Concerning dedicated lurkers, I gladly accept anyone intrested.
|
Pitboss 4 Signup
|
|
Same here.
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
plako Wrote:Concerning dedicated lurkers, I gladly accept anyone intrested. Sure, hopefully it is as epic as Korea in PB2.  I can't really stay delurked as I won't be able to take over as a replacement as I am in grad school.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” antisocialmunky Wrote:Sure, hopefully it is as epic as Korea in PB2. I somehow doubt you would have to worry about it with plako, but so long as you could play a turn here and there as a sub if necessary, or fill in for a week until a long-term replacement was found, you would be very helpful.
Just been thinking about the banned leaders/civ list and I think it may be simpler to do this:
Either ban India outright or allow India but only with a non-expansive leader. Banning the rest just seems to me to be pretty pointless. I think India may be the only thing which is close to unbalanced but if the map has some water and there is no expansive half-cost bonus then maybe that's enough. What do you think?
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Twinkletoes89 Wrote:Just been thinking about the banned leaders/civ list and I think it may be simpler to do this: I think the Ban list is asmuch for Veriety as it is for ballance. Afterall, there are so-meny Civs and Leaders within the game than could lead to ntresting combinations that are overlooked for safer bets. I.e. i would, i think, never have chosen Hammurabi of England if say Mehmet of Inca or Pacal of India or Shaka of Rome were available, granted most of whats left are mediocre, but who said mediocre cannot be Fun also
Globally Lurking:
Unspoilt in all (at the moment) Playing: Finished: PBEM 11: Hammurabi of England (Probably Last) Pitboss 4: Wang Kon of Arabia (Finished 7th out of 8) ![[Image: 1367939.png]](http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/1367939.png)
I think that variety was more important for the myriad of PBEMs that would otherwise be very similar.
I think it would be interesting to see the players get powerful combos again and see how they go. Especially as there are 9/10 teams as opposed to the 5/6 in PBEMs. There will be more variety simply by the greater amount of teams in the game.
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
OK, FWIW, the entire theoretical design of the game is complete, I'll just need number of players, civs, leaders, and other various game options plus to actually, you know, sit down and make the map.
I have a PM out to sunrise for a final verdict from him.
I have a random list generator all queued up to create the turn order. I will probably also use that to make the decision on the undecided rules. |
