New Pitboss 8-10 players, small-medium map?

[Amicalola]

Tentatively interested on the condition that the map is cylindrical and barbs are on.

I have to ask, why do you want barbs to be on?

 I would also vote for barbs on if this starts at a time that I joined, FWIW.

[Charriu]

Don't forget there is more nuance to the barb setting. It's no longer a strict binary. You can for example remove barb water units and/or barb cities.

[Ginger()]

Yeah a map that small can do without barbs, players felt sufficiently dangerous in 63, and that was a bit bigger a map than what I’m aiming for here.

Also I understand a couple of pitboss games recently fired off, I myself probably won’t have time until after thanksgiving holiday, just putting the idea out there to see if there’s interest in this sort of map spec

[Tarkeel]

Tentatively interested on the condition that the map is cylindrical and barbs are on.

I have to ask, why do you want barbs to be on?

If barbarian land units are not present it also warps the game in different ways, in effect punishing careful play in favor of a farmers gambit. This can lead to even bigger swings than losing a barb battle when someone calls your gambit. It also removes an element of skill in handling barbs, both through fog busting and backup options.

Yeah a map that small can do without barbs, players felt sufficiently dangerous in 63, and that was a bit bigger a map than what I’m aiming for here.

I read your initial post as wanting something like PB63, but with slightly *more* land in the border areas.

[Charriu]

To add to Tarkeels remarks about barbs. It also depends heavily on map size. Consider the tiny war map for PB68 and a big map like PB66. I think one event of bad RNG has a much bigger impact on the overall game in PB68 then it would have in PB66.

[Mjmd]

Tight map PB62 SD lost his 3rd city to the barbs at 4% odds. YAAAAA I agree with SD barbs bad. And let me tell you there was plenty of incentive not to farmers gambit that game (see two dead greens).

[Magic Science]

Hello. I will participate in this next pitboss game. Mark me as an assured player, whenever it happens.

My preference is for the hyper random settings of 64, because that seemed like a lot of fun. So yes to barbarians, but what I want most is a random natural map. Also yes to cylinder like Gavagai. I enjoy zooming around in the globe view.

[superdeath]

Tight map PB62 SD lost his 3rd city to the barbs at 4% odds. YAAAAA I agree with SD barbs bad. And let me tell you there was plenty of incentive not to farmers gambit that game (see two dead greens).

This.


I will still play, because i am a dumbass and i need to play in as many PB's as possible.. But barbarians are just Too much RNG for a small-ish map. Big map? FINE. Dont want BurgerKing of X to hit 20 cities before t100. I get that, but Barbs on a small map are just waiting to be an annoying part of the game.

[Ginger()]

Sorry Magic Science but I think I’m going to ask for some tweezer balance on this map, not random.

I agree that at 12tiles distance there isn’t a need for barbs, and we can put that to a vote. (We could houserule autowin against barbs at >90%, if that compromise nets us more participation)

Cylindrical is fine by me if it’s geopolitically mirrored ie nobody has 5 neighbors vs 1.

[Rusten]

Tentatively interested on the condition I can get my game to work. Using the legal version of BtS now (Steam edition: yuck!) and I'm expecting issues. Pay to lose.