No messaging (including with city and unit names), no city trading. Fish for fish / iron for iron / gold for gold is ok
|
Pitboss 39 Organizing Thread
|
(March 16th, 2018, 05:28)yuris125 Wrote: No messaging (including with city and unit names), no city trading. Fish for fish / iron for iron / gold for gold is ok When you say no city trading you mean in a way to communicate? Because I see one thing where we should allow it: In a peace agreement.
Mods: RtR CtH
Pitboss: PB39, PB40, PB52, PB59 Useful Collections: Pickmethods, Mapmaking, Curious Civplayer Buy me a coffee
Recent games I played had a blanket ban on city trading, and I was happy with it. Once you allow cities to be part of peace deals, there's a risk of bad blood on the lines of "why did this guy give up two cities, he wasn't losing the war that badly, he hasn't been trying properly" etc
(March 17th, 2018, 01:38)Charriu Wrote:(March 16th, 2018, 05:28)yuris125 Wrote: No messaging (including with city and unit names), no city trading. Fish for fish / iron for iron / gold for gold is ok I agree but then the majority prefers to prevent the possible drama, which is understandable. (March 16th, 2018, 04:03)ipecac Wrote: Also, are we going to close sign-ups soon and decide whether we want Pitboss or PBEM, BtS or RtR? We should probably set a deadline soon. How about closing sign-ups 3 days from now? It looks like most players are fine with RtR mod. I count three players in favor of Rtr, two players fine with Rtr or Bts and one player in favor of Bts. Correct me if I`m wrong. My suggestion is to use the same Rtr mod as in Pitboss 37 (with map trading enabled). @Dark Savant: Do you feel like joining in? We have 6 players as it stands and that`s probably just short of a Pitboss. As I said earlier, I`m looking for a Pitboss game only (and I don`t mind standing down if enough players can`t be found). I prefer allowing fish-for-fish deals only (but if you guys want to allow iron-for-iron and similar like-for-like trades that`s fine). Allowing city trading has the potential of causing a lot of drama so I vote against it. 
Are there any more players who would like to play? Last call.
Also, I sent a PM to Dark Savant. Hopefully he`ll join in. As it stands there is enough interest for a PBEM but six players isn`t enough for a Pitboss I think.
[not a signup] Is there really a hard lower limit on the number of players for a pitboss? My first game (PB9) was only 7 players and it worked out just fine.
I played a five player pitboss which was fine.
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld
Pitboss is fine with any number of players, but a PBEM allows to entirely avoid double move issues, while likely having the same turn pace as a pitboss with only 5 players. Also there's no hassle with hosting, and no additional server load if that's relevant
|
