New EitB PBEM

[Miguelito]

250-300 tiles per player sounds enormous.  Of course up to you guys,  but if I were playing I'd vote not to straight up double from last game's tile count.

I think Charriu and Rank worked together to make sequential pitboss a thing for CtH? Did we have a means for contacting Charriu ? And is there anybody willing and capable to do this for Eitb?

While we're at it,  here's my modest mod proposals:

• Change treants to woodsman I instead of II (Still promotable). but maybe I'm just salty  
  
• Spell extension I to Arcane lore. And/or make it only available to mages,  not adepts,  do a 10xp mage can't get it straight away.  Or make it require combat 3, idk.
  
• Spectres to 1 move
  
• Maelstrom to range one / affect limited number of units / give it a random chance (50%?) to affect each unit
  
• Revert the unit graphic swap between soldiers of Kilmorph and Paramanders. The soldiers have dwarven race and should look like that. 
  

[Qgqqqqq]

Happy to implement minor changes you want. Personally, I think all of those are reasonable except the treeant changes. It's really hard to get much out of it as a aggressive measure already and it massively nukes your economy.

Re spectres, do they need anything to become reasonable vs. other summons at one move? At least plus one strength, perhaps getting Fear back (courage is a level 1 spell)? They've been very thoroughly nuked - in part because they used to be ludicrously dominant. Maybe if we play with more mana per player they're fine at current strength. If I had more coding ability I'd give them a maximum strength from Death affinity.

Not happy to do the legwork on pitboss / MP changes, though I recognise it is needed. Pretty sure sequential has the same issues. As well as talking to Rank, can I suggest asking Ifgr/Magister and other modders at CFC? They might know what needs fixing.

[mackoti]

I think  first pitbos and the only one  was directly secvential so there is that and was eitb as well. So secvential doesnt work. Other lease state yours preferences so we Ref can start work on the map. I think the consensus was that for this one will be no change of the Mod.

We could move our proposition to eitb to debate theyr merit fr next game i asume.

[Qgqqqqq]

I think the consensus was against wide sweeping changes. Given the mod basically exists for these games, I think its perfectly reasonably if people want tinkering - including if anyone wants to roll back previous changes (e.g. no bronze weapons for warriors)

I have also updated the first post in this thread to have the previous v12.1 changes, for easier reference. I think I've captured them all, though there might be some missing from past tweaks.

[coldrain]

There's still many game options to discuss, but I think answering map-making questions by RefSteel would be great. Players, could you please approve, reject or comment on the following main guidelines for the map (feel free to suggest alternatives). Here is my vote:

• Minimum distance between starts: 15 tiles
  
• Land tiles per player: 250-300
  
• Map-script: Map-maker choice
  
• Continent + start distribution: All players on same land mass
  
• Amount of ocean/water: Map-maker choice
  
• Islands (amount and size): Map-maker choice
  
• Lushness: Not totally barren plains or desert hell, otherwise Map-maker choice.
  
• Blessing of Amatheon: Map-maker choice
  
• Unique features: Yes, but balanced*
  
• Strategic resources: ensure copper, horses, iron, mithril, reagents, incence, and blasting powder in all starting areas (not necessarily in capital BFC)
  

*Copying from previous PBEM: Strongest features not close to players.

As mackoti said, could other players inform their approval/disapproval or suggestions to the above map-making guidelines, so that map-mapkers can start? So far, responses have been as follows:

coldrain: approve (open to suggestions for smaller map, maybe 200-250 tiles per player)
mackoti: approve
xist10: no strong opinion on map
Aurorarcher: no response yet
Bing: no response yet
Ginger: no response yet

[Aurorarcher]

I approve those. Strong preference for bigger map, even if it’s 2x size compared to last time.

Also, personally I think a lot of spells are too powerful in multiplayer. Especially the ones that affect on every enemy unit nearby (like Tsunami, Crush, Maelstrom, Ring of Fire, something else I forgot?). It would be better if they did damage only to certain amout of units. Not sure how easy it would be to change those.

[Ginger*]

I would like a smaller map, something the size of the previous PB or only slightly larger, otherwise I’m fine

[RefSteel]

I sent a PM to Ramk just to ask, in case it turns out to be sufficiently easy to set the game up as a Pitboss early and shift to PbeM later on, though it sounds from what others are saying here, it may not be as easy as I hoped. Either way:

I'm seeing a few strong and differing opinions on the map with several okay-with-anythings. I'll see what I can do about getting starting on stuff that doesn't demand map size specifics right now (e.g. I ... may have spent last night creating a python script that would help me make some adjustments more easily...) but will hold off on getting down to serious work on the map until I hear more opinions. (Even if those opinions are "Whatever the others are saying. Anything in the range of 150-300 land tiles per player, or 15-30,000, is fine with me! I'll be happy with itpoint out all its innumberable shortcomings in my thread no matter what it turns out to be!")

[coldrain]

It seems that almost all players are in favour of a larger map, but the question remains, how much larger? I took a look of the previous game and there the total amount of land tiles was 821. This means about 164 tiles per player. However, the amount of mountains reduced the effective amount of land per player (I do think that the idea of the central jungle surrounded by mountain ranges was a cool idea). Additionally, the shape of coast and how close the mountain ranges were to starting positions also limited how cities could be placed. For example, take a look of my empire overview on turn 95:

I counted that threre are about 100 land tiles within my borders, of which 14 tiles are mountains. In the east, I expanded to the "natural" half-way point between me and Q. In the west, Miguelito expanded 6 tiles from me (Hogsmeade) and I gave two cities in northwest for peace. This empire felt extremely cramped. If I had also expanded to the half-way point towards Miguelito, then I would have had about 40 to 50 more land tiles in total (if I don't lose any cities in a war).

In the next game, I would like to have atleast 50% more "effective" land to settle. So about 200 to 250 tiles per player, if there are comparable amount of mountains or other low value tiles (tundra, desert...). Returning to my original point: If 250-300 land tiles is too much for Ginger, then would 200-250 be a good compromise?

[mackoti]

TY Coldrain for all the work you do and you right i think at least 50% more land is what I am looking for. Anyway the distances are not that big in FFH, and explation and wildlife would be more important and if its not to har for Re to get some islands on the map to open anther dimension to the game would be cool.