The start of the RB Pitboss was a great success. It gives life into the RB Civilization forum. Many more people started to participate in the other RB events (epics and adventures), and maybe it’s the right time to channel the increased interest and start a second Pitboss game? I know I am not the person, who should announce such an event but I just want to start a discussion.
But before I go further first some of my thoughts on the existing RB Pitboss.
I really like the map Sulla has created. The lake script gives the ideal balance of land and water, creates natural chock points, is interesting strategically and don’t exclude any civilization, like in the case of Vikings and rocky Pangea. Personally I would prefer a smaller map, but I understand it’s so big to prevent early rushes, which is good too. IMO an early rush involves little thinking and more playing along the schemes: beeline to certain tech, chop, whip a bunch of units and send them to the nearest neighbor, not very deep strategically.
[SIZE="4"]EDIT: Spoilerish info deleted[/SIZE]
The map is the strongest point of the RB Pitboss, but the game is not without some flaws.
1. For me, the major flaw is the creation of UTA / NUTA and the division of the players into two antagonist teams. Instead of a free for all game you have a team multiplayer game. I know it’s the consequence of “no tech brokering” option. You need to stick with some guys if you don’t want to fall off the tech trading loop. I started to think, what would make the game better. First I think about “no tech trading” option, but it’s not a solution neither. Everybody would beeline to military techs (i.e. BW, IW, Writing, Mathematics, Construction) and the player who goes there first and maintains some tech advantage wins. Not really interesting. Then I thought about some other limitation, which on the one hand allows tech trading, and on the other prevents establishing big trading blocks. I think such an option come into my mind:
“no tech brokering” checked, and:
You can give only one tech to one player, and you can receive only one tech from one player. It’s up to you if you exchange techs, give it for money, give it for troops, or give it for free.
At the start the idea seems a little harsh, but the longer I thought about it, the more I was convinced the idea is right. In a 11 players game you can exchange 10 techs (one tech with 10 different players), maybe it’s not the world record but it is quite a lot. There is no pressure to form big teams now, because there is no point to form tech alliances, and at last the game has a chance to become a true FFA.
2. IMO, the second flaw is an unrealistic diplomacy.
Historical, the contact between states leaders was very difficult. There was not such thing as a real time contact on demand, and due to this many wars broke out, many wrong decisions was made just because of misunderstanding or lack of information. The reaction to new situations and coordination between several allies was very hard and tricky. In Civilization you can do it in real time via chat, what is not historically accurate.
You put some rules here, to make it more realistic, but I would throw some more in:
1. No contact until in-game contact.
2. No messages longer than 180 letters before Writing. It’s the ancient form of SMS
To reflect the fact the massages were remembered and then repeated by messengers before Writing was invented. It’s hard to remember several pages of text
3. No screenshots or maps trading before Paper.
4. No chat before Radio.
3. The difficulty level. I think Noble is too low. It has too many player bonuses, and the only viable opening strategy is REXing without looking at the upkeep. The second consequence of Noble difficulty is the very fast tech progress. Add to this the size of the map, and the result will be an army becoming obsolete in transit to an enemy, especially in later eras, when a tech discovering time is around 2-4 turns.
Prince is the next level, but it’s the big step from the Noble difficulty. At least you have to put some attention to your upkeep level, balance expansion and economy, and at last the Organized trait become a viable option. You can consider higher difficulty levels, Monarch or even Emperor, but I think Prince can be enough.
4. Unrestricted leaders. The game designers banned some leaders/civs combinations for a reason. That’s way you have no Aggressive Rome, no Expansive Incans, and no Organized HRE. There is at least 15-16 viable civs to choose, and there is no need to mix the civs with different leaders. Some people would argue, this way the player who choose their civ first is in the best position. It’s true but you can offset this by some kind of auction. Let’s say you give every player some gold (50 ?) to start with. You can secretly bet none, part or the entire sum in a PM to the map designer. The person who bets the most can choose their civ first, the person who bet the second most choose next and so on. If two or more players bet the same sum, the map designer draw the order. The rest unused gold is transferred to your civilization.
Example: you have 50 gold, and decided to bet 20, and PMed the map creator about your decision. After all players bets, the map creator post a list with the players and the sums they bet. The player, who bets the most is on the top. With your bet of 20 gold you are in the 5th place. This mean you can choose your civ as 5th player, and the rest 30 gold is transferred to your civilization.
And the final question: are here some people who want to participate in such a game? I know it’s not the best moment to start another multiplayer, with so many other events just started, but the first RB Pitboss draw so much interest into RB forum, that maybe some lurkers would want to play the new Pitboss game instead of just … lurking, and maybe some people involved in the Poly Demogame, have more time now and want to use it here This is just the start of a discussion and a check if it’s enough interest to create the second Pitboss.
[SIZE="4"]Proposed game’s rules:[/SIZE]
Game: RB Pitboss 2
Start: Ancient
Difficulty: Prince (maybe higher?)
Map: (to be decided or to the decision of a map designer)
Size: depends on the number of players
Game speed: Normal
- No tech brokering + you can give only one tech to one player, and you can receive only one tech from one player.
- Restricted leaders
- No vassal states
- Normal barbs
- Tribal Villages and Random events – to be decided
- No contact until in-game contact.
- No messages longer than 180 letters before Writing. To reflect the fact the massages were remembered and then repeated by messengers before Writing was invented.
- No screenshots or maps trading before Paper.
- No chat before Radio.
I am not a veteran player, participated in only 3 RB adventures, and I feel a little guilty for starting the thread, but maybe there are more players, who desperately needed a second Pitboss .... like me
But before I go further first some of my thoughts on the existing RB Pitboss.
I really like the map Sulla has created. The lake script gives the ideal balance of land and water, creates natural chock points, is interesting strategically and don’t exclude any civilization, like in the case of Vikings and rocky Pangea. Personally I would prefer a smaller map, but I understand it’s so big to prevent early rushes, which is good too. IMO an early rush involves little thinking and more playing along the schemes: beeline to certain tech, chop, whip a bunch of units and send them to the nearest neighbor, not very deep strategically.
[SIZE="4"]EDIT: Spoilerish info deleted[/SIZE]
The map is the strongest point of the RB Pitboss, but the game is not without some flaws.
1. For me, the major flaw is the creation of UTA / NUTA and the division of the players into two antagonist teams. Instead of a free for all game you have a team multiplayer game. I know it’s the consequence of “no tech brokering” option. You need to stick with some guys if you don’t want to fall off the tech trading loop. I started to think, what would make the game better. First I think about “no tech trading” option, but it’s not a solution neither. Everybody would beeline to military techs (i.e. BW, IW, Writing, Mathematics, Construction) and the player who goes there first and maintains some tech advantage wins. Not really interesting. Then I thought about some other limitation, which on the one hand allows tech trading, and on the other prevents establishing big trading blocks. I think such an option come into my mind:
“no tech brokering” checked, and:
You can give only one tech to one player, and you can receive only one tech from one player. It’s up to you if you exchange techs, give it for money, give it for troops, or give it for free.
At the start the idea seems a little harsh, but the longer I thought about it, the more I was convinced the idea is right. In a 11 players game you can exchange 10 techs (one tech with 10 different players), maybe it’s not the world record but it is quite a lot. There is no pressure to form big teams now, because there is no point to form tech alliances, and at last the game has a chance to become a true FFA.
2. IMO, the second flaw is an unrealistic diplomacy.
Historical, the contact between states leaders was very difficult. There was not such thing as a real time contact on demand, and due to this many wars broke out, many wrong decisions was made just because of misunderstanding or lack of information. The reaction to new situations and coordination between several allies was very hard and tricky. In Civilization you can do it in real time via chat, what is not historically accurate.
You put some rules here, to make it more realistic, but I would throw some more in:
1. No contact until in-game contact.
2. No messages longer than 180 letters before Writing. It’s the ancient form of SMS
To reflect the fact the massages were remembered and then repeated by messengers before Writing was invented. It’s hard to remember several pages of text 3. No screenshots or maps trading before Paper.
4. No chat before Radio.
3. The difficulty level. I think Noble is too low. It has too many player bonuses, and the only viable opening strategy is REXing without looking at the upkeep. The second consequence of Noble difficulty is the very fast tech progress. Add to this the size of the map, and the result will be an army becoming obsolete in transit to an enemy, especially in later eras, when a tech discovering time is around 2-4 turns.
Prince is the next level, but it’s the big step from the Noble difficulty. At least you have to put some attention to your upkeep level, balance expansion and economy, and at last the Organized trait become a viable option. You can consider higher difficulty levels, Monarch or even Emperor, but I think Prince can be enough.
4. Unrestricted leaders. The game designers banned some leaders/civs combinations for a reason. That’s way you have no Aggressive Rome, no Expansive Incans, and no Organized HRE. There is at least 15-16 viable civs to choose, and there is no need to mix the civs with different leaders. Some people would argue, this way the player who choose their civ first is in the best position. It’s true but you can offset this by some kind of auction. Let’s say you give every player some gold (50 ?) to start with. You can secretly bet none, part or the entire sum in a PM to the map designer. The person who bets the most can choose their civ first, the person who bet the second most choose next and so on. If two or more players bet the same sum, the map designer draw the order. The rest unused gold is transferred to your civilization.
Example: you have 50 gold, and decided to bet 20, and PMed the map creator about your decision. After all players bets, the map creator post a list with the players and the sums they bet. The player, who bets the most is on the top. With your bet of 20 gold you are in the 5th place. This mean you can choose your civ as 5th player, and the rest 30 gold is transferred to your civilization.
And the final question: are here some people who want to participate in such a game? I know it’s not the best moment to start another multiplayer, with so many other events just started, but the first RB Pitboss draw so much interest into RB forum, that maybe some lurkers would want to play the new Pitboss game instead of just … lurking, and maybe some people involved in the Poly Demogame, have more time now and want to use it here
This is just the start of a discussion and a check if it’s enough interest to create the second Pitboss.[SIZE="4"]Proposed game’s rules:[/SIZE]
Game: RB Pitboss 2
Start: Ancient
Difficulty: Prince (maybe higher?)
Map: (to be decided or to the decision of a map designer)
Size: depends on the number of players
Game speed: Normal
- No tech brokering + you can give only one tech to one player, and you can receive only one tech from one player.
- Restricted leaders
- No vassal states
- Normal barbs
- Tribal Villages and Random events – to be decided
- No contact until in-game contact.
- No messages longer than 180 letters before Writing. To reflect the fact the massages were remembered and then repeated by messengers before Writing was invented.
- No screenshots or maps trading before Paper.
- No chat before Radio.
I am not a veteran player, participated in only 3 RB adventures, and I feel a little guilty for starting the thread, but maybe there are more players, who desperately needed a second Pitboss .... like me
and would love to see a second created. I'll weigh in on options if there's more interest but I'll just say I would much prefer atleast a Prince level game, preferably Monarch.
