've got a good candidate.

J.B. and Stefan - while I share a preference for empire-building, in general, I would consider the ones that have received most of the discussion "mixed" scenarios, leaning toward militaristic, but with significant empire-building elements (at least compared to your average WWII scenario). I think that a PBEM experiment will hold people's interest more effectively if it has mixed elements, is reasonably balanced, and is fairly fast-paced.

Kull's End-of-the-Bronze-Age would still my first choice, based on those criteria. But I seem to be the only one pushing that one, so far. And I don't want to push a scenario that no one else is interested in pursuing.

Allard - Sorry, can't agree to Thunder that quickly. It's great, but I'd prefer both Vikings or 30 Years War to it. It has more serious multiplayer balance issues than Vikings IMHO, plus there is the problem of who designed it.

I haven't seen anything from Marko, recently. Is he truly "in"?

By the way, have any of you given thought to how we should pick countries or do you like the random idea?

[RobRoy]

Looking at my last post, I'm concerned that I may be guilty of prolonging the selection discussion too much. In the interest of moving things forward, let's just assume that we've got three choices to choose from, until/unless we get other nominations or seconds:

Vikings
30 Years War
Time of Thunder

Why don't we all rank our preference from among those three choices (along with any other nominations that are seconded). Also let's express any opinions you may have regarding civ selection (i.e,. random assignement, random selection, preference list, don't really care, etc.)

My choices are:
1 - Vikings
2 - 30 Years War
3 - Time of Thunder

I prefer a random assignment of civs (to the extent possible)

[Jay Bee]

quote: J.B. - so yes you care which scenario, but you'd accept the consensus, and won't be picky about which player? Is that a fair statement?

Yes.

Once again I have to agree with Rob Roy. If I am in, Thunder should not be the game to play. I think I would have a colossal advantage over you guys

Let's park the empire building issue for another game, ok? Said this I vote for 30 years war. Who knows, maybe Techumseh joins us.


PS. Rob, do not answer if you do not want to but... why is your Settler title underlined?