Posts: 18,036
Threads: 164
Joined: May 2011
Well, have a little more free time than I thought I would, so I figured I'd sound out interest in another PBEM. I'd think something with 4 or 5 teams would be ideal, settings that I'm absolutely set on:
Fin and Sury banned.
No India, Inca.
Quick speed.
Settings I'd like:
Some more bans of the more common leaders/civs:
Bismark, Hatty, Izzy, maybe Pericles, Mali, Egypt, maybe Byzantium, maybe France, maybe China, and definitely the Ottomans.
Barbs on.
Monarch difficulty.
Spies banned.
Open to a lot else, prefer talking and negotiating. Anyone else think this sounds like an interesting setup?
Posts: 3,978
Threads: 31
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,036
Threads: 164
Joined: May 2011
Cool, be fun to play with you mack.
Please note, the lower settings set are things I'm flexible on. If you would like to play but only if Hatty of China is an option, hey, that's fine.
Posts: 3,978
Threads: 31
Joined: Feb 2010
I would play any settings but i prefer some kind inland sea map i had enough with sea warfare and 6 fronts to deffend.
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
I'd be interested in playing and like macki's idea of an inland sea. However, this is how I would prefer it to work to really grab my interest.
- 4 player inland sea. I would like this game to be a little more fast paced and with just 4 people we should be able to get fast save turnaround and possibly a blitz session or two near the start.
Inland sea then works quite well for 4 players as we put flat world wrap and each of us starts in a corner. With only 2 opponents who could attack in the short term, it would mean that having barbs on would not be a huge extra burden.
Not too fussed about leader restrictions, but we must make sure that we have at least 4 of an 'equal quality' if we are going to ban a lot of them.
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Posts: 18,036
Threads: 164
Joined: May 2011
Well, I still have a mental list of four or five leaders I'd be happy with, so I'd think it'd be okay. Like I said, as long as the distorting effects of Finanacial and Sury are off the list, the rest is just "see 'em in every game already".
I'm fine with inland sea script if it could get mapmaker attention adding peaks, lakes, and inlets to make the geography and potential borders a little more interesting than four blobs around a blue circle.
Bobchillingworth
Unregistered
I haven't made a BTS map in a while, but I'd be willing to give it a whack if you all would be okay with me being the mapmaker. I dunno how to add in leaders after I make the map, so I'd need all your preferences and civs before I could start.
Posts: 15,382
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Bobchillingworth Wrote:I haven't made a BTS map in a while, but I'd be willing to give it a whack if you all would be okay with me being the mapmaker. I dunno how to add in leaders after I make the map, so I'd need all your preferences and civs before I could start.
It's pretty simple in worldbuilder IIRC. Just have to use the civ/leaders tab. I can help if you'd like.
Posts: 18,036
Threads: 164
Joined: May 2011
Bob, scooter, I'd be glad to have your mapmaking if mackoti/TT/ (TXT_KEY_PLAYER) don't object. Again, inner sea with some interesting tactical geography would be my preference. I'd still wait on the fourth player and agreed settings before fiddling with a map though.
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
I have no issue with bob/scooter working on the map and I agree with Commodore's suggestion of adding some tactical geography to the inland sea map as that would be fun I imagine.
Hopefully we can find a fourth player soon and get this off the ground quickly!
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
|
