New Civ 5 PBEM - BNW

[Meiz]

They're quite OP, as is Poland. I wouldn't want to make a long ban list, but won't be sorry if these two are not available I don't think there's need to ban any wonders in BNW.

[Jowy]

We could, for the sake of diversity, ban the civs that were already chosen on the 2 previous PBEMs.

This is a good idea.

I think Shoshone are balanced, unless there's some early cheese tactics with the pathfinders that I don't know about.

[Ichabod]

I think Shoshone are balanced, unless there's some early cheese tactics with the pathfinders that I don't know about.

No, it was just my impression after reading what the civs do. That's why I asked, since I haven't tested them.

[Jowy]

Okay. Well, one thing they can do is pick an upgrade from a hut and become Composite Bowmen with scout movement very early in the game. I haven't played MP so I don't know if this is something that can be used effectively to take someone out.

[Meiz]

I like to keep huts on, but the ability to choose the bonuses really accelerates the early game snowball. Free pantheon? sure. Then some culture, population and a free tech ? Add ridiculous borders for new cities and fighting bonus for all troops inside your borders. It's not utterly broken, but definitely one of the strongest civs with Poland.

[Jowy]

Speaking of early game snowballs, quick speed isn't executed perfectly. Last game I could have gotten at earliest a turn three pantheon by meeting a religious CS. The reward you get for meeting them isn't scaled down, but the faith needed for a pantheon is. It's an automatic pantheon to the player who meets a religious CS first. If desert folklore hadn't been banned I would have snowballed hard in that game, all by RNG.

[Ichabod]

The problem of going normal speed is that the game will take ages to finish. I agree that the game is less balanced towards quick speed then Civ 4, for example. But that's just something we have to accept, if we want to play the game at a decent pace, in my opinion.

Desert folklore has to be banned again, by the way. It's just too good.

[Azza]

I'd rather play quick since it'll be a PBEM.

I'd lean toward banning the the 11 civs + The Huns that have been taken in the first 2 Civ5 PBEMs, but I need to think about how a draft would go with such eliminations incase there's 2 or 3 clear standout civs.

CS I'd go with default number.

Small map would work as long as it's been looked over by a mapmaker, but for CS distribution, civ placement and balanced starts a map maker is necessary IMO.

[Meiz]

Is there really a need to ban civs from the first civ 5 PBEM? That would be America, England, Persia, Aztec and Iroquois. Civs from previous game + huns would be enough.

[Jkaen]

Just think it would give a bit more variety for the lurkers if we showcased different civs