EitB XXXVIII Setup and Tech Thread

[Kragroth]

That's fine with me

[Eclipse]

Welcome Auroracher

[Kragroth]

So the proposed Teams Are:

Team 1:
Kragroth
Auroarcher
Eclipse

Team 2:
Qgqqqqq
Evil Muffin
Kredom

Verify I have that right please.

[Kredom]

then it would be krag, eclipse and auroracher

vs the rest ?

[Aurorarcher]

I'm fine with that. Will comment on other things later.

[Kredom]

ok, done

[Kragroth]

We need a couple of responses to q's questions. . Then we can actually set up the map.

[Eclipse]

Kredom would you update post#1 to add all fixed and pending questions and add teams and eventually player order here please

[Aurorarcher]

Okay so there seem to be a couple of things we need to thrash out.

1. How are we picking civs/leaders?

Are we allowing duplicates or not? Are we choosing privately or snake-picking?

I think it's probably more fun without duplicates but I don't mind if we end up using duplicates. It's easier for teams to pick their civs/leaders if duplicates are allowed though. This way each team can pick whatever they want to.

2. How (if any) should gifting cities be sorted?

As Krag notes, units can't be gifted, but cities can, and have some interesting interactions in a team game. Personally I'm in favor of "on the first turn in your teams possession only."

Hmm. This is a tough one. The game itself allow gifting cities at any time but I'm not sure if like that to be honest. I agree that gifting cities should only be allowed for the during turn when you capture/found the city; of course depending on the turn order accepting the gift could happen on the next turn after offering the city to your teammate.

3. Should any civs be banned?

I've been reading up on the pitboss lately, and I'm thinking the clan probably should be. Their strength as a team player is really very powerful, as most of their weaknesses disappear with the nature of the game. Maybe if we allow duplicates, but even then, its a bit boring if each team has a clan - they've been done in a teamer, IMO.

No bans for civs.

4. How do we want the map to be?

Obviously we won't be too specific, but some general pointers are probably needed before Bob can start work - mirrored or non-mirrored? How close/big do we want the map (roughly)? Do we want something drawn, or just a touched-up rolled script? How big a role should naval be? How natural/flavorful do we want it? How close are players to each other? How many landmasses are there, and how cohesive are they? And so on.

I kind of don't like mirrored starts. The reason for this is pretty clear: while scouting your own land you also know what kind of land your opponents have. And you know where their key resources like Copper, Horses, etc. are. Boring. So no mirrored but balanced for sure. Of course this makes mapmakers' work a bit harder (Sorry Bob). Also in this case the map probably needs to be checked by a 3rd party; like Dave or someone else who is very good at considering how balanced the map is.

5. Barbarians/lairs/huts?

What it says on the tin.

I love barbarians but considering as it's 3v3 they're probably not needed. Though I think settling cities early will become significantly easier if there's no barbs. So I don't know what to do with barbs, I'm fine with either keeping them off or on.

Lairs, very distant (on islands or something) or totally off. Probably better just remove them.

Huts no. This is pretty standard I think.

Also considering the map. I think the map should probably be a panagea with an inland sea with islands. I want the map to give teams a choice to use naval assaults. Maybe put something worthy on those islands so that there's a reason to use the sea. For the map size I'm thinking like 200-250 tiles per player. Not too big but certainly not too crowded either.

[Aurorarcher]

Oh yea, what about winning conditions? Only domination/conquest allowed or other as well? Was this discussed already?