Toshi Wrote:Oh and just an idea but have you guys considered teAm games at all? I haven't been around long to see how theyr played but I imagine it changes the dynamics quite a bit
There was a 3v3 ffh team game a while back but it never got off the ground and the forum was deleted.
I've sorted through the replies and split us into the 2 different games. Is everyone OK with this?
Random leaders.. could be interesting. I'd kind of prefer to pick though. I also like the idea of Lurkers picking. Hows about this...
We start up spoiler threads. We tell the lurkers what kind of strategy we're looking to play in broad terms. They have a bit of discussion, and then give us leaders/civs that would broadly fit the category. Means no-one is stuck playing a game they'll absolutely hate, but there is some randomness going on (from the player perspective at least). And if someone doesn't really have a particular game strategy in mind, they can ask for complete potluck.
I've come up with a crazy system for it in the spoiler.
As an example of how we could run the "strategy in broad terms" thing, give three words to describe it. None of them can be civs or traits. So no saying "Financial Lanun please"
Some examples:
"Complete Magical Dominance"
Is fairly straightforward. Give them one of the arcane civs.
"Outnumber everybody"
There are a few civs who can really do that well. Bannor and Clan are the most obvious. Khazad could fit as well.
"Religion is key"
Is a wider one. Basically, religion is always going to be capable of focus unless you're agnostic. But any of the civs where religion synergizes really well, preferably where more than one religion is applicable. Malakim. Kuriotates. Arendel Ljosalfar. Elohim. Sidar.
"Embrace the Darkness"
Is just oblique! I might well end up posting something like this just to see what the lurkers would give me. Most obvious choices are the Sidar and the Svarts, but any evil civ could do.
"The best civ"
Could be even worse. The lurkers could know what the other civs are and the map, and give one that they think is objectively good. Or just give Flauros of the Calabim. Pretty unsporting though.
As an added benefit, the three words could be the in the title for the threads. We can see what the other players have asked for before the game even begins! See what kind of crazy speculation that throws up.
I'd also still quite like to do unrestricted leaders though, for all the reasons I previously stated, so fully picked would be good as well.
if it is still possible, I would like to join in, though I would prefer the vanilla game.
I have played some (standard settings) single-player FFH games (now quite comfortable on Emperor, but losing significantly more than winning on Immortal). However, I do not have any multiplayer experience.
I have had a lingering wish to try out a multiplayer game for some time now. A few days ago, I stumbled upon this site, enjoying reading around through the existing FFH games here
Nyktorion, inasmuch as I have the authority, welcome aboard! I guess WarriorKnight is the 'official' organizer, but I can't see anyone objecting to you joining us.
Toshi, the way I see it, we don't yet have settings or twist picked out, except that the vanilla people generally prefer a game closer to the base Fall from Heaven setup, while the spice people would like or don't mind trying something a bit different. We still need to discuss and decide on the mechanics, it's just split into boring and adventurous games for that so that, for instance, I don't waste everyone's time arguing about the spicy settings when I'm planning to play the vanilla game anyway.
What you spicy people end up with is still up in the air, and will depend on what you can all agree on. Selrahc and Bob have proposed 3 or 4 different twists so far in the thread, some of which were dropped from discussion because of us vanilla buzzkills But now that us unadventurous types don't get a vote, some or all of those might be resurrected.
We should probably split into two threads for PBEM 3 and 4, respectively, to decide on our preferences without confusing each other. For lack of a better idea on my part, I'd say the vanilla game is PBEM 3 since that's the one WarriorKnight is sticking with, and the spicy game would be PBEM 4 in a new thread.
On an unrelated note, although I'd still be happy if someone out there would volunteer for mapmaking, if no one does, maybe the PBEM 3 people could make a map for PBEM 4 and vice versa?
Mardoc Wrote:Nyktorion, inasmuch as I have the authority, welcome aboard! I guess WarriorKnight is the 'official' organizer, but I can't see anyone objecting to you joining us.
Seconded, welcome aboard.
Mardoc Wrote:We should probably split into two threads for PBEM 3 and 4, respectively, to decide on our preferences without confusing each other. For lack of a better idea on my part, I'd say the vanilla game is PBEM 3 since that's the one WarriorKnight is sticking with, and the spicy game would be PBEM 4 in a new thread.
I agree. I've PMed Griselda about creating 2 new sub-forums for these games. After that it should be easy for each game to start.
Mardoc Wrote:On an unrelated note, although I'd still be happy if someone out there would volunteer for mapmaking, if no one does, maybe the PBEM 3 people could make a map for PBEM 4 and vice versa?
I was actually going to suggest this. Seeing as no-one else has volunteered either map make we will probably have to make the other game's map. I would certainly help whoever makes the PBEM4 map, although my map-making experience is limited.
Great, so it sounds like there'll be a game of 6 and a game of 4, or maybe two of 5 if someone wants to shift and even things out.
So how do we go about picking leaders? Normally I'd be all for random leaders, but the FFH civs are all so different and more widely balanced than in BTS. I assume the vanilla* game has settled on restricted leaders, just need to settle the issue of whether any choices are banned (I'm all for allowing any of them for what it's worth). I would prefer to avoid 2 people playing the same civ with different leaders though. By the way, I actually wrote a program the other day which will take a bunch of draft choice lists and calculate the optimal assignment of (in this case) civs/leaders to players. I dare say it would be total overkill for this though
My understanding of the settings for the vanilla game at this stage, for confirmation (and also to vote on a few things):
* Normal leaders, but undecided on whether to ban some (my vote is allow all).
* No settlers and barb world off, Ancient start (just going by the "vanilla" theme here, haven't counted the votes or anything).
* Quick speed, lairs/huts on, Orthus on, normal barbs.
* No tech trading - everyone seems to be in favour of this, but I'm curious as to why. In my (admittedly limited) experience, tech trading brings diplomacy to the forefront and avoids runaways as people can better co-operate to catch up. Not trying to get trading back on if people prefer it off, just interested in why it's so unpopular.
* Emporer difficulty has my vote.
* Acheron - I'm similarly curious as to why everyone wants him off, although I'm not fussed about it.
* Living World I'm not sure about, and not that fussed about either way.
* Defaults for other stuff?
Mardoc Wrote:On an unrelated note, although I'd still be happy if someone out there would volunteer for mapmaking, if no one does, maybe the PBEM 3 people could make a map for PBEM 4 and vice versa?
Making maps for each other sounds like the perfect solution to me. I'd happily volunteer, although I have nothing in particular to recommend me other than enthusiasm. We could also do it as a group - someone would probably need to be in charge, but a group of people offering opinions might avoid any big mistakes.
As for our map, I have a preference for natural maps. If it was up to me it'd be a fractal map and keep the first one, but I'd be just about as happy to pick the best one from a bunch of them. With tech trading off even having one civ isolated doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. Oh and standard size for 6 civs seems reasonable to me. As with everything else though I'm not that fussed and will take what comes.
As you can see by all the text, I'm getting excited
* "vanilla", but still FFH, not "vanilla" cIV or even "vanilla" BTS. Imagine if we were playing a modmod like Orbis or something, there could be 4 layers of non-vanilla!
Irgy Wrote:So how do we go about picking leaders? Normally I'd be all for random leaders, but the FFH civs are all so different and more widely balanced than in BTS.
Traditionally, we each PM our top 4 picks to the mapmaker after the settings have been decided, and if there are any ties then the mapmaker randomly chooses who gets it, while the other person gets their 2nd choice. I assume that how its going to be chosen in the vanilla game (where the leaders are restricted). Unrestricted leaders could do a snakepick, but it's their choice since I'm not in the game.
Irgy Wrote:I assume the vanilla* game has settled on restricted leaders, just need to settle the issue of whether any choices are banned (I'm all for allowing any of them for what it's worth). I would prefer to avoid 2 people playing the same civ with different leaders though.
Irgy Wrote:* Normal leaders, but undecided on whether to ban some (my vote is allow all).
I'd personally like them all on except Calabim, since they've been chosen twice already.
Irgy Wrote:* No settlers and barb world off, Ancient start (just going by the "vanilla" theme here, haven't counted the votes or anything).
I agree.
Irgy Wrote:* Quick speed, lairs/huts on, Orthus on, normal barbs.
Yep
Irgy Wrote:* No tech trading - everyone seems to be in favour of this, but I'm curious as to why. In my (admittedly limited) experience, tech trading brings diplomacy to the forefront and avoids runaways as people can better co-operate to catch up. Not trying to get trading back on if people prefer it off, just interested in why it's so unpopular.
The reason why is because if Tech trading is left on, it dominates gameplay and then practically forces everyone to split into two teams. Pitboss 3 in particular had that setting on and after a while it becomes boring.
It might be a bit different for FFH, where not every civ needs to research every tech, but I still strongly prefer it off.
Irgy Wrote:* Emporer difficulty has my vote.
Fine by me.
Irgy Wrote:* Acheron - I'm similarly curious as to why everyone wants him off, although I'm not fussed about it.
He's appears randomly and can really screw you over if he appears next to your borders. If he started in a pre-determined fair location, I would be fine with him.
Irgy Wrote:* Living World I'm not sure about, and not that fussed about either way.
I could go either way with Living World, the others probably not.
Irgy Wrote:As for our map, I have a preference for natural maps. If it was up to me it'd be a fractal map and keep the first one, but I'd be just about as happy to pick the best one from a bunch of them. With tech trading off even having one civ isolated doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. Oh and standard size for 6 civs seems reasonable to me. As with everything else though I'm not that fussed and will take what comes.
What if the isolated civ was purely a rusher like the Doveillo? Then they would be screwed. Or what if the isolated civ was someone like Lanun? Then everyone else would be screwed.
I'm not saying that we can't have civs isolated. It's just that everyone should start in the same boat so everyone has a chance.
EDIT: Thanks for that Dave, I'll try contacting KoP
)
)
But now that us unadventurous types don't get a vote, some or all of those might be resurrected.