February 5th, 2018, 06:13
Posts: 4,464
Threads: 67
Joined: Dec 2006
Roster:
TheArchduke
Chevalier Mal Fet
Alhambram
Japper
Rowain
RFS-81
I would say 6 people are a good size, let´s room for one to change his mind and drop out and we are still at 5.
Let´s hope Cornflakes will grace us with another awesome map.
So, settings:
I would love to do another inland sea, or continents. I am open to Pangea as well.
No huts, barbarians on, Scythia banned (Sumeria as well?, I would love to keep all except Scythia in)
February 5th, 2018, 09:02
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
Barbs on is ok. No huts is also ok (albeit I wonder if we allow all civs if huts are going to make much diference).
About civs: I would rather say everyone has to use an expansion-civ but I don't really care so whatever is banned or not is fine by me  .
Don't think continents would be a good idea especially if we end up with only 5 players.
What other settings: climate,world age, sealevel? Shall we randomize them comletly otr choose something different than the standard new world setting?
February 5th, 2018, 09:38
Posts: 3,750
Threads: 13
Joined: Dec 2016
(February 5th, 2018, 03:39)rho21 Wrote: @Cornflakes: I was wanting to try a PBEM at some point, but I'm in the same boat as you with regards to the expansion. Also, as a complete newbie to multiplayer Civ (let alone Civ VI), I wouldn't want to wreck a game through incompetence. I was wondering if it would be possible to set up some sort of newbies and vets team game to avoid that.
If there's a newbie/vets team game that starts up and it starts after March 12th I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat.
February 5th, 2018, 11:11
(This post was last modified: February 5th, 2018, 11:18 by Alhambram.)
Posts: 1,728
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2017
I think that we should wait for patch notes that comes along with expansion, some civs might nerfed and other buffed. After that we can make better judgement which civ(s) to ban or not.
Alternatively we can go with Rowain's suggestion and only pick expansion civ (8 new civilizations).
I don't mind that start comes a bit later (14 February, or if Cornflakes or someone else need more time to create map), this way I (we) can play SP a bit with expansion to get feels of new rules/gameplay.
I always play with no huts, barbs on, no map preference.
And I say it again with roster full now with 6 persons, if someone else really, really, REALLY want play this PBEM, I don't mind to step back and dedlurk Chevalier instead.
February 5th, 2018, 11:22
Posts: 1,103
Threads: 6
Joined: Jun 2017
Things you can receive from goody huts in civ 6:
Builders 
Scouts 
Population 
Settlers 
As well as duds like:
10-100 gold
100 faith after you already have a Pantheon.
Maps 
Even if every players on average picks up the same amount of huts the sheer variance in gains is enough to render it ridiculous.
For example: online speed duel I played recently:
Opponent and me picked up 3 villages each but:
I got a scout and two pop in my capital...
While he got 70 gold combined over two huts and a map that helpfully revealed his own capital 
Yeah no not stacking a game that'll last a couple months on that sorta crapshoot no thanks!
Other settings: fine with any map really, (as long as someone checks it beforehand for the more egregious imbalances) barbs on please.
February 5th, 2018, 11:30
(This post was last modified: February 5th, 2018, 11:31 by Alhambram.)
Posts: 1,728
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2017
February 5th, 2018, 11:40
Posts: 1,103
Threads: 6
Joined: Jun 2017
Yeah the relics are pretty gamebreaking as well, guaranteed first pick for Pantheon as well as 8 tourism (fun fact I once had a duel where I popped two relics and "won" as culture victory since my opponent didn't have any culture income at that point except cap pop at that point  )
February 5th, 2018, 17:22
Posts: 3,953
Threads: 18
Joined: Aug 2017
I liked Cornflakes' idea of a medieval start - I've been wanting to suggest a later-starting game to better explore the Industrial and Modern eras of the tech tree, which no PBEM has yet really managed to reach.
For map settings, I like inland sea. No opinion on sea level, world age, etc.
Finally, for civs, I always liked the system of players being randomly assigned a slate to choose from. I like the way it focuses your thinking and gives you interesting choices before the game even starts.
February 6th, 2018, 03:12
Posts: 4,464
Threads: 67
Joined: Dec 2006
@ Rowain
Huts are too unbalancing. Consider the balance between an bad hut (eureka for writing, yuppie) to an awesome hut (free builder on turn 5). Not worth the hassle imo.
On civs, I thought the PBEM 6 pick list was nice, everyone had a pick of vanilla and dlc and could decide. We could try to randomize into vanilla, dlc, expansion so everyone has some pick.
@ Chevalier Mal Fet
Whilst I find the idea of a medieval start intriguing, we need to cope with the expansion as well and I would like to take things slow at the start.
Also the medieval start makes many civs weaker by a lot. Think Rome for instance. I would like to keep this an ancient start if possible.
@ All
Seems like inland sea is ok for most, should be a doozie with 5 or 6 players.
I would go the middle ground with the settings, the inland sea map has a little bit of anything and is well designed.
February 6th, 2018, 03:25
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
(February 6th, 2018, 03:12)TheArchduke Wrote: @ Rowain
Huts are too unbalancing. Consider the balance between an bad hut (eureka for writing, yuppie) to an awesome hut (free builder on turn 5). Not worth the hassle imo.
I never had a settler or a worker pop up from a hut but maybe that depends on difficulty. Anyway I never denied that huts are unbalancing  . I just wondered how much more unbalancing huts can be compared to some civs. Again No Huts is absolutly ok
Prefer ancient start. Later starts just don't feel like civ to me.
|
