Pitboss 9 Organizing Thread

[Twinkletoes89]

As we have had two aborted attempts at trying to get a new Pitboss game going, I thought I would make one last attempt to see if I can convince enough people to give a new game a go. Hopefully the guys from the previous attempts might be interested in joining together in this one?

Here's the basic outline:

1) Some element of Tech Trading -> probably No Tech Brokering

2) Some limitation on diplo (negotiable but would prefer some limitation with university finals not too far away)

3) Random rolled map

4) Random unrestricted combos - basically play the hand you are dealt

5) I would prefer sequential to simultaneous to avoid having to worry about double move issues but can be convinced otherwise.

Now these are the guys who have expressed some interest in a new pitboss in either of the previous threads:

Me, Jowy, Commodore, spacetyrantxenu, Tasunke, Luddite, Dantski, Automated Teller, antisocialmunky

which is a decent start if most guys are interested in a game plus any others we can attract.

Can we get a game going? I'm looking for between 8-12 ideally

Definite signups

1) TT
2) Commodore/Brick
3) Jowy
4) Automated Teller
5) Cornflakes
6) 2metraninja
7) Azza
8)

SIGN UPS CLOSE AT END OF MONDAY 7TH JANUARY

[Commodore]

Talking with Brick, we'd be interested in a slot I think:
1) No Tech Brokering

2) Some limitation on diplo (negotiable but would prefer some limitation with university finals not too far away) -CTON preferred, or accepting volunteer diplomats.

3) Random rolled map -Sure, why not?

4) Random unrestricted combos - basically play the hand you are dealt -Okay, but a suggested modification: Someone rolls a good 18 random combinations, and skims off the worst and best (Toku/Russia and Pacal/India get axed).

5) I would prefer sequential to simultaneous to avoid having to worry about double move issues but can be convinced otherwise. Be like PB5, PB8, and play with honor: Don't Double Move. Most of RB are pretty decent, best not to give an arcane double-move ruleset to game.

[BRickAstley]

5) I would prefer sequential to simultaneous to avoid having to worry about double move issues but can be convinced otherwise. Be like PB5, PB8, and play with honor: Don't Double Move. Most of RB are pretty decent, best not to give an arcane double-move ruleset to game.

The big issue with sequential in my mind is that it would require everyone to play in order, which would drag out turns significantly and make interest in the game wane, a la Demogame.

[Jowy]

Yes still interested! Not a fan of tech trading but I'll give it a go anyway, who knows, maybe the meta game will evolve with more games. Only if it's simultaneous though, with 8 teams the game would take forever. Oh and let's have some kind of a limit on diplomacy, like you suggested. Especially with tech trading allowed, diplo would require way too much time to play optimally.

[Twinkletoes89]

I'm happy to go with simultaneous, I just don't want things to go sour with the prospect of double moves. I remember the last 'casual' PB which turned pretty nasty in places.

[scooter]

I'm happy to go with simultaneous, I just don't want things to go sour with the prospect of double moves. I remember the last 'casual' PB which turned pretty nasty in places.

The last one was PB5 (weird numbering aside, this came after PB7) and it went perfectly.

[Dantski]

It should be simultaneous if you're looking for 8 teams. Around 6 is the most you can play with sequentially if you're trying to get a turn every day or so.

Still not sure if I'm willing to commit to a game at the moment, keeping my spoiler thread a wasteland and ignoring lurkers is hard work.

edit - I might ask Mukha if he's interested since he's been bugging me to play civ4 again.

[AutomatedTeller]

I'd be happy to play. There's going to be some times where I'll need a sub - end of feb, a few days in early april, sometime in may.

I'm fine with diplo, but I think we should talk about the type of game we play - in particular, I'd like to make a house rule that limits NAPs.

I'm thinking this:

No NAP longer than 10 turns.
You can only extend a NAP for up to an additional 10 turns and only when it has 5 turns (or fewer) left.

Thus - you could sign a NAP on turn 10 to turn 25. On turn 20, you can extend it for 10 more turns, to turn 35. On turn 30, you can extend it for 8 turns, till turn 43. On Turn 42, you can extend it for 2 turns, till turn 45. On turn 45, you can extend it for 10 more turns. You can let it expire on turn 55 and then renew it on turn 57 for 7 turns.

This A) gives some warning that your opponent is, in fact, thinking of attacking you with that big stack that you see him building and B) allows you to join a dogpile on the leader if you so choose.

I am in favor of tech trading with no tech brokering. And, if we screw up and leave the setting off, we have to enforce it ourselves.

I'd like to encourage people to regard tech deals in a similar way to NAP's - if it will take longer than 10 turns to get to a tech, don't make a deal to trade for it (or trade it)

[Jowy]

As far as I know NAP's are not enforced, so you can break one anytime you want. They are solely based on honor and trust. Creating an artificial "backstab window" makes little sense. All it might do is lower your guilt when you actually perform the backstab. Thought it shouldn't really, because it's the exact same thing, in both cases you backstab someone without breaking rules. All you break is your relationship with that civ, and possibly make yourself look untrustworthy in the eyes of the others.

[Twinkletoes89]

I'm with Jowy, I think trying to put a limit on NAPs isn't really going to do much more than possibly create more hassle.

I'm not a fan of them and might ban them if I could be bothered but I'm not.

I think the access to tech trading may lower the impact of NAPs anyway, as runaways can't rely solely on them to get an unassailable lead, as the others could cut them out of a tech bloc and overtake them.