Proposal: EitB Pitboss game

[DaveV]

The game setup, in a nutshell:

A PB6-style team EiTB pitboss (sequential pitboss, always war, permanent teams). Four teams of three players each.

Map settings:
Tower, Altar, Religious, and Culture victories disabled.
Quick speed
Always war, single diplo/banter thread (like BtS Pitboss 7)
Deity difficulty level
Normal barbs
No huts
No lairs
Hallowed Ground (AC=0 always)
Compact Enforced (Hyborem and Basium disabled)

City gifting allowed, but only on the first possible turn (i.e. immediately after founding/capture)

Banned:
Stasis (Auric Ulvin may be picked, but his world spell may not be used)

Team:
1. Thoth, Mardoc, Ellimist
2. Hart, fantasticsid, TheBold
3. Kyan, plako, DaveV
4. Nabaxo, Amelia, WarriorKnight

Picks:
Team 3: Beeri of Luchuirp, Keelyn of Balseraphs, Auric of Illians
Team 1: Jonas of Clan, Decius of Calabim, Einion of Elohim
Team 4: Cardith of Kuriotates, Varn of Malakim, Valledia of Amurites
Team 2: Kandros of Khazad, Tasunke of Hippus, Sandalphon of Sidar

There's a very good chance we'll need subs/fill-in players at some point, so anyone who wants to remain unspoiled or be a dedicated lurker might have an opportunity to join the game later.

[NobleHelium]

Sorry, but no. Blinding Light, etc.

[NobleHelium]

Well I suppose you could ban all the spells that don't work with simultaneous turns.

[plako]

Magic system has some problems in simultaneous pitboss e.g. spells that immobilize can potentially immobilize units eternally from the player being last in turn order. I think it would be good idea to go through the problematic spells before starting.

edit. Crosspost with NobleHelium - problematic spells should probably be banned. I'm tentatively intrested, if these issues are solved.

[Mardoc]

Are you set on the idea of only one winner, DaveV? A PB6-style setup could be fun, and would let us do sequential turns so as not to break the magic system.

I'm afraid you'd have to ban just about every damage spell; otherwise Team B never has a chance to heal from damage dealt by Team A (would let Team A defend against superior Team B forces). And probably most summons, as well, since Team A's summons would be around to protect their stacks, while Team B's would always disband before they can play. Plus the ones Noble pointed out. That starts to get to be a lot of spells.

Not (yet) a signup, depends on what the rules look like and if I can find teammates.

[DaveV]

Hmm, I guess I hadn't thought through the spell problems. I was trying to stay away from sequential to keep the game pace faster, and trying to avoid in-game teams (like PB6) because that opens a whole new can of worms.

[Amelia]

Count me as interested if the rules are properly set.

[nabaxo]

I'm interested and what's wrong with in-game teams?

[DaveV]

My objections to in-game teams: super fast tech pace, inconsistent treatment of spells (Arcane Lacuna doesn't hurt your teammates; River of Blood and Raging Seas do).

On the other hand, having teammates be able to fill in for each other might mean a good turn pace (PB6).

[Mardoc]

what's wrong with in-game teams?

I don't know that they're *wrong*, per se, but here are some things that are major changes:

• Mana gets a lot easier to acquire
  
• It's a lot easier to get around the balancing aspects of a civ - Kurios and Khazad never have too few cities, Clan can feed gold to a real teching civ to get around Barbarian, Illians/Grigori can still rely on religous units
  
• Two Palaces makes early game teching fast (although I think EitB addresses this)
  

That said, I think if we banned city gifting (except, maybe, once on conquest) and maybe allowed each civ to be chosen multiple times, that might alleviate the worst of the issues. The game would still be mostly won or lost in the setup phase, though.

Edit: I see DaveV addressed the question too.