New game?

[Whosit]

I was poking through some of the old set-up threads for BtS games here on RB, and it seems that Inca is usually banned as well. Combined with an Expansive leader, the Terrace is very powerful.

[LogicalTautology]

I'm not super interested in any sort of artificially accelerated start, to be honest. My preference is, in order, Normal, Quick, Normal with extra stuff. I think the GLH is fine to keep in, personally, but cut SoZ.

Mapwise, I'm not a big fan of the "everyone has a 5-food Food resource and a Calendar happy resource at their start, and Copper and Horses within 5 tiles of the start, and..." maps. If the map is imbalanced but fair (as judged by one or more people qualified to make such an assessment, I'd be more inclined for that sort of thing. I'd also prefer a land-heavy map to something like a Tiny Islands Archipelago map, but I'm content with leaving that up to the mapmaker.

Last thing, I'd much prefer AI Diplomacy (in-game diplo only with no outside contact or cheesy unit names) to something like Always War.

[SevenSpirits]

India is the clear best civ, Inca is clear second best. There is a big gap from there to the next.

I am not aware of SoZ mattering in any at-all-recent games, despite it not being banned. Sometimes it doesn't even get built. The habit of sometimes banning it traces back to when people were a lot worse at the game, so I wouldn't put much stock in it.

[Zero_1627]

India is the clear best civ, Inca is clear second best. There is a big gap from there to the next.

I am not aware of SoZ mattering in any at-all-recent games, despite it not being banned. Sometimes it doesn't even get built. The habit of sometimes banning it traces back to when people were a lot worse at the game, so I wouldn't put much stock in it.

I bow to Your far superior experience.
So - players of this game have to decide what the (don't) want!

[Alhazard]

I have to agree that I really don't see the rationale for banning SoZ.

Also: Dutch isn't banned on water maps because their UU/UB come late and games don't last that long to matter because virtually all games are played on ancient age start. Have to agree that I'm not a big fan of artificial accelerated starts. Maybe we could play something like a medieval start? Although not a fan of potential archer choking with such a game.

[ipecac]

One of the most interesting parts of the game IMO is in the early game when with very little you have to prioritise and (to do well) optimise the path taken amongst the many choices available. So I vote no against accelerated starts.

I don't have any problems either way with SoZ, though I'd prefer not banning something if it presents no significant unbalancing problems. Normal speed is preferred though Quick is fine. I voted AI Diplo earlier but AW is worth trying, IMO.

It would also be great if a dedlurker could help be cover the turns I'm unable to play.

[Fintourist]

Just a quick comment reg civ/leader bans.

I think this is an area where there isn't thaaat much need balance-wise to go with the regular RB settings. Pacal, India etc. are getting banned because they are widely considered strongest choices and veteran players see it simply boring if every snake pick goes along the same beaten path. However, if you haven't played too much MP you might not have this problem and e.g. PBEM46 is an example of a game, where new-ish players went with strongest pairings available and it ended up being a great show.

That being said, despite having only a small amount of games behind me I personally would prefer having most strongest choices banned, because I'm a bit bored with FIN and while I would like playing India, I really don't want to see that civ in hands of my opponent :P However, we haven't seen those top choices in action for a while here, so as a lurker I would not mind witnessing some 3-move worker tricks again.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is that you should make the ban-decisions based on making the pairings as interesting for you as possible instead of thinking that those bans are a must for the fair and even game. As a clarification: I haven't read the discussion thoroughly enough to know what are the reasons for your bans in this specific game - this is more of a general comment reg taking "standard RB settings" as granted, which happens in this area to some extent.


***


Someone commented about inca's being nerfed compared to SP. Yeah, in SP their UU indeed is a key for fast cheesy victories while in MP Quechuas don't provide too much benefit. But terrace is simply considered so good that the civ is a general #2 choice after India. The fact that MP here is played with unrestricted leaders also makes Inca stronger as you can pair Inca with an EXP leader and get your Terraces up immediately.

Another point: Assuming no bans I think Inca is a stronger pick in a large Pitboss than in a small PBEM, because if in a smaller game someone else picks Pacal, and you still want the synergy, you need to go with Mehmed, Bismarck etc., while the other players get a top FIN leader to play with. In a larger game if you are sitting e.g. in snake pick position #4-8 you can still get the same pick, but the average quality of pairings will be lower than in a PBEM.

[Mardoc]

If the map is imbalanced but fair (as judged by one or more people qualified to make such an assessment, I'd be more inclined for that sort of thing.

Everyone prefers a natural-looking asymmetrical yet still fair map. The only trouble is, those are a real pain to build so sometimes you have to settle for just balanced. Depends on the available mapmakers and their ambition levels .

-----

To add to Fintourist's point, about half of the RB standard settings and bans are also more about fun/variety than about balance. But 'fun' varies from person to person, so if you want to allow some of the standard bans, feel free.

[LogicalTautology]

If the map is imbalanced but fair (as judged by one or more people qualified to make such an assessment, I'd be more inclined for that sort of thing.

Everyone prefers a natural-looking asymmetrical yet still fair map. The only trouble is, those are a real pain to build so sometimes you have to settle for just balanced. Depends on the available mapmakers and their ambition levels .

From my experience at RB lurking past games, that's not correct. Some people prefer a perfectly-symmetrical game when it comes to starts and strategic resources.

[Khan]

If the map is imbalanced but fair (as judged by one or more people qualified to make such an assessment, I'd be more inclined for that sort of thing.

Everyone prefers a natural-looking asymmetrical yet still fair map. The only trouble is, those are a real pain to build so sometimes you have to settle for just balanced. Depends on the available mapmakers and their ambition levels .

-----

To add to Fintourist's point, about half of the RB standard settings and bans are also more about fun/variety than about balance. But 'fun' varies from person to person, so if you want to allow some of the standard bans, feel free.

I think this is very true. I am happy to vote for whatever settings help us towards a majority. If those with more experience shine a light in one direction, I'm inclined to follow it.

My strongest preference is for quick speed because the early turns could be rather dull otherwise (any artificial speeding with a worker and so on seem like poor choices to me). This is not my party though and I remain willing, eager rather, to play regardless of the speed.