FFH Team PBEM Game

[Ilios]

We didn't get FFH to work for Pitboss last time we tried. Pity, because consequential turns would be great for the format (2x2x2x2 AW) of this game.

I agree with most of Darrell's points, and echoing Ravus Sol in asking for a lush map.

Before we do start this, everyone needs to realise that the pace of this game will be pretty slow.

[darrelljs]

Kandros Fir / Flauros of the Clan of Embers, but alas it's restricted!

Apparently not! Although personally I won't take Flauros again. Unless he's available of course .

Darrell

[Jkaen]

Ok, have 4 sets of feedback, waiting for the others.

Please note we also need a map maker if anybody fancies giving it a go?

[Ilios]

Apparently not! Although personally I won't take Flauros again.

I think Amelia meant that we're going to play restricted, meaning you cannot play Flauros of the Clan for example.

[darrelljs]

Whoops! I guess it didn't process that anyone would want to play a Dwarven Flauros .

Darrell

[darrelljs]

On the map, do we want to do an all land map (Lakes or maybe Fantasy!) with each team in a corner (no world wrap)? That seems like the best way for this kind of game. I'd also suggest with 8 teams we go Huge (or at least Large).

Darrell

[Thoth]

On the map, do we want to do an all land map (Lakes or maybe Fantasy!) with each team in a corner (no world wrap)? That seems like the best way for this kind of game. I'd also suggest with 8 teams we go Huge (or at least Large).

Darrell

Lakes might be fun...or possibly inland sea? Inland sea would allow for some naval possibilities without overpowering OO.

and we're only 4 teams.


Mr. Yellow's suggestion for teams sounds good to me.

Religions - No restrictions, unless somebody can explain why we should ban them

If we're playing with compact enforced there is no downside to running for Infernal Pact via AV. If we're on a watery map OO is far too strong.

If neither of the above conditions apply....then I'm fine with not banning any religions.

As far as the compact goes....do we want human replacements for Hybie/Basium? or AI's? I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

Also, do we want to ban city gifting between team-mates? I would vote "No city gifting" as there are a number of ways to abuse it with the right civ/leader teams.

[Mardoc]

Also, do we want to ban city gifting between team-mates? I would vote "No city gifting" as there are a number of ways to abuse it with the right civ/leader teams.

Aw man, now we're going to have to totally change up our plans!

I actually think I like the rule, except I would relax it a smidgen to 'no gifting of cities with civ-specific buildings', to allow for things like rearranging empires after conquest

[Thoth]

Aw man, now we're going to have to totally change up our plans!

I had given some thought as to how city gifting could be abused....

I actually think I like the rule, except I would relax it a smidgen to 'no gifting of cities with civ-specific buildings', to allow for things like rearranging empires after conquest

Hmmm. Seems reasonable, it would also cover "Tolerant leader captures city then builds civ specific building(s) of former owners, then gifts city to team-mate". The gifting would have to be done before any new civ specific buildings were constructed.

[Ichabod]

Format - PBEM
Always war? - Yes
Leaders/Civs - Restricted, No Auric/Illian
Allow duplicate civs/leaders (but not on the same team) - No
Speed normal/quick - Quick
Acheron - No
Orthus - No
Barbs - normal
Compact Enforced - Yes
Religions - No restrictions
Map - Land map; lush map
Difficulty - Immortal
Teams - Snake pick

I'm ok with the teams suggested. It'll be hard to coordinate properly with someone on the other side of the world, but what can you do?

I agree with the no city gifting rule suggested by Thoth. Too much abuse possible (creative leaders, civ specific buildings), I don't have a problem regarding gifting conquered cities, though.