September 19th, 2011, 08:17
Posts: 6,630
Threads: 47
Joined: Apr 2010
Looking through the forum I realized today that some PBEMs have finally finished and I wondered if there is enough interest for PBEM25. What is (imo) mandatory:
- BTS (obviously)
- normal diplomacy
- max. of 5 players (imo after the 5th player most games start to not get in a turn / day often)
- Ancient start
- Quick Speed
- War Elephants banned
Apart from that I think some settings are worth discussion:
- Espionage allowed but some missions (change civic, change religions) banned?
- Tech-Trading allowed but not Tech-Brokering? No Tech-Trading? Tech-Trading with a certain amount of trades allowed?
- Certain civs / leaders banned?
- Barbarians?
- Difficulty? Somewhere between Noble and Emperor? Maybe Emperor to make Organized more viable?
For the map I would like to use what others did before (PBEM23 or 24?), being that we will get shown screenshots of our starting land and the game settings before we actually start snake-picking our civs/leaders.
So, anyone interested in it?
September 19th, 2011, 10:02
Posts: 241
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2010
IMO the tech trade function makes MP games more chancey and the earlygame strategic decisions less dynamic:
- Spawns are harder to balance. Who can meet who makes a big impact on research rate, so someone meeting later is a hindrance.
- Diplomacy is already extremely important with trade and tactical warfare considerations. With TT on, diplomacy becomes overwhelming because...
- Trades are easily the strongest multiplier in the game. A single trading partner is as much oomph as having oxford university in every single city, assuming even trades. A trade "bloc" is even stronger than that! IMO it's a bit against the spirit of the game when all of the empire wide micro/macro decisions can get wiped in an instant simply by finding yourself on the short end of a trade alliance. Diplo does matter w/o trades, a lot...it doesn't need to matter more.
- Tech trade invariably favors a large empire. It also greatly reduces punishment for early game expansion. Trades between a smaller empire that teched better initially and a larger one are fundamentally imbalanced, but rarely will you find a team willing to accept less just because they expanded.
- Tech trades open up more "kingmaking" opportunities, which I don't think anybody competitive would enjoy as a feature.
With tech trades on, the incentive goes from "balance tech and expansion" (a strategic choice) to "expand like hell and get as many trade partners as possible, stopping only enough military to be able to defend yourself". To me, it's fairly clear that tech trades have a negative impact in MP and arguably even SP.
Right now, trade routes, 2-10 movement (depending on era), resource swaps, and combined arms/NAP (IE safe front) are already extremely large boosts to having an ally. I'd rather not give players 100% research boost for every ally they can convince a civ into their trade alliance. Yes, there is some skill in negotiations and timely backstabs/ending of partnerships, but ultimately the big question is usually a simple "am I in or out?".
September 19th, 2011, 10:03
Posts: 23,602
Threads: 134
Joined: Jun 2009
You really need to read some of the games around here.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
September 19th, 2011, 10:09
Posts: 241
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2010
Krill Wrote:You really need to read some of the games around here.
Oh, but I have, including the majority of the pitboss games (I still need to read III and some of V).
I've seen alliances switch and people left out initially recover and agree it's possible, but IMO it's still bad for the game fundamentally; it takes an already VERY important aspect of the game (diplo) and multiplies it several times over...needlessly IMO.
I'd rather see permanent alliances than tech trades, I think tech trades are that iffy in MP  .
September 19th, 2011, 10:13
Posts: 6,630
Threads: 47
Joined: Apr 2010
TMIT, most PBEMs around here are played with tech-trading off (I think 1 and 2 had it on, none else). I would be surprised if this one would be any different but thought it would only be fair to at least discuss it.
Anyway, we need signups  oh, and a map-maker if there is enough interest
September 19th, 2011, 10:26
Posts: 2,417
Threads: 23
Joined: Oct 2009
I can honestly say that the pbem2 set up of TT and comunication before contact was badong.
September 19th, 2011, 11:55
Posts: 4,272
Threads: 38
Joined: Jun 2011
Consider this a tentative sign up, would prefer to play with a teammate if at all possible.
September 19th, 2011, 12:13
Posts: 6,670
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
By the way, we are still looking for a replacement player for the Pitboss game to take over for Twinkletoes. I realize it may not be everyone's desired settings, but we could very much use another player there.
September 19th, 2011, 14:06
Posts: 241
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2010
Sullla Wrote:By the way, we are still looking for a replacement player for the Pitboss game to take over for Twinkletoes. I realize it may not be everyone's desired settings, but we could very much use another player there.
Which game is this? I wouldn't mind joining but I don't want to step into territory I've already spoiled.
September 19th, 2011, 14:11
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
I'm kind of tempted, I should be able to play a turn a day easily. I'm quite the newbie though, I only got Civ4 two months ago and missed Civ3 completely  Spent many years playing Civ2, and so far I'm doing okay on Civ4. Haven't played longer than around 500 AD, so I'm unfamiliar with most of the advanced features. I don't mind getting whooped if you don't mind, I'll do my best to hold my own and not be a king maker. If you'd rather have a more experienced player that's okay too, just let me know.
|
