new civ 6 pbem while the next pitboss can't start?

[MJW (ya that one)]

Thrawn also banned Statue of Zeus but I don't think that is needed because you need barracks and encampment. 144+400>65*7 (seven "free" units). Strong wonder but not worth banning.

[greenline]

What does the resource hiding thing refer to?

I'm not sure just how good Byzantium is for ban purposes. To get the most use out of them you do have to build full cost holy sites with no other economy boosts. Columbia (civ power is +1 movement on all units, and they get a free GG per era) seems worse.

[MJW (ya that one)]

What does the resource hiding thing refer to?

I'm not sure just how good Byzantium is for ban purposes. To get the most use out of them you do have to build full cost holy sites with no other economy boosts. Columbia (civ power is +1 movement on all units, and they get a free GG per era) seems worse.

Byzantium cannot be stopped from getting the Crusade. Combine that with the stacking +3s, the logarithmic combat and Basil 2 not having to waste hammers/wait for battering rams they are too much. 

That +1 is very nasty but I believe not nasty enough to just walk over someone. There would be enough time for a dogpile. 

Upgrading units is much more efficient than building them. Resource hiding allows you to do this artificially.  If it were just that it might be okay but faith-buying (so you don't even have to spend hammers), upgrading units more than once and policy cards make it much worse. It would also be annoying to manage.

[ljubljana]

City-gifting is so obvious that I don't have to talk about it.

lolll do we not think woden and i giving that one city back to TAD constituted legitimate diplomacy? i can also imagine situations where, say, two parties dogpile and kill a third party but conquer in a way that makes for awkward borders, so they might want to swap border cities to reduce the odds of being dragged into conflict with one another..... very hard to write a good rule that excludes all possible abuses though

i could be drafted for this game but not for a long time, probably as long as chev..... i think the civ4 game would have to be over first, or i'd have to be close enough to dead that i don't have to pay attention anymore

and um.... that civ4 thread still has fewer posts/turn than the (200 turns, 186 page) pbem20 thread..... but 3 of 4 teams crossed 100 pages in that game so maybe that was just the nature of the setup

[greenline]

If we're going to be a little serious about setting this up (when people are ready), we should probably figure what player count we are aiming for at a minimum. 3 seems to small, but I would take a 3 player game over no game.

[MJW (ya that one)]

City-gifting is so obvious that I don't have to talk about it.

lolll do we not think woden and i giving that one city back to TAD constituted legitimate diplomacy? i can also imagine situations where, say, two parties dogpile and kill a third party but conquer in a way that makes for awkward borders, so they might want to swap border cities to reduce the odds of being dragged into conflict with one another..... very hard to write a good rule that excludes all possible abuses though

i could be drafted for this game but not for a long time, probably as long as chev..... i think the civ4 game would have to be over first, or i'd have to be close enough to dead that i don't have to pay attention anymore

and um.... that civ4 thread still has fewer posts/turn than the (200 turns, 186 page) pbem20 thread..... but 3 of 4 teams crossed 100 pages in that game so maybe that was just the nature of the setup

IIRC that city was conquered so it still was technically TAD's city due to the occupation rule. Lurkers also vetoed a non-conquered city trade. I do concede this is more complex and can be talked about.  I had in mind a situation where a salty team gives all their cities to someone.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

If we're going to be a little serious about setting this up (when people are ready), we should probably figure what player count we are aiming for at a minimum. 3 seems to small, but I would take a 3 player game over no game.

Also, New Frontier and Leader pack civs are largely untouched. But the Civ Vi community here needs some fresh blood - may need to recruit abroad.

[MJW (ya that one)]

If we're going to be a little serious about setting this up (when people are ready), we should probably figure what player count we are aiming for at a minimum. 3 seems to small, but I would take a 3 player game over no game.

3-player would create a Mexican standoff situation because the guy who isn't involved in the first war has big edge. You could make it always war to force action though...

[greenline]

If we're going to be a little serious about setting this up (when people are ready), we should probably figure what player count we are aiming for at a minimum. 3 seems to small, but I would take a 3 player game over no game.

Also, New Frontier and Leader pack civs are largely untouched. But the Civ Vi community here needs some fresh blood - may need to recruit abroad.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can grab anyone willing to commit to this sort of game. And there were some of the New Frontier civs I did think would be fun to play...

[civac2]

I could ask at civforum.de. Thing is people there play both quick speed and at a slower turn rate.