New EitB v12 PBEM

[Aurorarcher]

That's okay, Mardoc. I actually felt kind of bad myself that I bugged you a couple times when it wasn't all that necessary perhaps (late game turns can take a while). Sorry about that. Especially for that fact that I understand it's not the most fun to play the turns when you aren't quite playing at the level you wanted, or when your chances of winning are basically zero.

Anyway, I hope you'll be back playing PBEMs again soon I'm feeling the interest in EitB PBEMs/EitB in general has slowly went downhill overall (but not for me), and I don't know why. Hopefully there are still people left who have interest to play these games at least somewhat regularly.

[Mardoc]

That's okay, Mardoc. I actually felt kind of bad myself that I bugged you a couple times when it wasn't all that necessary perhaps (late game turns can take a while). Sorry about that.

Well, I mean, I did know this was advertised as a PYFT game .

Especially for that fact that I understand it's not the most fun to play the turns when you aren't quite playing at the level you wanted, or when your chances of winning are basically zero.

Ironically, I find it much easier to find time to play when my chances are zero than when they're almost zero. I feel more free to make mistakes when there's no hope anyway.

Anyway, I hope you'll be back playing PBEMs again soon I'm feeling the interest in EitB PBEMs/EitB in general has slowly went downhill overall (but not for me), and I don't know why. Hopefully there are still people left who have interest to play these games at least somewhat regularly.

Well, the main thing for me is that real life is taking more time than it used to. Until I figure out how to get my chores, commute, etc, done faster, I don't have time for PBEM on top of everything else.

A secondary thing is that we're getting too good at this and the games are over in a flash. There's barely any turns between 'have worker techs unlocked' and 'someone won the game', it feels like. But I don't know if anyone else feels that way or if it's a personal preference. And anyway, it's not like I'll be playing BtS games instead.

[Qgqqqqq]

I think its just the inevitable moves of a small community which isn't growing to match it.

But like Mardoc, for me it's the ability to handle a hasn't at all, not anything about EitB.

[Aurorarcher]

A secondary thing is that we're getting too good at this and the games are over in a flash. There's barely any turns between 'have worker techs unlocked' and 'someone won the game', it feels like. But I don't know if anyone else feels that way or if it's a personal preference.

I bolded the important sentence. I kind of agree with this, I'm not sure if it's because the maps have been rather cramped (even this one) or because we're too good at this. I don't think there's a simple solution to make games longer but still keep the intensity on. I mean I don't think it would be much of fun if everyone just played their "own SP game" for the first 100 turns before the borders started to come closer to each other. Of course some civs would again benefit from this more than others, similarly as Ljos just simply are too slow with their development in a cramped map but can be very good with bigger maps.

Personally, I'm dreaming of EitB game with a bigger map and like 8-10 players in the game. Which ultimately could result in a game where you simply don't win the game by killing one civ and there could be several wars going at the same time. That could make games last longer but still be interesting from the start. Obviously such game would drop the turn pace down a lot in a PBEM (maybe to 3 turns/week) but I'd probably still play such game - then again, not many others would .

[Mardoc]

I kind of agree with this, I'm not sure if it's because the maps have been rather cramped (even this one) or because we're too good at this.

Honestly, I think it's a bunch of things about FFH balance being tilted toward offense instead of defense. That lets you turn a small advantage into a successful war, into a bigger advantage, and soon enough a snowball to win.

Culture is harder to get than BtS and makes less difference once you've got it. There aren't any rock-paper-scissors effects to give a defender advantage - if you have stronger troops, you have stronger troops. Mobility is high, early, allowing for easy forks. Those are tactical effects.

Strategically, mobility helps the attacker too, because you can accomplish more before a defender can react. The other big thing is that every unit type requires a building first, and rush civics are weaker/harder to get - so a defender can't react to a war as quickly as BtS. Spells give you repeatable collateral/bodies, so that a winning army needn't take (m)any casualties - and then boosted XP strengthens the winners. And...there aren't all that many buildings that pay off their cost. If you build an army and attack your neighbor, while I try to build my cities vertically, you're going to come out in better shape than me. City States/Aristo both help to make conquest profitable sooner.

Community experience mostly just means that we're aware of the effects and use them.

But I don't know how much can be done in bits and pieces. Rebalancing systems toward the defender would likely cause rippling changes - traits might have to change, civ bonuses, etc and so on.

Personally, I'm dreaming of EitB game with a bigger map and like 8-10 players in the game. Which ultimately could result in a game where you simply don't win the game by killing one civ and there could be several wars going at the same time. That could make games last longer but still be interesting from the start. Obviously such game would drop the turn pace down a lot in a PBEM (maybe to 3 turns/week) but I'd probably still play such game - then again, not many others would .

That sounds quite attractive. I can't right now, but in a few months once I've got some efficiency figured out I might be up for something like this.

[Dreylin]

I'd definitely be up for that as well in a few months. I was expecting / hoping to have canvassed for another late era game by now, but I lost more time than I expected to the BtS late era game.

[Bobchillingworth]

Heh, in a few months I might also be up for a giant PBEM (or a PB if we can work out the issues with turn order & magic). Might be a fun way to conclude the FFH chapter of RB's history (or revive the community, whichever!). Slow pace is fine if it's established in advance.


Would be great if we could bring back some of the old community members too, a good few of which I've noticed back on the site in the last month.

[Qgqqqqq]

Honestly, I think it's a bunch of things about FFH balance being tilted toward offense instead of defense. That lets you turn a small advantage into a successful war, into a bigger advantage, and soon enough a snowball to win.

I 100% agree with this. But I think it's something integral to FFH, about as fundamentally as research paths. It's just designed that way.


I could do a slow PBEM. I mean, I'm close to signing up for a normal PBEM, too.

[DaveV]

A big game sounds interesting to me, too, as long as people go in with the understanding that PYFT is more important than ever. Slow pace doesn't mean that a player can regularly hold the turn for a couple days, or the game will never finish. Once the turn rate falls below 2 days, people start forgetting what they were planning and losing interest in the game. Then the pace slows some more, and things really fall apart.

[The Black Sword]

I'm interested in another FFH game, but it's hard to justify playing 2 civ games right now. So tentatively interested in the bigger game with slower pace.