New CIV VI PBEM

[suboptimal]

Hmmm....I think removing past winners is intriguing. I'm up for that. Just like PBEM 18 (where it was pick from the neglected pile) it'll make things interesting.

[ljubljana]

Just for more info, here is what TAD's tier list would look like without past winners and banned civs:

To get the ball rolling.

All CIVS:

BEST and thus BAN:

Ridiculous OP (10civs)

Mapuche
Russia
Australia
Germany
Nubia
Hungary
Aztecs
Cree
Scythia
Rome

Good (6civs)

England (Victoria)
Mali
India (Chandragupta) I hate those dow bonis
Persia
Mongolia
Greece (both Pericles and Gorgo)
China
Korea

MEDIOCRE: (13civs)

Zulu
France (Catherine)
India (Ghandi)
Sumeria
Japan
Khmer
Maori
Inca
Scotland
Arabia
Ottoman
America
Holland

WORST: (12civs)

Brazil
Poland
Norway (except for a pure water map)
Phoenicia
Macedonia
Egypt
France or England (Eleanore)
Sweden
Kongo
Spain
Georgia
Canada

YMMV of course.

I am a little concerned that Germany and Australia, and maybe China to a lesser extent, are on a different power level than the rest of the remaining civs. I am certainly up for doing some kind of "pick from neglected civs" proposal, though, including this one if there's a consensus for it. I think in that case I'd rather roll a smaller list of civs than do a free pick, though, just because I'm not sure I want to have to comb through 20 civs that I've never seriously thought about before in search of some kind of interesting synergy .

[suboptimal]

I think we leave it up to them to figure it out. I think we say make it something other than a straight pangea and expect 2 CS per player. We can sort out disaster settings (likely 0) and game modes (tech shuffle) and potential UI mods for later discussion.

[williams482]

I think in that case I'd rather roll a smaller list of civs than do a free pick, though, just because I'm not sure I want to have to comb through 20 civs that I've never seriously thought about before in search of some kind of interesting synergy .

All I have to say here is, careful what you wish for.

[ljubljana]

...maybe I should specify that by "smaller" I mean something closer to "roughly 1/5 of the legal civs" than "Sweden or Canada" . Though that's not to say I wouldn't be in for another game using the really awful civs either. I'm also totally fine with a free pick too if others would prefer.

[suboptimal]

Come to think of it we should hold off on the civ list to see what the balance changes are.

[Kaiser]

I will happily share the map making burden with Woden if he is up to it, we can figure something out how exactly sharing works best

So far I have noted down:
Player count: 4 or 5?
Map Type: no Pangea, mapmaker's discretion
Map size: adjusted to player count
Disaster Settings: 0

CS: no bans
# CS: 2 per player
CS accessibility: mapmaker's discretion (Suboptimal did a good job)

CIVs will be figured out directly by you

The final player count would be good to know before starting on the map, let me know if you want to deviate from my above list

[suboptimal]

I believe we're five players (Archduke, Thrawn, Ljubljana, Alhambram, myself) and Nan Madol is on the ban list unless nerfed by the balance patch.

[ljubljana]

...yeah, I've been thinking it over, and I think taking on two PBEMs at once is probably a bad idea given what's likely to be a pretty hectic summer schedule. So I should probably sit this one out and find someone to dedlurk instead. Sorry about that!

[marcopolothefraud]

Can I jump in, then? I would love to join this PBEM!