FFH PBEM3?

[WarriorKnight]

Sorry, not setting out to try and take over organising, but I can't help myself.

Don't worry about it. The sooner we decide the settings, the sooner we can play. I'm sure no-one can argue with that.

* 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.

It really depends on where the pre-set location is. For the most part though, I would like him off thanks to those SoI.

* 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.

The Big 3 are Yggdrasil (or however you spell the giant tree), Dragon Bones and Remnants of Patria. All 3 give major tile yield bonuses and if in someone's capital BFC it can give quite the boost.

I'd would prefer all unique features rather than none for variety.

* 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. 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

+1

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

My first three choices are in the unpicked list, so I'll put my hand up for new civ preference.

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

I don't have a preference for wildlands (double animals)

* 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.

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.

No isolated civs is good.

Generally speaking though, the players usually at most pick the mapscript and the mapmaker does the rest. That's not to say that we can't specify parts of the map (it might help us get a mapmaker ) but it wouldn't be much fun to know the map before before playing it. I would prefer just choosing/knowing the mapscript and let the mapmaker do the rest.

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?

Yeah, I'll do that.

[Thoth]

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.

Sounds good.

* 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.

I'd prefer he wasn't in the game, but if others want him in a pre-set location, I won't kick too hard.

* 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.

I'd prefer to have them all in the game, but as others have mentioned, Ygdrasil, Dragon Bones and The Remnants of Patria are too powerful to have available in range of a player start position.

* Calabim banned, but other leaders allowed. Thoth said no leaders banned, but this was before banning Calabim was suggested.

I'm not interested in playing the Calabim so banning/not banning them isn't something I feel strongly about

Some are indifferent. Mr Yellow said he wanted strictly new civs. 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

Both of my first two leader/civ choices are already in use in one or the other of the existing PBEMs, so I'm in favour of letting people pick the leader/civ they *want* to play. As this is only the third FFH PBEM at RB it's a little early to be saying some leaders are over-played.

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.

I'm ok with having double animals on, but it does mean that fewer regular barbs will spawn due to the high number of animals.

* 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.

I'd prefer a standard sized map with regular sea levels. If we go with raging barbs there will be a *lot* of empty map for them to spawn in. Should make the early game a little more exciting.

* 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.

I like Nyktorion's suggestion that we use Erberus continents (checked for balance and tweaked as needed by our mapmaker). This map script tends to put civs in appropriate locations (Dwarfs in hills, elfs in forests ect) and usually has some interesting terrain.

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?

Or someone could start a new thread in our forum.

edit: Looks like the thread got moved while I was replying

[Mardoc]

I'll give into the consensus on huts. And I'm fine with mapmaker's choice for the most part; I agree it's important to not know immediately what we're in for. I do like Erebus Continents, but I don't feel strongly on the map otherwise.

Pretty much the only option that hasn't been decided on that I feel strongly about is leaders. It sounds like the new civs are going to be fairly popular anyway, but I'd still prefer not to be restricted to them (other than the vamps). Haven't quite decided what I want, but at least some of my preferred choices are the used ones.

Aside from that, my opinions on settings/restrictions are preferences, not strong opinions; I'll go with the flow.

Seems like our settings are firming up; now we just need to recruit a mapmaker. Somehow. Square Leg volunteered to make the PBEM 4 map - maybe he'd be willing to make ours too? Or maybe we'll get lucky and someone will post here shortly

[Thoth]

Another issue that just ocurred to me: Basium and Hyborem.

Do we want them in the game? And if we do, what do we do when they are summoned?

I'd prefer to play with them off.

Edit: make that 2 issues:

Map/screenshot trading: I'd be in favour of not allowing until Cartography.

Contacts: none until met in-game

(hmmm, that looks more like three issues.)

[WarriorKnight]

Another issue that just ocurred to me: Basium and Hyborem.

Do we want them in the game? And if we do, what do we do when they are summoned?

I'd prefer to play with them off.

Basium isn't a problem. At worst whoever summoned him plays 2 civs.

Hyborem is a bigger problem. I can think of 3 solutions:

1) Have a unspoilted, (pre-determined?) lurker take over
2) Compact Enforced
3) Use an AI

I'd probably prefer them in that order.

Map/screenshot trading: I'd be in favour of not allowing until Cartography.

Contacts: none until met in-game

Agree with both of these.

[Irgy]

I think letting humans control both Basium and the summoning civ makes Basium far too good. There's a lot of up side to Basium - free angels, a whole new set of UUs to muck about with and mana from a new palace. Human control adds to that all manner of tricks that are available in team games. I just played a game of BTS with each player controlling a team of two civs, and believe me there are a lot of tricks you can pull. The main down side of Basium is supposed to be that you don't really have any control over what he does, and you have to give at least one presumably fairly decent city to him. Take this away and it's a big balance change. An AI fits the flavour too, you've summoned a powerful ally who will support you but isn't under your control and won't always do what you want. I don't see why multiplayer really changes that.

I don't mind a human controlling Hyboream so much because he's a seperate team. The only thing that makes me prefer an AI there is that normally the player who summons him can ensure themselves a good shot at friendly relations. Whereas a human won't care about things like having a common religion and is free to ally with whoever they feel like. So human control makes him significantly more dangerous to summon. Not necessarily a bad thing but it is a balance change.

So my preference order is
Basium: AI, compact enforced, human
Hyboream: AI, human, compact enforced

Also, does anyone know for sure what is and isn't technically possible with those in a PBEM in the first place? It'd be a shame for instance if the same player was stuck in two different places in the turn order as Basium and his summoner. And can you actually have them both under human control in the first place?


Otherwise, it looks like we're getting close to converging on everything else though.

Huts: On, thanks Mardoc.

Acheron: No-one's completely against having him in a preset location as long as he's far enough away from everyone else, but it sounds like more people would just prefer Acheron off entirely.

Features: I think everyone is happy with all features on, as long as the ones that give huge tile yields are definately outside the capitals and preferably in balanced positions.

Wildlands: It sounds like one person wants it on, everone else is indifferent. So I guess that means on?

Maps: So, is anyone unhappy with using the "Erebus Continent" script? With the mapmaker (if we ever get one) to confirm the following:
* No isolated civs
* Pre-optics contact
* Balanced big 3 locations

Leaders: I've created a bit of a straw-man with my misinterpretation of what Mr Yellow said. Also everyone is (openly) biased on the subject depending on whether their own choice is old or new. Encouraging new civs, and strongly encouraging new leaders for old civs, still seems like a reasonable solution to me.

No pre-contact contact and no pre cartography maps/screenshots: I took these as given to be honest.

[Mr. Yellow]

Wouldn't it be better to take a more standard map script than Erebus? I've heard that script could cause some problens such as capitals placed as close as 3 tiles from each other.

Also, i'm ok with going along to have everyone cept the Calabim on, if the rest wants to.

[WarriorKnight]

I'm not even sure if another human can take over the Mercurians or Infernals. The 'Take over AI' option is greyed out on a PBEM game, so I don't really know what happens. I would ideally like to see them both on (as AI's preferably, unless someone switched to them), but I think we might have to go with Compact Enforced so we don't have to worry about it.

Maps: So, is anyone unhappy with using the "Erebus Continent" script?

Wouldn't it be better to take a more standard map script than Erebus? I've heard that script could cause some problens such as capitals placed as close as 3 tiles from each other.

Well, it's nothing that a little map editing can't fix.

[Thoth]

No pre-contact contact and no pre cartography maps/screenshots: I took these as given to be honest.

It never hurts to make sure.

I'm not even sure if another human can take over the Mercurians or Infernals. The 'Take over AI' option is greyed out on a PBEM game, so I don't really know what happens. I would ideally like to see them both on (as AI's preferably, unless someone switched to them), but I think we might have to go with Compact Enforced so we don't have to worry about it.

Compact Enforced would be the simplest solution. Do we really want a couple of AIs suddenly appearing in the game?

Well, it's nothing that a little map editing can't fix.

Agreed. That's the sort of thing we want our map-maker to check for and fix if needed.

(speaking of map-makers: do we have a volunteer from the audience yet?)

[Mr. Yellow]

The Infernals and Mercurains are part of the charm of the game. I don't really want them gone considering that they can spice it up, AI or not.