New EitB PBEM?

[DaveV]

Ichabod: when discussing restricted leaders, you mentioned not wanting to play with power combos: does that extend to banning some of the overused civs, or is this going to be another round of vampires vs. elves vs. clowns vs. pirates ?

My preferences are to have enough food and commerce to make the game playable at a reasonable speed. I prefer to give the mapmaker considerable discretion, as long as he makes a good faith effort to give everyone a fair start.

I'm OK with starting the game sooner rather than wait for Sareln to clear his schedule and finish up version 10 so we could take it for a test drive. I really think we need to do something about the hammer cost of Fawns, though. And I'll repeat that I will need someone to play my turns from March 23-31.

[Ichabod]

Ichabod: when discussing restricted leaders, you mentioned not wanting to play with power combos: does that extend to banning some of the overused civs, or is this going to be another round of vampires vs. elves vs. clowns vs. pirates ?

My preferences are to have enough food and commerce to make the game playable at a reasonable speed. I prefer to give the mapmaker considerable discretion, as long as he makes a good faith effort to give everyone a fair start.

I'm OK with starting the game sooner rather than wait for Sareln to clear his schedule and finish up version 10 so we could take it for a test drive. I really think we need to do something about the hammer cost of Fawns, though. And I'll repeat that I will need someone to play my turns from March 23-31.

Well, we'll need to play with the modified .dll to make the Nox Noctis work, like they did in EitB XXVI. Maybe there's a way to change the fawn cost there? Otherwise, I don't see what we can do.

We could ban some civs, but I'm not sure if that's the right way to go about it. I know I'm not going to pick any of these, but I also don't think we should forbid people of choosing them, if they so want. Up to the otehr players, though, I'm fine either way.

Regarding the days you'll be away, worst case scenario we take a break. It won't be a long break and I think everyone has other games to keep entertained during that time. But I doubt you won't find a ded-lurker until then.

[Serdoa]

I definitely rather play than wait as there is not even a date for which to wait and I certainly rather have Sareln take the time he needs then give him in the slightest the feeling that we put him under pressure to finish v10. So, from my point of view as stated before we can roll with events.

As for banning leaders: I would also like not to ban any of them. With restricted I think it is balanced enough. What I could see as a compromise would be banning Balseraphs, because they are really used in every single game (and I played them already in a PBEM) and their puppet-spam seems to unbalance the game. Apart from that though I think neither Vampires, Elves nor Pirates have ever been sooo overpowered that one could not overcome them.

[DaveV]

Well, we'll need to play with the modified .dll to make the Nox Noctis work, like they did in EitB XXVI. Maybe there's a way to change the fawn cost there? Otherwise, I don't see what we can do.

It wouldn't be in the modified .dll, but all you would have to add is a modified CIV4UnitInfos.xml file to fix the fawns. Other xml changes could fix these problems from Sareln's list:

Crashes and Bugfixes:

• Bug: Thessalonica's Alignment (Good -> Neutral)
  
• Bug: Furia's Alignment (Evil -> Neutral)
  
• Bug: Remove Mary Morbus Event, as she is buildable
  
• Bug: Match Grigori Tavern cost to the new Tavern cost
  

Balance Changes & Features:

• Unit Change: Boost Mud Golem Cost: 50H -> 75H (Same base cost as Worker)
  
• Spell Change: Move Lich Spell from Malevolent Designs to Divine Essence
  
• Spell Change: Pillar of Fire available at Righteousness to Order High Priests and Chalid
  
• Unit Change: Druids lose Channeling III but keep their druid spells
  
• Unit Change: Beast of Agares requires Demon's Altar and Ashen Veil State Religion
  
• Demon's Altars are National Wonders
  
• Unit Change: Centaur Chargers cannot be upgraded to
  
• Promotion/Effect Change: Bless gives +15 Fire Resistance along with +1 Holy Strength
  

[Ichabod]

Would you be able to do these changes, DaveV?

Would the other players mind to see these changes (+ fawn cost upped from 40h to 60h? - do you agree with this HK, since you used fawns a lot in one of your games?) and using a modified .dll and .xml? Like I've said, we are probably going to use a new .dll anyway, due to a bug with Nox Noctis, so it wouldn't mean a bigger hassle. Anyway, if there are any objections, I think we should go with base EitB 0.9 version + the new .dll, unless we'll be stuck in balance discussions.

And, to add another thought, if we are going with base EitB 0.9, we should probably ban the Luchuirp. 50h mud golems is too good. I've ded-lurked a game where they were used and it was too much of an advantage. They are cheaper and work faster.

[Qgqqqqq]

Considering your trying to use a bunch of v10 settings, why don't you just ask sareln for what he'd done (up to the BUGfix)?

[Ichabod]

How about this for a compromise:

1. We play with version 0.9 of EitB and no balance changes, only the modified .dll to get Nox Noctis.

2. We ban the civ/leader combination that already won a EitB game. This is both a balance measure and a diversity measure. So, we'd ban Falamar/Lanun, Perpentach/Balseraphs, Beeri/Luchuirp and Volanna/Svartalfar. We also ban Keelyn due to the mass summons.

This way, we don't get into balance discussion, while still avoiding some tried and proven powerful combinations (Aggresive, Sinister Fawns, Industrious mud golems, Keelyn's mass summons). But, we still allow every civ to be taken (Balseraphs have a new leader, all other civs have leaders too).

I know this is a discritionary decision of some sorts, but I think it keeps a good balance between, well, balance and leaving a lot of game options open. Besides, we keep the game as it is, not needing to wait for version 0.10.

How about this? I'll wait for more input on this and then I'll parse the votes, so we can keep moving forward.

[Serdoa]

Fine with that.

[DaveV]

We ban the civ/leader combination that already won a EitB game.

Great idea! But I think you left out Amelanchier/Ljosalfar from EitB18.

[Ichabod]

We ban the civ/leader combination that already won a EitB game.

Great idea! But I think you left out Amelanchier/Ljosalfar from EitB18.

I was going to let him stand due to that game being a No Settlers one, whcih makes a big difference. But seeing as the otehr games also had some quirks, let's add him to the ban list, making it:

1. Beeri Baul of the Luchuirp
2. Vollana of the Svartalfar
3. Amelanchier of the Ljosalfar
4. Keelyn of the Balseraphs
5. Perpentach of the Balseraphs
6. Falamar of the Lanun

Hopefully these bans don't interfere too much on the picks the players had planned.