FFH PBEM3?

[Dantski]

I'd rather have a minimum of 5 players in a game and a maximum of 6, just feels like less players makes the game less interesting and more would slow down the turns

[WarriorKnight]

I'd rather have a minimum of 5 players in a game and a maximum of 6, just feels like less players makes the game less interesting and more would slow down the turns

Well, since the two games are different it really depends on if anyone wants to jump into the spice game. I wouldn't think it's a big deal. That said, is anyone from the vanilla game willing to jump into the spice game to even the player numbers?

[Toshi]

Flipping through the thread, I liked the some of the ideas for unrestricted leaders. Maybe some rules could be you HAVE to take a leader that is not normally associated with your civ (eg: cannot take Cassiel with Grigori) and perhaps we could cut out a few of the more powerful and common choices for the civ picks like calabim, ??? and ???.

Would make for a more varied game from the other pbems. Otherthan that I vote for raging barbs, living world, wildlands, a non standard map type (i like tectonic myself, low sea level myself) and all the other regular options.

I've never tried OCC or no settlers so its up to the group whether they want those in or not.

No tech trading (or at least no tech bartering) seems like a good idea.

We could also put LAST DAYS on so the armageddon count will really kick in if someone is putting in the effort.

Another thing I've noticed is the end of winter game option. Never having tried it, is it more trouble than its worth?

[Irgy]

Thanks WarriorKnight.

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.

Sounds good to me.

I'd personally like them all on except Calabim, since they've been chosen twice already.

They were originally my first choice to use myself, because I got them (randomly) on my first ever FFH game and I'm most familiar with them. Plus they (kind of) won my self-play game* and they seem very good. Of course since then I've found out that everyone else thinks they're very good too. Which takes them from being a personal preference to well established cheese, making them less appealing. So I've already started familiarising myself with an alternative that's my new first choice and happy for the Calabim to be left out of this game.

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.

Ok, an explanation that makes sense anyway.

(Acheron) 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.

Fair enough. As far as I understood you do get a bit of warning that he's coming, and if you're quick you could in theory trash the city he's planning to appear in before he gets there. Although I'll admit I've never actually done it myself and it's probably usually too difficult to do. You can at least fogbust to stop barbarian cities from spawning too close to your borders though.

Happy to have him turned off though anyway.

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.

It's just the age old trade off between balance and variety. At one end of the scale are symmetric maps and even everyone playing the same civ. Not really trying to open that debate here (although I'd be happy to), I'm really just saying that I'm at the far extreme other end of the spectrum when it comes to the map.

Anyway that's probably more than enough from me for now.


* Self-play game = 7 player hotseat game, but all controlled by me. I have a writeup of a BTS version here. I've now completed an FFH version, but haven't written it up yet.

[WarriorKnight]

Looks like we have our own sub-forum now. Thanks Griselda. Next we need to finalize settings and then we can get to the good stuff.

Is it possible that this thread could be moved to the FFH3 sub-forum?

[Mardoc]

* Normal leaders, but undecided on whether to ban some (my vote is allow all).

I would ban the Calabim for variety's sake, but nothing else. I don't feel strongly here.

* No settlers and barb world off, Ancient start (just going by the "vanilla" theme here, haven't counted the votes or anything).

Agree with this.

* Quick speed, lairs/huts on, Orthus on, normal barbs.

Yes, although I'd be willing to entertain normal speed.

* 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.

Definitely no tech trading for me, mostly because it's the one thing that can negate all your good play (a different spin on avoiding runaways). I agree precisely with the effects, just disagree that they're all desirable. Mostly, the way I see it, tech trading can produce so much that it dominates the game if it's on, being more important than any other aspect.

* Emperor difficulty has my vote.

I'm indifferent to difficulty, but if we go too low we ought to turn on Raging Barbs.

* Acheron - I'm similarly curious as to why everyone wants him off, although I'm not fussed about it.

I would like to have him pre-spawned, somewhere moderately accessible but not close to anyone. I like the option of the hoard, and having a potential enemy who's not the other players.

* Living World I'm not sure about, and not that fussed about either way.

I feel the same.

* Defaults for other stuff?

I would like to have the double animals option turned on, in most of my games they seem to be gone by the time I can start capturing them. I'd also like huts off, but lairs on.

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.

This is the approach that seems to work the best - one person chooses the general layout, type of map, and does most of the work, but gets feedback from others to make sure they don't overlook anything like non-aggressive leaders starting with a combat I warrior or land resources appearing in the ocean.

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.

I'm pretty indifferent to map, so long as the unique features are balanced and we have the option of getting to each other without too much teching. I'd even be ok with islands, so long as they have coastal connections.

* As you can see by all the text, I'm getting excited

Me too

EDIT: Looks like Square Leg has volunteered to do the PBEM 4 map over in their new thread, so we won't likely be making their map. Now if we can just coax a volunteer over here...

[Nyktorion]

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.

Thanks for the welcome

My opinions on the settings of Game 3:

* I'm indifferent on whether to allow all (restricted) leader, or to ban Calabim, or to ban all previously used leaders, or even to give out random leaders to all; I'm in favor of not allowing 2 people picking the same civs, though.

* Agree with No Settlers Off, Barb World Off, and Ancient Start

* While I generally like to play at normal speed (no positive/negative effects on warring vs. buildering), I can see the advantages of using quick speed in a multiplayer game that will take several months very well; so I'd be fine with any of the two

* Agree with lairs/huts on, Orthus on, and normal barbs

* Without multiplayer experience, I am unable to comprehend the full consequences of either allowing or forbidding tech trading in multiplayer, so I'll fully trust the judgement of the more experienced players here

* Emporer difficulty seems right to me

* Also with Acheron, I'll rather leave it to those with MP experience to weigh the risk of culturally crippling spawn location against the benefit of him being a game element (I have seen crippling Acheron in SP, but I probably underestimate the risk subjectively, as AI's don't complain when they get hit by it - just in one case the crippling effect on an AI was too obvious to me).

* I'm indifferent on double animals and double events

* Concerning maps, I agree with the "natural maps" sentiment, without isolating anybody. If it were me to decide, my pick would be Erebus Continents for everyone getting in contact with each other and starting in locations fitting to their civ, slightly edited to prevent unbalanced starts (such as Remnants of Patria next to a starting location, or one player with significantly less space than all others).

* As you can see by all the text, I'm getting excited

Agree with the sentiment :hat:

EDIT: Another issue just came to my mind: since we're probably 6 players, I would be in favor of using standard map size, but high sea level, or small map size with low sea level

[Irgy]

Sorry, not setting out to try and take over organising, but I can't help myself. I've had a look through the posts, and everyone in game 3 made at least one post with their preferences. We definately have consensus on:
* No settlers off, barb world off, ancient start, quick speed, lairs on, Orthus on
* No tech trading
* Emporer difficulty
* Living world on
* Some sort of "natural" style map
* Avoid isolated civs.
* Normal barbs - difficulty dependant, but we seem to be agreed on Emporer. I wouldn't call it "high", but I'm assuming Emporer isn't considered "low" either, for those who wanted more barbs on low difficulty..
* Normal (i.e. "restricted") leaders, no two of the same civ.

We have almost-consensus on:
* Mardoc wanted huts off, everyone else said on, so Mardoc wants to make a stand or someone changes their mind it looks like the vote is for on.

* No one wants Acheron appearing as default. Some (which now includes myself) would prefer him on in a pre-set location. Thoth just said off, but that was before the pre-set location idea was suggested.

* Thoth said all or none for unique features. I'm happy with that, but I'd definately prefer all on in that case. Someone also said to make sure the "big 3" are in between civs. I'm not sure which are the "big 3", but it sounds reasonable as well. I don't think anyone's said anything specifically contradicting all on, but many haven't commented.

* Calabim banned, but other leaders allowed. Thoth said no leaders banned, but this was before banning Calabim was suggested. Some are indifferent. Mr Yellow said he wanted strictly new civs (EDIT - he actually said new leaders, not civs, so the remainder of this paragraph is a little bit off track). My biggest problem with this is that there's only 19 playable civs, 6 were used in pbem1, and 6 more were used in pbem2 (7 players and only the Calabim were repeated), which leaves 6 players choosing from a pool of only 7 civs. I don't actually mind those 7, and my first pick is one of them anyway, but even so I'm less likely to get it if we're so restricted. I think a good compromise is banning the one civ that's been used twice already (Calabim), and otherwise just encouraging but not forcing people to pick from the as yet unused civs. Which, for reference, are: Amurites, Bannor, Clan of Embers, Elohim, Grigori, Sheaim, Sidar

Although if we are encouraging to pick from this list, I'd suggest giving preference to people who want something on this list already over people who are only picking from it for variety. There's no point someone picking from the "new" list purely for variety, but then accidently forcing someone else off their "new" first pick and onto a "used" second pick as a result. I am of course extremely biased here


These are still unresolved:
* Mardoc suggested double animals. I don't know much about this option and I don't know whether others have commented.

* Nyktorion would prefer high sea level for standard size (or small and low). I think 6 isn't much less than 7 and those would be a bit squashy, so I would prefer standard and normal seas, but it doesn't matter that much. Not sure who else has given an opinion.

* The map in general is still a very undecided. Do we want an Erebus-style or a standard script? Do we want ocean-separated continents (Mardoc doesn't)? Or just pangaea (possibly with some non-ocean disconnections)? Personally the main thing I'm in favour of is not knowing at the start of the game what the continents distribution is, and I'm happy with any of the continent distributions (which, excluding isolated, leaves us with 4-2, 3-3, 2-2-2 or 6). But that's just my opinion. We still need a map-maker too.


By the way, the game 3 subforum is looking very empty. Maybe if we want this thread moved we need to pm one of the mods?

[Mr. Yellow]

Irgy, i didn't say anywhere that i strictly wanted new civs, but unpicked leaders. Which amounts to 21 (or 23 with the other Deciuses).

Also, regarding map. I prefer all civs we're placed on the same continent. If you really want us to be placed on seperate ones then at least connect them with good coastal connections for every civ.
In addition, i'd like some small coastal islands placed around the continent.

[Irgy]

Ok, sorry, misread new leaders as meaning new civs. I think some of the alternative leaders for certain are kind of handicaps, so I still think it cuts out a lot, but it doesn't greatly affect me.

Sounds like more people prefer pre-optics contact to be possible, in which case I don't really care so much whether we're separated or not.