New CIV VI PBEM

[TheArchduke]

I would like to play a new CIV VI PBEM with a small number of players 4-5 max, continents or inland sea as I find myself with a bit of a relaxed shedule until the summer.

Any takers, I am open to all settings but would ban the usual wonders and maybe 1-2 new civs.

[Kaiser]

I suggest you wait until the "balance" patch hits before deciding on CIVs.

I would be interested lurking a game with all DLCs enabled, particularly for the reduced CS benefits and to see if the Preserve district will be utilised at all.
Certainly that means banning Babylon as a minimum as well.

I can offer to make your map.

[TheArchduke]

A start with May would make sense then. We probably need about that much time to get going and get a map anyway.

[suboptimal]

I'd be up for playing, though I second waiting for the balance patch to drop later this month. I'd also be curious about enabling some of the new things in NFP to see how they worked.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

I'm moving back to Korea in June, which is going to play merry hell with PBEM20 as it is, so I better sit this one out.

[Woden]

Not up for another PBEM but will offer my map making services

[MJW (ya that one)]

mjw's list

Always banned:

Civs:
-Hungry
-Colombia
-Australia
-Scythia
-Babylon

Other:
-Venetian Arsenal
-Religious Settlements Pantheon
-Nan Madol
-No pillaging City-State tiles except for farms and fishing boats.

Banned on random map and for duel: Sumer

Banned on non-worldbuilder maps: Maori

----

I've also read that DoF expire at different times. I've read that player 1 always gets the first strike or the person who accepted gets the first strike. If it's player 1 there should be a house rule that the person who accepted gets to attack first to avoid giving player 1 an advantage for no reason.

[suboptimal]

Always-raze means any time you can raze a city on capture you have to. So you can't capture city states or cities from other players except the capitals which cannot be razed. And we could add an exception for cities with world wonders as an interesting twist.

That might be a deterrent only as far as city-state conquest goes. For conquering other players/civs I don't see how always raze changes the equation much.

I've also read that DoF expire at different times. I've read that player 1 always gets the first strike or the person who accepted gets the first strike. If it's player 1 there should be a house rule that the person who accepted gets to attack first to avoid giving player 1 an advantage for no reason.

My experience is that treaties expire at the start of the turn of the player who accepted. Stacked treaties (e.g. a DoF followed several turns later by an alliance) expire when the most recently-agreed treaty expires.

[TheArchduke]

I'd join, just need to confirm a few things timewise.

Archduke, what do you think about the always-raze idea I proposed before? Both of us want to try an economy game but always end up expanding through conquest. I think always-raze will make it mostly about development and a little about fighting rather than the other way around. Sub, also what do you think about it?

Always-raze means any time you can raze a city on capture you have to. So you can't capture city states or cities from other players except the capitals which cannot be razed. And we could add an exception for cities with world wonders as an interesting twist.

Given the current peace rules, one should raze conquests anyway, because why cede them?
Not sure if the rule makes sense.

[TheArchduke]

Whilst I share your enthuasiasm for aggression, I do not think that every PBEM devolves to a wargame.

The sudden acceptance of peace for 1-2 cities suprises myself, though.

I would try for another game with normal rules, I think the raze rule would devolve everything into a builderfest and I am not too keen on those.