There has been some questions about this so I'll try to address some of them.

Will there be a Civ4 MTDG? Yeah, RM and I hope so. But as of yet, neither of us have the game. Personally, the game probably won't work for me when I get it because of the bad quality of my video card. RegentMan said he aims to get it in November sometime - I'm not sure how well it will run on his computer.

It wouldn't be fair to start a Civ4 MTDG right away. Not only do Europeans get the game later, but not everyone will get the game right away! A number of people will wait a while to get the game, perhaps around the holidays or when a patch is released or when they get a better computer. Along with that reason, and the fact that a patch will probably be needed to make it stable, not many people have a running game at this moment, and because the Civ3 MTDG is still in the early stages and we want to focus our efforts on the Civ3 MTDG, we won't be having a Civ4 MTDG for a while - at least not hosted by RM and myself!

We will stay dedicated to the Civ3 MTDG until further notice ... at the earliest, a Civ4 MTDG would start planning probably in the New Year or later.

will there be an multisite game? if so we could just wait for that

There'll be a Civ IV ISDG, but I'm sure people would still like some friendly forum rivalry. I'm hoping to get Civ IV for my birthday, but I doubt that it'll work for my computer. We shall see.

While most of us don't have CivIV yet ,would it be good to start the planning and set up atleast now?

Well, there's not much we can do yet. RegentMan or I need to have the game first, at least. I would also wait until a stable patch is out and more people get used to the game.

Well, I do have the game, it's just a matter of getting a working computer (my friend is pretty busy, so :( ). In addition to the above, we have no idea of any exploits that could exist. We'd need to discuss and build a new ruleset.

Letting you guys know:

I got the game. :dance: It works fine: the only problems I encounter are the floodplain graphics appearing in the Fog of War, and some blue text. 2 minor bugs...

So far, I know of no bugs. I'll let you know when I play more. At the earliest I would start considering it January 1st, or when RM gets the game.

I would recommend January 30, in order to get more potential members.
Besides, some knowledge of the game helps.

So its the new year now, any plans for a Civ4 MTDG them?

I think it has always been in the back of our mind and we have always planned on doing one. The question is just when... I think a good time to request forums at least for discussion would be February 1st - then we can maybe do a month, month and a half if needed of discussions, recruiting, whatever, then we can start. This allows us to plan and if a new patch comes out, we can use that too. Anyone have any objections to requesting forums (at least a main forum - probably no team forums yet) on Feb. 1st?

nope, could we not request them sooner though, so we could possibly have them for february 1st allowing us the full month of planning.

Shoudl we consider waiting until this game is over? I imagine lots of teams would want to be with thier current teamates, and if we do so a whole lot of issues will arrise. a) displomacy could easily intermingle, i.e. they don't like us there so we aren't going to deal with them here. b)there will be a lot of "encouragement" (read:pressure) to have the members join both teams c) some of the fun of multiplayer will be taken out in dealing with familiar enemies.

Alternativly we could force people to go to random teams. While I would prefer this method it still raises a lot of issues a)people can't be with their friends b)we may have difficulty saying "well this worked well for us" if we're afraid the [c3c] tema will 'steal' it.

I might be interested in being an admin for this game btw. and I have [civ4]

Shoudl we consider waiting until this game is over? I imagine lots of teams would want to be with thier current teamates, and if we do so a whole lot of issues will arrise. a) displomacy could easily intermingle, i.e. they don't like us there so we aren't going to deal with them here. b)there will be a lot of "encouragement" (read:pressure) to have the members join both teams c) some of the fun of multiplayer will be taken out in dealing with familiar enemies.

Alternativly we could force people to go to random teams. While I would prefer this method it still raises a lot of issues a)people can't be with their friends b)we may have difficulty saying "well this worked well for us" if we're afraid the [c3c] tema will 'steal' it.

I might be interested in being an admin for this game btw. and I have [civ4]
I agree and also having a second one will cut participation in this one way down, lets wait until this game is over or almost over

BCLG: Yeah, we can request them sooner probably. I'll see if RM and I can draft something up to send soon.

ybbor: This game won't end that soon - I'm guessing not until the first expansion for Civ4 is out. Waiting isn't really the best option, especially when there is more demand for Civ4 (even though there are some strong hardcore Civ3ers! Good job guys!). About diplmacy mingling: I doubt it - the teams will be different (at least a bit), the game is a whole different game. I think we can put this one aside when playing a Civ4 one and vice versa. I don't think the teams will be that familiar - we'll certainly get some new faces.

About random teams - I'd prefer not. If people want to stay with these teams, fine, albeit unfortunate. I'm sure there are people that will want to switch around just for the fun of it and for the experience. We'll most certainly get newcomers to spice things up. Regarding admining, sorry, not at the moment. We'd like to keep it small yet powerful too.

RegentMan or Rik, any comments?

edit: Crosspost with Black_Hole. To him: no matter if there is a Civ4 one AND a Civ3 MTDG, there will always be some dedicated Civ3 MTDGers, and I'm grateful for that. We've seen now that even as Civ4 is released and a couple months old, there are still people here. What we have left are people that are here for the game and I don't think we'll see numbers dwindle much further. Adding a Civ4 MTDG might also revive some people here too ...

February 1st seems good. I agree with Ginger_Ale about participation. I don't believe that it'll drop here simply because we have a Civ IV MTDG too. Although I'd like to see teams mixed up a bit, and the only way I can see that happening is randomly assigning people. This, however, conflicts with the "funness" of the game, as people will want to be with their friends. Perhaps we can come up with a compromise. Increasing the number of teams to five or six could spice things up too, although participation will be key. If it doesn't stay up, then the Civ III MTDG might see more action than the Civ IV.

Just so you all know we have sent a PM off to TF...

I think we should wait a bit... The main Civ4 DG just started not long ago.

That pushes our date back...although I feel the crowd that will play the MTDG are either (a) interested and will be active in both a SP and MP DG or (b) only interested in a MP DG. I don't think that starting a MTDG will detract from the participation of the SPDG...anyway. At the earliest, I would consider bringing it up again on Feb. 15th. :(

I know I'm speaking for myself but with our 20+ active members I doubt too many would want to play on another team. I look forward to playing some Civ4 MTDG.

Any thought to playing a round of turns on Pitboss, maybe once a week? It's very cool and would make things even more interesting IMO.

pitboss?????

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152361

It's still in Beta, and I haven't used it yet, but it sounds like it will be interesting and make the game go by faster, not to mention make it easier to pass on the save.

I like the sound of more teams, btw. There should always be an even number, though.

I know I'm speaking for myself but with our 20+ active members I doubt too many would want to play on another team. I look forward to playing some Civ4 MTDG.

Any thought to playing a round of turns on Pitboss, maybe once a week? It's very cool and would make things even more interesting IMO.

RegentMan and I would not force people to be on certain teams - if you want to be on a certain team, fine! If not, we'll take the people that don't care either way to even out the teams.

About PitBoss - well, I'm not really in charge of deciding that. RM and I have given it some though, and while we would rather just stick with PBEM, this is yet another thing we can poll/discuss once we get a forum (see, TF, this is the sort of things we need the forum for!). The only thing about it is that it is still in beta (and the fact that there will be less time for discussion, because it would be partially online sometimes).

There are tons of things to discuss when we get a forum...

Perhaps if we get this thread out to page ten TF will see the need for the forum... ;)

While I'd rather keep it PBEM, I haven't messed around with PitBoss yet as to make an informed decision. A MTDG based on playing sets of five or ten turns doesn't seem to work in my head. On turn two a team might need some time to make a game-breaking decision, thus the session would need to be canceled. Might as well be PBEM, where you have a few days between turns to get things done. But I'm a traditionalist.

I like the PBEM plan more tbh

Just to show my support: I'm all for a cIV MTDG. I think the more teams the more fun, but I don't see any strong reason to restrict the game to an even number of teams.

Whenever the game starts, I'll be there (thought I wouldn't be able to view the save until a Mac version comes out).