PBEM 2 Organizing/Tech Thread

[oledavy]

I have G&K and all the DLC (Spain is also DLC, as far as I know - Banylon too, I think). Hopefully we can play G&K, not really worried about the other DLCs.

derp, forgot to add Babylon.

Spain was included in G&K if you didn't get the Spain + Inca DLC.

The only requirement for this game is to have the base game + G&K. Which rules out:

Babylon
Inca
Denmark
Korea
Polynesia

However, if everybody has one or more of those DLCs, no real reason to exclude that Civ. On that note, everyone interested in playing should post what DLCs they have.

So, GMR is an outside tool? As for the game itself, everything in or something banned? I have no clue what that could be as I have no clue about Civ5, but maybe we learned something from the first Civ5-MP-game we had on the site? What I could think of:

Every Civ in?
RAs in?

GMR is an outside tool. There will be some things banned, I'l have a proposed ban list up later today. If anyone has any suggestions for what needs to be banned before I put mine up, please post it.

The conclusion from the first game was that City-States needed to be nerfed somehow. On the unbalanced and unchecked map, SevenSpirits spawned in the middle of a host of city-states. Furthermore, none of his neighbors competed for them. This allowed him to secure 5 city-state alliances very early on and snowball to an unstoppable lead.

I don't want to remove city-states completely, because I feel like they genuinely add a lot to the game and taking them out would make a lot of Civs and the SPs not viable. However, I feel like the number needs to be reduced to one for each player instead of two for each player. This way, it is harder to win via city-state alliance spam, and with any luck, players will compete more for the favor of the lesser number of city-states.

I'm not even sure RAs can be signed in MP because the pre-req is a DOF with the player, which you can't sign with humans. However, they do not need to banned. Even if they are signable, there is no way they will be a game changer. Spamming RAs with AIs via gold you get from selling them luxuries is one thing. Signing them with human players is quite different.

As for banned civs, still working on that. I kinda feel like we should ban none at all since none of us really know what we're doing, but by the same token, I don't want someone to take France and then auto-win.

Oh, and I assume we would play with G&K-expansion, right? Are there still issues with different game-versions depending on DLCs or stuff like that?

See the above discussion.

If we are banning things, let's ban Spain. It's an all or nothing civ, boring either way.

I'd prefer playing with more city states and huts. If we are going for a casual game, I don't mind having Imba things all around. But I defer the decision to people with more experience.

I don't really feel like Spain needs to be banned. I doubt anyone will pick it. And if you do pick it and are first to find a natural wonder, I'd say that's a just reward for the huge risk you took with that civ pick.

I really think less city-states will make for a more interesting and more balanced game, and will make for more player competition and blood As for huts, I could be convinced, but I think leaving them off is preferable purely to prevent someone from getting culture and snowballing.

[Ichabod]

Contemplating signing up....

To Civ 5 or not to Civ 5, that is the question.

Pic not that related

[Serdoa]

I agree with you davy, I think Huts and France are better banned. As for City-States, theoretically we should have learned from that first game, so maybe have 5 players and 7 city states, making them a little bit more meaningful and especially, making it harder to NOT compete for them, as someone will always have more than you, making it "feel" like you have to do something to counter that.

[Jowy]

City States are part of the game and should be enabled.
Finding a way to check the map before playing would be perfect, just to make sure they are somewhat balanced in placement.
Would prefer playing with default settings, but any will do.

I have G&K and all the DLC.

[oledavy]

Proposed Ban List (Subject to Edits)

Natural Wonder Rules
1. If you Skilldorado, you may not spend any of the 500 gold on a settler or worker.
2. If you find Fountain of Youth, you may not buy it inside your borders or settle it until t50.

Hopefully neither of these wonders will spawn and this will not be an issue.

Banned Civilizations
The Huns

Banned Religious Beliefs
Desert Folklore

Banned Wonders
The Pyramids
Notre Dame

Diplomatic Victory Disabled


For reference, here is the complete list of available civs (DLCs excluded), roughly ordered by how strong I think they are in an MP Pangaea setting. Please note, this is my opinion and not meant to be an absolute reference, just in the order that they came to me.

France
Mongolia
Siam
Greece
The Celts
Persia
The Maya
The Aztecs
Ethiopia
Germany
The Huns
Rome
Egypt
Arabia
Japan
The Songhai
The Ottomans
The Iroqouis
Byzantium
Russia
Austria
America
Sweeden
Spain
England
Carthage
Holland
India

[Ichabod]

Well, I think G&K solved part of the snowball with social policies problem by having the free liberty settler as a policy with a prereq. I would play with huts, because from what I can gatter from T-Hawks reports (mostly), exploration is a key element of Civ 5. You take out huts, reduce the number of city states (and the already nerfed exploration due to no dumb AIs to milk cash from) and exploration is nearly dead.

With huts on, going scout early can compete with monument and worker. Without huts, monument first is basically what you can do. I think you guys are overrating early culture in G&K. From what I've read in a MP thread at civfanatics, I don't think early culture is too much of a problem. I don't see France or culture huts as imbalanced, nor do the people in civfanatics (france is obviously a good civ, just not the best one).

Regarding Mongols, Keshiks are very powerful, as far as I've read. But it seems that their best strenght is in simultaneous turn games, where you can abuse double moves and the like.

I'd say we should play with everything on. G&K is way different from the base game, it deserves to be played fully at least once (reduced city states are actually fine by me, though I prefer 7 or 8 for 5 players, maybe 9 if we have 6 players).

[oledavy]

Well, I think G&K solved part of the snowball with social policies problem by having the free liberty settler as a policy with a prereq...

You take out huts, reduce the number of city states (and the already nerfed exploration due to no dumb AIs to milk cash from) and exploration is nearly dead...

Regarding Mongols, Keshiks are very powerful, as far as I've read. But it seems that their best strenght is in simultaneous turn games, where you can abuse double moves and the like.

These are all very good points.

[Ichabod]

I wouldn't ban any civs or wonders. Fine with the other rules (I had to look up to see what Notre Dame bonus was, so maybe I'm not the best one to be discussing these things with ).

[Serdoa]

I guess Pyramids is banned because if not there is no reason no to build it right? Notre Dame I have no clue what it does, so I simply believe that it won't bother me either way if it is banned or not

As for the rest: If Ichabod believes that we can play with everything on, I am fine with that too. I wouldn't mind having everything in. Looking up the civs you named, except for France I really didn't even understand why to ban them, so I guess I have no clue about this game.

Lastly, I think I have all DLCs that are to be had, at least in terms of civs.

[Ichabod]

By the way, it seems there are some DLC wonders (civfanatics say these are Statue of Zeus, Temple of Artemis and Mausoleum of Halicarnassus). I'm not even sure if I have those. Are these included automatically in G&K?