Old pbem - TTT

[bdanv]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
I have never played a vets map before, but it sounds good to me. My only concern is if someone is already familiar with the map, and I am starting out blind, I would have a disadvantage. So if someone is already familiar with the map, to balance I would suggest that we change "no survey" to NO, so that we all know what the map looks like.

you can find the map attached. I only played some turns in the Vets8 game (replacing someone). Take a good look because it's not just any map. There are no pods, and this means: no bonuses like AAs or gifted techs ... Just take it like a extension of 'no random events'. Of course this can be changed by a CMN if we don't have an agreement on that.

another proposal: we can have 2,3 or maybe even 4 playing the same faction. (just think of four drones factions in a stagnation game with no tech trade)

Originally posted by mmontgomery
bdanv, does your vote mean that you like to perform attrocities ?

well ... in some cases ... it can be very useful ...

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Any idea who to recruit for a 4th?

Some guy with a good turn rate: Heniu, wdplays, or maybe Waab. I would prefer wdplays if he commits to a fast game. I can ask him if you agree.

[mmontgomery]

A vets map with no pods is fine. I would not play Gaia on a no pods map, but for Drones it is fine.

Sure, ask wdplays. If he does not work out, I could ask Mark Mayhugh. He is GMT-7, and we have played a few times. I know that he will commit to a fast turn rate.

I have a question about the Drones. On my computer, the Drones do no accumulate any tech points for the first 10 turns, just like the Believers, though the Alien Crossfire documentation does not say that this is supposed to happen. Is this a bug? If so, is there a patch for it? More importantly, will the Drones in a multiplayer game behave this way?

[bdanv]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
I have a question about the Drones. On my computer, the Drones do no accumulate any tech points for the first 10 turns, just like the Believers, though the Alien Crossfire documentation does not say that this is supposed to happen. Is this a bug? If so, is there a patch for it? More importantly, will the Drones in a multiplayer game behave this way?

In Old PBEM I didn't acumulated any research points in the first 10 turns.


I asked wdplays to join. I'm waiting for his answer.

***UPDATED***

[wdplays]

Originally posted by bdanv

Some guy with a good turn rate: Heniu, wdplays, or maybe Waab. I would prefer wdplays if he commits to a fast game. I can ask him if you agree.

I definitely want in. Give me a little bit to pick a faction and decide my votes on the open questions.

[mmontgomery]

If it is OK for two people to take the same faction, I guess I'll take the Drones regardless of tech trade or not.

If we do decide on tech trade and pods, then I'll go back to Gaia. But I feel that Gaia really need the pods to keep up with all the Free Marketeers.

[bdanv]

***UPDATED***

NEW GAME SETUP - SMAX game v 2.0

***UPDATED***

[florin79c]

All attrocities banned till council vote allows it : banned

Only basic crawlers design and no hurrying : no


Wellcome Wdplays to our game

Map is ok

[bdanv]

***UPDATED***

NEW GAME SETUP - SMAX game v 2.0

***UPDATED***

[wdplays]

Ok sorry to be a little slow. I wanted to spend some time thinking about this because I'm looking at trying some strategies I've never used before.

For faction choice I'd like the Data Angels regardless of tech trading. On that subject, I vote strongly for tech trading. Diplomatic relations are an important part of the game and eliminating tech trading really guts it.

All attrocities banned till council vote allows it : banned

As for crawlers, I vote for unrestricted usage. I don't really even understand why we would impose limits on crawlers. That's basically saying that we don't want any builder players so we're going to eliminate one of their primary tools for building things. Rush building SC's and using them to speed the build que in another city is something specifically discussed in the game manual. It's clearly something the designers intended. Additionally, not being able to rush build SC's will almost certainly lead to major mineral waste when you're building them for use around cities.

I concur with bdanv and florin79c on Transcend through No survey and No rnd events through Rand social. Assuming the latest setup table is accurate regarding No scatter, I also agree with their votes on this; although, based on some of their earlier comments, I'm not sure the table is accurate. I'm in favor of having pods in the game because searching them out is another thing that has to be managed and places stresses on the faction leaders. My personal opinion is the more things a leader is forced to balance the more interesting the game is.

I see there seems to be consensus on having no helo's in the game. I was wondering if you all would indulge me for a minute on this subject because I really don't understand the opposition to them. Given their multi-attack capability, I can understand why some might not want to allow them to attack cities where they can eliminate a whole stack of defenders in one fell swoop. In fact, I've played games where helo's were specifically forbidden to attack cities. (I would propose this as a replacement rule.) I just don't understand banning such a useful unit. A builder can use just a few as a defensive force to shatter a momentum player's invasion, or a momentum player who finds himself next to a builder can use a few to go hunting SC's and level the playing field. Any thoughts?

[mmontgomery]

wdplays, thank you for your well-thought post.

Here are my opinions:

First, I feel that I can play and enjoy most kinds of game setups, even if they are not what I am used to. I have never played a multi-player tech stagnation game before, and rarely played such a game even solo, but I have to say I did enjoy the last game much more than I expected. So I am willing to try things that are different that usual. With that in mind, there are very few things that I would consider a show stopper, where I just would not join the game.

I also am strongly in favor of crawlers for SP. I feel they are a very important part of the game. My suggestion was to try to limit some abuses of crawlers with respect to SP. Such as rushing expensively designed crawlers, which is cheaper than rushing the SP. Or putting extremely expensive crawlers in the build queue before popping a pod, hoping for one of the completion pods. But my vote is to allow crawlers to be used for SP.

For tech trading, I normally play with tech trading, but I normally play without tech stagnation. I can kind of see if the players really wanted to keep the game low tech, then banning tech trading would help accomplish that, since otherwise, with trading, one could end up with twice as many techs or more than they could research alone. One concern might be two player with formal or informal pacts allowing each to probe the other to steal techs; this loophole should definitely be banned as well. But for the record, I am ambivalent on tech trading, and will just abstain from voting on tech trading, and accept the concensus of the other 3 players.

I like pod scattering. I feel that certain factions, like Gaia, can't really be played effectively without them. I understand they do put a large random factor into the game. But my vote is pro-pod scatter. (I assume pod scatter is possible even on the Vets map?)

The problem with helicopters are that they are just plain overpowered. I mean, planes are pretty powerful, but they at least are limited to one attack every two turns. While a helicopter can make multiple attacks every turn. Whoever gets copters first gets a huge advantage, until the other factions can research or steal the tech. Not only can they make multiple attacks, but they can attack units even with high defense with impunity, unless the unit is AA. Yes, they are very useful on the defense, just because they are so overpowered. No attacking cities helps, but it is very costly to mount an attack against a helicopter defended city, especially if the attacker cannot counterattack the city with his own helicopter. So this restriction still leaves helicopters overpowered, but only mainly useful for defense. As for sniping crawlers, you can always do this with a regular plane.

[bdanv]

***UPDATED***


***UPDATED***

[bdanv]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
-> Usually the abuse with crawlers is people designing crawlers that cost a bundle, and then either getting a pod that builds the crawler, or rush building crawlers. So rather than to keep crawlers from hurrying projects, I would rather see:
1. No hurrying crawlers.
2. No design of anything other than basic crawlers until Fusion reacters. (With tech stagnation, game will probably be over by then.)

This proposal was rejected (3 votes against).

Originally posted by mmontgomery
To balance, let's ban attrocities unless the council votes to premit them.

This proposal was validated (3 votes pro).

ON THE TECH TRADING ISSUE:
we have 2 votes for, 1 against, 1 abstain. If someone wants to change his vote, this is the time to do it!


***UPDATED***

NEW GAME SETUP - SMAX game v 2.0

***UPDATED***

[florin79c]

Pods scattering : yes

[mmontgomery]

I have a proposal. I have never done this before, but it just struck me this morning that it might be a lot of fun.

How would you feel about playing a teams game, with me and wdplays verses florin79c and bdanv? If this is agreeable, of course the teams would be able to make pacts and trade tech with each other, but could not trade with or make a pact with the other team.

Could a moderator make it so that each of the teammates had the other's comm frequency from the start of the game? And for the teammates to not start diagonally opposite. (Speaking of moderator, do we want to ask Mart7x5 to moderate this game?)

Assuming we are also agreeable that pods scattering is on, that I would go back to Gaia.

Part of the reason for this proposal was thinking back to a game a few months ago, where 4 factions started really close together, and another player and I decided to informally work together on turn 18, but did not formally announce a pact until maybe 7 turns later. The other players felt that they were being ganged up against, while if we had announced the pact when we first informally decided on it, the other two players could have started cooperating at the same time, and it would have resulted in a closer game, instead of a slaughter.

Anyway, this clears up the alliance issues from day 1, which for me would put the game on a much more comfortable footing.

What do you think?

[florin79c]

lol

This is what Dan was waiting for :P

I'm ok with it