I know this isn't quite on topic for MTDG, however I know there are many here who might be interested given the 18-player pitboss has ended. Emperor (aka Lord Parkin here on CFC) has posted the following on Strategamer. He and I have been exchanging PMs on it for months now.

Please direct sign-up replies and game discussion to the Strategamer forum. Here's the thread. (http://www.strategamer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=552)

If we decide to field a (mostly) MTDG-based team, we may choose to handle team discussions in this thread.
Here's the original post so you don't have to go over there just to see what's up. :D

This was an idea proposed a while ago at EVG, but it never actually managed to get started. Hopefully we will be able to get it going now though. :)

The players: members from the two sites, Strategamer and Civfanatics. There will be two human teams in this game, and no AI - the human teams will be of equal size, the exact size depending on the method of play.

If PBEM: Either a 3 vs 3 match, or a 4 vs 4 match.
If PTBS: No limits except the inbuilt 18 civ limit (no mods for this game) - so theoretically up to a 9 vs 9 match, providing enough players are interested from both sites.

All the players from each site are set up as in a regular "teams" game - so each site's players share their team's knowledge of the world, pool tech research, and are naturally allied against the other team (and can't attack their teammates).

Suggested Settings:
Map Type - something that would be interesting (feel free to make suggestions!). Possibly a generated map, or possibly a custom-made one.
Map Size - dependent on the number of players. 3 vs 3: Small. 4 vs 4: Standard. 5 vs 5: Large. 6 vs 6 or above: Huge.
Sea Level - also dependent on the number of players, we will lower it if there are more players.
Difficulty - probably Monarch.
Speed - Normal.
Era - Ancient.
Climate - Temperate.
Wrap - Cylindrical (probably).
Resources - Standard. (No need for balanced with so many teammates.)
Options - None checked (open for debate though).
Victories - All enabled.

The Rules (will probably be extended as we go along and as I think of them):
- No duplicate leaders in the same team. For instance, there can't be three Gandhis fighting on one side. However, there can be two Gandhis, providing one is on each of the two different teams.
- Aside from the no duplicate leader on the same team rule, each team is allowed to pick any selection of leaders that they wish, and all players on both teams will get their first choices for all of their leaders.
- No espionage or other out-of-game deviousness - let's have an honourable game here, chaps. :hi: (In-game deviousness is permitted, however. :mischief:)

What we'll need:
- Members to play for both teams! Post below if you're interested.
- A host for the PTBS (if we're going for that option).

Roster to date:
STG members: emperor
CFC members:

If we decide to field a (mostly) MTDG-based team, we may choose to handle team discussions in this thread.

Well, anyone at STG can see this thread, so, yeah. (Moreso since you linked to it ;))

Yeah, you may just want to get yourselves a private forum. ;) (I'm sure we are, anyhow.)

I hope there's some interest in this idea - I think it'd be a cool little mini-competition to have, while we're waiting for the snail-paced ISDG to progress (as well as in-between the MTDG here). :) See which site has the upper hand on a full-scale battle. :D

Well, anyone at STG can see this thread, so, yeah. (Moreso since you linked to it ;))

We should put the thread in the ISDG private forum then. BTW is it Warlords? As it will be played in 2.08?

I might be able to fit another game into the roster but am unsure how teams would be picked, whether a first come first serve basis or whether there would be captains etc?

I might be able to fit another game into the roster but am unsure how teams would be picked, whether a first come first serve basis or whether there would be captains etc?

First we struggle with getting enough interested, then we worry about the rest. :D I'm thinking that earliest signup probably results in the best chance to be one of the actual in-game players. :cool: I also assume we'll have the usual "spoiler thread/forum" rules, i.e. comments from the peanut gallery will be solicited and interested parties will be on the hook for backup play when someone takes a vacation. That is unless the Strategamer team has a problem with peanut galleries. :lol:

In response to other points made...

I'd expect the honor system to hold, this is just a friendly game not a no holds barred cutthroat game. But if we need a separate forum we could always ask for one. If not a separate forum, probably not this thread, given the cross-link. ;)

It would be a mistake to use the ISDG forum, because a lot of people frequent multiple sites and may be on another site's ISDG team. We don't want to artificially limit signups to those playing on the CFC ISDG team, this is a separate game.

I'm absolutely unfamiliar with ISDG's (Inter-Site Demo Games, right?). However, given my experience with MIA, and now Epsilon, I am interested in this. Is there a resource posted somewhere that I could read to find out a bit more?...

In any case, I think you could put me down as In :)

This is a great idea, and I am in, but what form that takes depends on the start time. As I'll probably be OOP for a couple of weeks over xmas and NY, that'll leave a bit of a gap. So I'll either play and someone can sub in for me, or I'll sit back and sub for someone else.

In fact there could be a replacement pool in one of two forms:
1. Starting players who are relieved from the cycling pool whenever neccessary
2. Everybody's in the pool, and the person at the top of the list takes whichever civ is handed to them when a player needs a break - kind of a tag team.

It all depends on the number of players, I suppose.

I might be able to fit another game into the roster but am unsure how teams would be picked, whether a first come first serve basis or whether there would be captains etc?Whether you want to set up a team captain is completely up to you... I was thinking of just letting each man make his own decisions for the STG team, with a bit of private discussion to determine combined tech, diplomatic and war efforts, etc. But you can choose to organise things however you'd like. :)

This is a great idea, and I am in, but what form that takes depends on the start time. As I'll probably be OOP for a couple of weeks over xmas and NY, that'll leave a bit of a gap. So I'll either play and someone can sub in for me, or I'll sit back and sub for someone else.

In fact there could be a replacement pool in one of two forms:
1. Starting players who are relieved from the cycling pool whenever neccessary
2. Everybody's in the pool, and the person at the top of the list takes whichever civ is handed to them when a player needs a break - kind of a tag team.

It all depends on the number of players, I suppose.
The replacement pool idea is also a good one... since everyone from each site will be on one team anyway, then it's not like anyone has anything to hide from any of their other teammates. Thus any player could take a break at some stage and let another step in for a while in their place, or whatever. Like I said, it's really up to you how you organise things. ;)

First we struggle with getting enough interested, then we worry about the rest. :D I'm thinking that earliest signup probably results in the best chance to be one of the actual in-game players. :cool: I also assume we'll have the usual "spoiler thread/forum" rules, i.e. comments from the peanut gallery will be solicited and interested parties will be on the hook for backup play when someone takes a vacation. That is unless the Strategamer team has a problem with peanut galleries. :lol:

In response to other points made...

I'd expect the honor system to hold, this is just a friendly game not a no holds barred cutthroat game. But if we need a separate forum we could always ask for one. If not a separate forum, probably not this thread, given the cross-link. ;)

It would be a mistake to use the ISDG forum, because a lot of people frequent multiple sites and may be on another site's ISDG team. We don't want to artificially limit signups to those playing on the CFC ISDG team, this is a separate game.Er... what do you mean by "Peanut Gallery"? :lol:

Yep, I agree that this game should be just bound by an honour system. It's meant to be friendly and fun, not sneaky and ruthless (well, maybe that last one :mischief: ).

Yeah, this is seperate from the ISDG (although I'm sure many players will naturally be members of both games anyway). And yeah, using this particular thread for your private discussions probably wouldn't be the best idea. ;)

Should we sign up in both forums? :D

I have signed up for Team CFC on the STG forum, so :ninja: is ready to get some heads rolling (hopefully not my own)

Is there any rule against one player running multiple civs at the same time?

It would be rather boring to have the most active player doing everything.

Is there any rule against one player running multiple civs at the same time?

It would be rather boring to have the most active player doing everything.

Each player gets their own Civ. So each and every player is fully in control of their own civ, while at the same time being part of the team.

I'm interested in joining Team CFC if there is room for me

Each player gets their own Civ. So each and every player is fully in control of their own civ, while at the same time being part of the team.Exactly. That about sums it up best. ;) Each site should be able to find more than enough players such that no two civs need to be played by the same person.

BTW is it Warlords? As it will be played in 2.08?

I don't mind being back-up player, unless it's warlords, then I'll just watch the game.

I don't mind being back-up player, unless it's warlords, then I'll just watch the game.
It is Warlords 2.08. :)

Then I'll just watch you guys win for CFC :p.

Same here Dutchfire :(

I'll lurk for CFC though.

By the way guys, I'll just note it here as well - we're still looking for a suitable host for the Pitboss game, so if anyone knows of someone who can help out that'd be great. (Especially if they're relatively neutral regarding both of the sites involved. ;) )

Woops - I missed that it's Warlords.

I'll only be able to lurk :mischief:

In

DaveShack
BCLG100 (but was that a maybe yes, or a maybe no? ;) )
Sweetacshon
azzaman333
Robi D
Vind2 (was that a signup, or just a question ;) )
Theoden
RegentMan


Made comments but didn't commit here

DaveMcW
Theoden (signed up on Strategamer site)


Lurking (typically no warlords)

peter grimes
dutchfire
lost_civantares


Now I'll go check over on Strategamer and see who signed up over there but not here.

Edit: checked other site, we have 6 definite and two that I interpreted as maybe yes.

Well we sort of have to find a host before this can happen.....

We have someone (IglooDude) looking into hosting the game. Looks like we have an 8v8 unless someone from Strategamer wants to change allegiance and even it up to a 9v9.

BCLG, please confirm if your maybe was a yes or no. :)

Any thoughts on picking civs so they even out? We don't want one side totally powerful while the other side is not. Perhaps each team should put together their civ list in priority order from 1-18, then have one side pick, the other gets 2, the other gets 2, etc. We can flip a virtual coin for 1st pick.

Assuming that's how we go, I suggest we get started on ranking the civs. If we want a separate forum, say the word and I'll put out a feeler.

Any suggestions of someone we can press into service to bring it up to 9 true fanatics?

[not quite an advertisement]
Also, if I may suggest a little duel action to get into MP playing shape, you can find said action in my sig.
[/not quite an advertisement]

I've posted a thread in the Epsilon Team sub-forum to see if there is anyone there who is interested.

We have someone (IglooDude) looking into hosting the game. Looks like we have an 8v8 unless someone from Strategamer wants to change allegiance and even it up to a 9v9.Hopefully you'll be able to find just one extra player yourselves. But if not, I guess it's possible that someone on our team might want to play badly enough that they'll support the opposition. :D

Any thoughts on picking civs so they even out? We don't want one side totally powerful while the other side is not. Perhaps each team should put together their civ list in priority order from 1-18, then have one side pick, the other gets 2, the other gets 2, etc. We can flip a virtual coin for 1st pick.

Assuming that's how we go, I suggest we get started on ranking the civs. If we want a separate forum, say the word and I'll put out a feeler.If you read my original post clearly, I suggested that each side gets to pick its 9 different leaders regardless of the other team's 9 leaders. In other words, duplicate leaders are allowed on the different teams, and in fact it's technically possible that there could be the same 9 leaders on each team (that's perfectly permissible). What is not permissible is for one team to pick duplicate leaders within its 9 - eg one team picking two Mansa Musa's, or three Qin Shi Huangs, is not allowed. ;)

[not quite an advertisement]
Also, if I may suggest a little duel action to get into MP playing shape, you can find said action in my sig.
[/not quite an advertisement]Heh, that was sneaky... I'm not complaining though. :mischief:

Incidentally, what do you reckon about how our own Emp vs Dave duel is going? Are you a little worried yet by my military presence? ;) :p

I will lurk the CFC site, since I do not even have civ4 on my computer, since it does not run on the machine. [pissed]

Aye ill sign up :)

Sorry, I haven't been checking the Strategamer thread. Has anything else been brought up over there?

'obligatory RM being someones vassel comment inserter here' :goodjob:

The beauty of this team game is that we're all each other's vassals. :lol:

Will we be in a premanant alliance from the begining?

Will we be in a premanant alliance from the begining?

Yes, all the CFC players will be in a permanent alliance with each other.

Will we be in a premanant alliance from the begining?You will all be on the same "team" of 9. ;)

You will all be on the same "team" of 9. ;)

Except that at the moment we only have 8.

Hmmm, so research times will be fairly short then:D

Also gives me an idea, which i wont share until we have a spoiler thread up free of visitors from the other team;)

'obligatory RM being someones vassel comment inserter here' :goodjob:
Ass. :p

XCL

That's right, we will play assorted leaders this game. :lol:

Ass. :p

XCL



:lol: merry christmas to you too

Has this game started?
Are there any spoilerthreads?

Not started yet, still in the planning stages AFAIK.

Go Bears!!!
BB

We still haven't found a host yet. If anyone wants to volunteer a host machine for the Pitboss, then be my guest. :)

maybe speak to a certain cold dude, is the only regular pitboss host i know :)

Yeah, he originally offered, but unfortunately found he couldn't host. :(

http://www.strategamer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9210&postcount=77

hmmm then the only other pitboss game ive played was hosted by daveshack.

What is happening to this?

We're looking for a host. Since it's been so long and we've found no-one else, I suggest that we could just try Elucidus (even though he's on the Strategamer team, which I hope no-one would mind). I'd just like to get this thing started, regardless. :)

Where is the list of the team members and if CFC needs another member, then I could be one, since I have Warlords.

theres one knocking about somewhere :) maybe strategamer,