Do we want to expand the number of teams in the game from four to a higher number? It would probably be six, as any higher would require a huge participation rate.

Four? Six? Another number? What say you?

It really depends upon how many active members we have. I would prefer four ATM, but if we have lots of members, then we could go for maybe even 8 team or more.

I think that we ought to have ~15 per team. So once people start signing up, have 3 or 4 teams and then add a team as people come in. I would add teams once the other teams are @ 10 people until we start. After we start others will likely join and then we can have the 15 per team.

btw, who are going to be the admins? I'd feel bad for RM & GA to be the admins again and miss out on the fun :D.

I would like to take part in this, but as daren't load the save in case I see floodplains in unexplored regions (which I will if there are any), perhaps I could help out with the admin side, I will have more time once the Civ 3 demogame finishes.

Not sure about Tubby's suggestion in having 15 per team ... it is my experience with our team MIA, that although we had officially 25+ citizens ... :( in truth 40% never showed up in the first place and for a long while, only 5-ish have been active enough to dicuss strategies and moves ... we now have 7-ish regulars that at least vote in polls.

Team KISS, I believe were different as they joined with a nucleus of known and friendly players already in place ... and thus possibly are the team with the most active of citizens ...

IMO All other teams have suffered mega attrition and drop outs ... and have had numerous lean times with low single digit actives playing the game .

It is my humble suggestion that we ascertain the number of interested players before we work on team numbers.

fe3333au, that has affected all teams. You always start out with a higher number then you end up with actively participating - it's just the flow of things.

I don't think a team could ever be *too* active, thus, having a smaller amount of teams to ensure activity on each will be crucial. I also would like to stick with 4 teams; there is enough for diplomacy and war, as we've seen in the Civ3 MTDG, yet the turns move quickly. I think this is a very important thing: the game speed cannot take forever.

Determining how many teams we will have is the first thing we need to do. We can't start discussion on other stuff like map features, or what civs we'll be, because each team gets one vote, and teams cannot vote until they are formed. ;) I suggest we stick to a number of teams, not a number of people per team, because the people that join really skyrocket once we get an annoucement in the Civ4 forums.

That's the fun thing about Civ4. You can have as many teams as you want on as small of a map as you want! (well, 18, but I suppose you could add more if you wanted.) Want a Game of Citystates? Sure, go right ahead on a tiny (or .wbs modified map)!

I agree 4 teams work. It would be nice to spice it up with pitboss somehow. Something like a 2 hour once a week session.
Can anyone think of a way to do this?

I just want to throw an idea out there: An odd number of teams makes for more interesting Diplomatic terrain.

My non-existent vote: 5 teams.

I agree 4 teams work. It would be nice to spice it up with pitboss somehow. Something like a 2 hour once a week session.
Can anyone think of a way to do this?
We're going to put up a PitBoss vs. PBEM poll later (once teams have been formed to vote), but just with personal opinion I think it takes away a bit of the strategy part when you have 1 player playing with a team's input for a couple turns. Anyway, that will be discussed later.

I like Peter's idea of 5 teams. It's not such a mad rush to find a long-lasting friend. It would be quite interesting if it was 2 vs 2 with a single civ that could choose which side to be on.

I think that a 2 on 1 is a little more manageable in civ4 due to promotions and unit specialties (axe is better defense vs. swords, spears better against horses, etc.)

I'd go with 4 teams too. I know there are more people who play Civ4 than Civ3, but I don't know how many of them will like the idea, how many will be active, and how long will the game last with more civs.

Edit: yes, 5 is a good idea too. But I would like to keep it PBEM, it's more democratic anarchistic style

I would be in favor of 5 or 6 teams as it would add more flavor to the game.

I think 4 is a good number. 5 is okay, but it's pushing it and the teams may end up being really small after a while. Any higher than 5 is too much.

Also, keep in mind that not as many people have Civ 4 yet, or can get it to work on their computer.

'poly has setup thier demogame with eight seven teams :eek: we can certainly do at least 5 or 6.

Well, one person who can run Civ4 per team is enough, right? The other ones can just vote, discuss, give instructions and advice.

grah, we don't have to surpass Apolyton. ;)

For each team you add beyond 4, it'll probably add a couple months to the end date time. Keep in mind that there will be expansions, so we don't want this to last too long so that no one plays 'Vanilla' anymore when everyone moves on. If we go with 4 teams, putting them all on a pangea will certainly make it more interesting; 5 teams I think would be the maximum.

4/5 would be the best number imo incase participation drops, id also prefer PBEM to pitboss.

4 teams, PBEM. I am the uber lurker!

Check out the "evolutionary" link in my sig to see how a pitboss game might go.

I'd agree with 5 teams, the diplomacy would be way more interesting that way. A team can get by on as few as 5-10 active members, though to make it fun for the most people something closer to 10 would be better.

Instead of balancing teams by total number of people, I think we should count "regulars" and "lurkers" separately. When a team is short of regulars it should get dibs on new players who show up. The admins have visibility to the number of regulars so that doesn't need to be revealed, in case the teams are nervous about revealing just how thin (or thick) they are. :lol:

And please no "super-lurkers". It's too easy for them so send PM's to team members.

Check out the "evolutionary" link in my sig to see how a pitboss game might go.

I'd agree with 5 teams, the diplomacy would be way more interesting that way. A team can get by on as few as 5-10 active members, though to make it fun for the most people something closer to 10 would be better.

Instead of balancing teams by total number of people, I think we should count "regulars" and "lurkers" separately. When a team is short of regulars it should get dibs on new players who show up. The admins have visibility to the number of regulars so that doesn't need to be revealed, in case the teams are nervous about revealing just how thin (or thick) they are. :lol:

We only have about 5 regulars in TNT and thats probably maximum.

Five teams on a pangaea sounds interesting. If we do do five teams, continents probably wouldn't be a good choice, as it'll probably end up 2v1 on one continent (à la the ISDG). Or maybe two, two, and one would be the outcome.

The idea of forming four teams then adding more might work too.

I think 4 teams! ANd i would like to sponsor a team! YaY!!!!!!!! WOOHOOO!!!

Can we not just poll the idea soon so we can get the subforums set up and start planning, may also help for the rule discussion.

4 teams is probably a good number, especially if we have it as PBEM. If we had more, then PTBS would probably be the way to go.

A poll is created here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=157694).

New to MTDG but,

I think that a 5 team, PBEM would be best.

Question: Will the diff teams have any classifications from the start? Like, say i wanted to be on a team that was big on roleplay, or i wanted to be on a team without polictical parties, will the intial teams be set up so i could join on ethat would be like that?

No, at the start all teams are basically what you guys want them to be. RegentMan and myself don't define the teams - you guys define them yourselves.

Most teams also come up with a simple 'government' (ie; usually 3 positions, like President, Domestic Advisor, and Foreign Advisor, or something like that), with elections every X turns. It's not as official-oriented as the SPDG; it's mostly discussion, and then someone just plays the turn based on that discusison.

Well I can only speak to how Team KISS looks in the Civ3 MTDG. We are anarchists with no president, no specific turnplayer, Minister of Defense etc.

I'm not saying that's what people who'd join this team would want again in this MTDG but considering most of the team comes from a SG environment my guess is it may not change.

@Swiss: I can only speak to how we worked things on Team MIA in the Civ3 MTDG...

Once our team forum was established we drafted our team's constitution. We collectively determined how we wanted to manage and operate, using discussion and formal polls. Our way works for us, but I'm sure the other teams operate differently than we do. KISS are anarchists [and Idiots :)], so if you like that sort of freedom (and responsibility) you'd find their model useful.

But really, if you want to be on a team that operates in a particular way, take it upon yourself to organize things and you'll wind up with a system that works for you.

Well I can only speak to how Team KISS looks in the Civ3 MTDG. We are anarchists with no president, no specific turnplayer, Minister of Defense etc.

I'm not saying that's what people who'd join this team would want again in this MTDG but considering most of the team comes from a SG environment my guess is it may not change.

yes the way it works for TNT is simply we have donsig play the game and we advise him on what to do in various threads, we have people who send letters to other teams but thats about it, donsig does that job for one team also.

yes the way it works for TNT is simply we have donsig play the game and we advise him on what to do in various threads, we have people who send letters to other teams but thats about it, donsig does that job for one team also.
Everyone likes to get letters in the mail.
Maybe you guys should send us one. :D

Thanks :D

Also, can you switch teams, like say you didn't like how things were going could you, i dunno, DEFECT!!!

Uhh...no but if lose you could become a refugee.

Everyone likes to get letters in the mail.
Maybe you guys should send us one. :D
Well we dont really have anything to talk about with you tbh but if you've got anything to bring up with us our letterboxes are always open.

Well we dont really have anything to talk about with you tbh but if you've got anything to bring up with us our letterboxes are always open.

:lol: Meooowww :p

Back on track ... is anyone forming teams? ... if so who and what play style environment will these teams have.

:lol: Meooowww :p

Back on track ... is anyone forming teams? ... if so who and what play style environment will these teams have.

This thread you can choose a team. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158025

basically you'll decide within the sub forum just how your team should work and things along them lines, such as what civilization etc.

Thanks matey :salute:

Well we dont really have anything to talk about with you tbh but if you've got anything to bring up with us our letterboxes are always open.
:lol: Meooowww :p
Good point I suppose we should've rolled out the red carpet for you. :p ...eeeeeow.

Hmm I think we should randomize teams, currently most people are hovering to their old teams

*man steps up to the podium* Ahem... Ahem... Join Beta for a betta MTDG experience

I think we should force the randomization of teams. It would distribute expierence and participation, and create more fun. otherwise this is just civ3 MTDG part II

I think we should force the randomization of teams. It would distribute expierence and participation, and create more fun. otherwise this is just civ3 MTDG part II
I agree, Team KISS is all staying together, lets completely randomize it...

Come on guys...why would you guys want to do that? No one is forcing anyone to join Team KISS. We like each other, no egos and most of them make me laugh. There's a lot more than the MTDG's and this game that holds the team together.

No randomiztion. This is a facist ideal and will lead to NUCLEAR WAR:eek:

;)

But seriously, Go out and campaign for your team, get members, get involved. If you want your team to rise above KISS then take the intiavtive, and go out there. I did it and look at me.... oh wait.... i only got 1 new member... but *drumroll* ITS


NOMAD BRYCE. He's worth 10 idiots and 1 million MIA's (seeing as there are missing and can't contribute ;) )

:goodjob:

But seriously, get out there and get your teams rolling. Together we can defeat the cookie monsters for the civ3 demogame. DOWN WITH THE COOKIE MONSTERS!!!

Yet you have as many as the next two teams combined, and you know that they're active. These also are not just run-of-the-mill CFC'rs off the street, they are some of the best players CFC has. While teams like Beta and Alpha have two players, and Delta has only 3. Odds are most of these players will not be active in a few months, and leadership will be few and far between. Now it's one thing to have this situation in a single game ([c3c]), but to have the same situation in both games is unfair. It's about having fun, and I don't know how much teams other than gamma are going to have with few active members and little leadership. You have the experience in the [c3c] game of playing with your friends; now play in a game with new people. What do you gain by having the same tuype of fun twice?

I say that we wait until the game gets started, and then if after say 3 weeks there is no new influx of members, then maybe we should shuffle them. But this has only been up for 1 DAY!! Lots of people who are interested still haven't signed up yet. give it time!

Besides, those who stay are likely to be the leaders, so i doubt leadership will be lacking!

I don't see any compelling reason to force a divide between people who want to be on the same team. Their cohesiveness will elicit an equal and opposing cohesiveness from their opponents, at least if the opponents want to survive ;)

Here's my promise. I won't ask anyone in the SG or PBEM forum, that's not already on Team KISS, to join our team. Though I'll say this is a very different game than civ3.

Here's another thought...it would be nice if we could have a notice stickied for a month in the PBEM and SG forums. There are some seriously skilled players that might be interested in this game.

Come on guys...why would you guys want to do that? No one is forcing anyone to join Team KISS. We like each other, no egos and most of them make me laugh. There's a lot more than the MTDG's and this game that holds the team together.

I agree with Whomp ... if people have experienced and prefer the style that their previous team plays, well why not stick with that type of gaming ...

I am very comfortable with the reporting level that team MIA uses ... and due to the fact that I do not have cIV working ... I would want a similar level, that way I (and others) can at least follow the game ... and also in MIA everyone is encouraged to ask questions ... this is the environemnt that I want to play in ...

At the same time, I think MIA has proved (in UN threads) that we also enjoy the game to be played in a frivilous and sometimes role playing manner ... we even coined the worship of the great creator Meleet :worship: and then later the counter culture of the RNG ... it was us that has published the first UN paper.

If the core MIA team is available ... that is where I will firmly plant by butt :beer:

If one disallows 2 players that want to be on the same team to join the same team, you basically have 2 non-playing, not-posting members.

Whomp: See this idea (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158081). We will post an annoucement in the Civ4 forums for the MTDG.

Regarding the situation: I will not force complete randomization. As Rik said, I'd rather have 2 people active than not having those 2 at all. My first goal is to get each team at least 10 players - then I'm more apt to letting friends join a team. But Whomp, don't stop getting people to join the MTDG - if you want them to be on Team Gamma, fine. If they sign up on Team SomethingElse, that's good too - but the important part is someone signed up.

Simply, while I encourage mixing up the teams a bit, forcing it won't be a good idea.

Yet you have as many as the next two teams combined, and you know that they're active. These also are not just run-of-the-mill CFC'rs off the street, they are some of the best players CFC has. While teams like Beta and Alpha have two players, and Delta has only 3. Odds are most of these players will not be active in a few months, and leadership will be few and far between. Now it's one thing to have this situation in a single game ([c3c]), but to have the same situation in both games is unfair. It's about having fun, and I don't know how much teams other than gamma are going to have with few active members and little leadership. You have the experience in the [c3c] game of playing with your friends; now play in a game with new people. What do you gain by having the same tuype of fun twice?


Well dunno about the rest of Alpha but im fairly active in the civ3 MTDG so i see no reason why i cannot continue this with the civ4 MTDG, ok i'll have to take time out for exams but i dont mind about numbers it just means when we annihilate team gamma that victory shall be all the sweeter.

You could permit people to sign up as a group of 5 (for example), but then each group of 5 that signs up is randomly assigned...