Posts: 556
Threads: 15
Joined: Mar 2015
1 more player and we could be good to go.
Twinkletoes and Alhazard: Although this was not my original intention, how do you feel about playing with restricted leaders (the game setting) on? I had never really considered it but it might be a nice change and add a little something to the game compared to the other recent PBEMs. With four players, there seems to still be enough decent combinations that this could be fun.
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
I'm happy with restricted leaders if needed
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
April 26th, 2015, 10:03
(This post was last modified: April 26th, 2015, 10:04 by Khan.)
Posts: 556
Threads: 15
Joined: Mar 2015
(April 26th, 2015, 09:51)Twinkletoes89 Wrote: I'm happy with restricted leaders if needed
Needed makes it sound like a requirement. I was just sounding out the possibility. I am quite willing to play unrestricted; that was my original intention before my poor wording confused everyone. If you would prefer not to, then that is still great. I am looking forward to an enjoyable game and that means everyone should be happy with the settings.
Posts: 2,675
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2013
I am ok with trying restricted leaders.
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
What I mean was that I'm fine with it if everyone else does, but if unrestricted is chosen, I don't mind that either.
Both choices might need a couple of combos banning for balance, but they can both work
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 12
Joined: Mar 2014
I would like to play. Agreed with the need for bans.
Posts: 556
Threads: 15
Joined: Mar 2015
Welcome Gawdzak. That gives us a potentially full roster.
Khan
Twinkletoes89
Alhazard
Gawdzak
We now require a mapmaker. The relevant information for any potential mapmaker is contained below.
1.BTS. No mods.
2.Map does not necessarily have to look natural, but does not have to be created in it's entirety.
3.AI Diplomacy
4.4 players who can play once a day.
5.Room for a decent number of cities but with some of the land being contested. Maybe a starting island then shared mainland? Or something the mapmaker comes up with that achieves the same result.
6.Quick speed
7.Prince difficulty
8.Unrestricted Leaders/Civs but with some kind of limitations to be decided by the players
9.Lush Map
Posts: 223
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2014
I'm interested in dedlurking for someone, if anyone is interested.
Posts: 556
Threads: 15
Joined: Mar 2015
Let's discuss on how we want to restrict the leaders/civilizations. I have been reading various other threads of older games here and can see a whole bunch of options have been tried. I will post a few ideas below. Perhaps we could all say which of the below options we would be ok with and, if there are any other options you think of, we can add those too. We can then whittle the list down and move towards a conclusion.
1. Unrestricted Leaders. Nothing banned.
2. Unrestricted Leaders. Some bans (to be discussed but likely India, Inca, Pacal etc)
3. Restricted Leaders. No bans.
4. Restricted Leaders. Some bans (to be discussed but likely Inca, India and Willem?)
5. Combinations chosen completely at random.
6. 3 combinations chosen at random by the mapmaker and presented to the players. Players choose one. Perhaps mapmaker can remove the really powerful ones (I'm thinking Pacal of Inca etc. Willem of Arabia would be fine)
7. Random combination given. Each players gets 1 pass. If they pass, their first pick is discarded and they must accept the next random option.
8. Same as option 6.( 3 combinations chosen at random by the mapmaker and presented to the players. Players choose one.) However, players get to pass on their original option if they want at which point they will be offered the discards from the other players.
9. A points system to pick your civ/traits. )I can't remember which game this was done in and would appreciate if anyone could remind me.) A summarised version would be you get 10 points and certain civs/traits cost points. So, say, FIN and EXP cost 8 points. You could pick one of those, but you'd be stuck with PRO also etc. Point values were decided for the other game, we can steal their system if we decide to do this or create our own valuations.
That's all I can think of for now.
Posts: 556
Threads: 15
Joined: Mar 2015
(April 26th, 2015, 11:22)Khan Wrote: 1. Unrestricted Leaders. Nothing banned.
2. Unrestricted Leaders. Some bans (to be discussed but likely India, Inca, Pacal etc)
3. Restricted Leaders. No bans.
4. Restricted Leaders. Some bans (to be discussed but likely Inca, India and Willem?)
5. Combinations chosen completely at random.
6. 3 combinations chosen at random by the mapmaker and presented to the players. Players choose one. Perhaps mapmaker can remove the really powerful ones (I'm thinking Pacal of Inca etc. Willem of Arabia would be fine)
7. Random combination given. Each players gets 1 pass. If they pass, their first pick is discarded and they must accept the next random option.
8. Same as option 6.( 3 combinations chosen at random by the mapmaker and presented to the players. Players choose one.) However, players get to pass on their original option if they want at which point they will be offered the discards from the other players.
9. A points system to pick your civ/traits. )I can't remember which game this was done in and would appreciate if anyone could remind me.) A summarised version would be you get 10 points and certain civs/traits cost points. So, say, FIN and EXP cost 8 points. You could pick one of those, but you'd be stuck with PRO also etc. Point values were decided for the other game, we can steal their system if we decide to do this or create our own valuations.
I would vote for the following options: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. If we all vote on the ones we like, we can find out what the favoured systems are. I am likely overcomplicating this, but I anticipate this game running for a long time so it is worth a little time investment early to get us on the right path.
|
