Welcome Gypsy Kings!

I've started this discussion thread for us to use for discussing the technical and game setup, problems, notifications of absence etc etc. - anything related to the game.

Notes:
This thread is for a private game for the Gypsy Kings SGOTM (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196) team (i.e. all the players are already known to each other) so we're not opening up a general sign-up thread (at least this time around). Sorry!
It's also my first time hosting a pitboss game, so - forum admins - I hope it is ok to create a thread here for the discussion; if not please move it / let me know!

Player roster
Munro
adrianj
ozyar
Ronnie1
da_Vinci
hellwitch
Conquistador 63
toller pretzl

(proposed) Game settings
map: Inland sea
size: standard
sea level: normal
starting era: ancient
speed: normal
climate: temperate
players: 8 (2v2v2v2 team play)
worldwrap: flat
resources: standard
turn timer: 26 hours
game options: No Technology Trading, No Vassal States, No Tribal Villages
Victory conditions: all permitted
Civs / leaders: all permitted (duplicates allowed)
Difficulty: Emperor
Version: BtS V3.17 - standard, no Mods

Getting started

1. Patch BtS to version 3.17.

Patching to version 3.17 doesn't seem to affect the vanilla or warlords installs (unlike the 3.13 patch, say) so you'll still be able to play locked vanilla and warlords saves (including SGOTM07!) after you patch.
However, if you still need access to older BtS saves (e.g. BOTM) you may want to create an additional 'dual install' copy of the game at 3.13, before you patch.
It may also be worth creating a 'dual install' copy of the game at 3.17, after you patch - to use for playing this pitboss game. This will make sure you still have the right version (3.17) available for the pitboss game when we are finishing the game in a year's time regardless of any future patches or modifications that you might want to apply to your main install.


How to create a dual install:

The easiest way to create a dual install is just to create a copy of your C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4 folder in a new location.
E.g. if your current install is at version 3.17, you might create a new folder C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\V3.17
Create a copy of your C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4 folder in the new location, i.e. C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\V3.17\Sid Meier's Civilization 4
That's it! Use the new folder to run BtS when you want to connect to the PitBoss game.
Your dual install(s) will continue to use the same saves, .ini settings, autolog, screenshot folders etc as your existing install - i.e. everything in \My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4).

Example:


Create a new folder in C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\ for your pitboss version of civ; e.g. call it V3.17

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/5655/1newfolderru6.jpg

Create a copy of the Sid Meier's Civilization 4 folder in your new folder

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/7271/2newcopyofcivgm8.jpg

To load up the game for pitboss, just run the version of BtS inside this folder:

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2990/3runbtsur3.jpg

2. Joining the game.

Join the pitboss game by going to Multiplayer > Direct IP from the main menu, and entering the connection info I've sent you by PM.
Chose a civ and protect it with a password. You'll be sharing the password with your teammate (so he can play for you if you're away) so chose something unique - i.e. don't use the same password you have for your internet banking or email account or whatever.
Check that you can connect to the game and you should be able to see both your own units and your teammate's.
If you can't connect right away, let me know - I may need to add a firewall wall for your specific IP address the first time you try to connect. (I already have rules added for dV, aj and ronnie).

3. Register your leader at http://www.civstats.com.
The game ID of the current test game is 1010 (Gypsy Kings 12 July 2008).
http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=1010
You will need to PM the password you would like to use and I'll set it up for you through the civstats.com admin interface for our game.

reserved #5

We are playing epic? With no tech trading on monarch i am not sure if that is needed? It means the game will probably take 1.5 times as long time as normal in real time... Also neither no tech brokering nor locked modified assets do anything. I also suggest we turn off vassal states as they should have no place in such a game. Personally i would also like to switch barbs off but i go with whatever the majority decides. You know that all selecting monarch does is make techs more expecnsive / maintainance and upkeep higher / makes barbs harder right? Also what are the teams? IMO we should go with whatever makes the most balanced teams...

{copy/paste from PM to Munro}
Looks fun, although I've never played MP and as I mentioned in our team thread, I'll be away Jul 13 to 20. If I can catch up later that's fine.

@C63 - great! Being away for a week won't be a problem (as long as your teammate is not also away). The main thing is that the game will probably last a year or more, with an approx. 24 hour turn timer, so you'll need to be online most days over that timeframe (5-6 days per week? depending on how much you and your teammate are able to cover for each other). For occasional days off or holidays you can just have your teammate play for you.

Is that a level of commitment you're comfortable with?

@oyzar - good points about game settings. I've edited my first post above to suggest normal speed, no vassal states etc

About barbs and game difficulty - I would prefer to play with barbs on; just adds a bit more interest in the early game and plays more like a 'normal' game of civ; and monarch difficulty - again, to make resources / city management a bit more interesting in the early game. (Emperor might be even better, but we don't want dV getting wiped out by the barbs in the first couple of weeks... :eek: :p Unless he's on your team of course.. :D)

(Emperor might be even better, but we don't want dV getting wiped out by the barbs in the first couple of weeks... :eek: :p Unless he's on your team of course.. :D) Well, I AM able to come up with new and creative ways to lose ... but I don't think I have ever been wiped out by the barbs. :p

Slowed down by them to the extent that I have no chance, yes, but not wiped out. :lol:

Re team selection ... two items to try to balance ... skill and pitboss experience. Not sure if pitboss experience is that big a deal (although experience making war on a human may account for something) ... but general skill certainly is. Seems oyzar and I are the only ones with prior pitboss experience?

So here is a suggestion ... Munro, oyzar, and dV on different teams (dV to split out the prior pitboss experience), then dV team gets the next most skilled player (if we can even figure out how to decide that ranking :lol:) among the other players.

Or they draw straws and short straw gets me :mischief:

Or maybe C63 gets me, since it is his fault that I am a GK to begin with! ;) :goodjob: :lol:

Playing on monarch will slow the game progress by increasing expenses, tightening pop caps ... might make a long game even longer. A lot of pitboss seems to be played on normal speed and noble difficulty, perhaps in part because things progress faster that way. Just a thought.

Or we could set different players to different levels ... I could get a handicap! :lol:

dV

Well I have been taken out by barbs! So I should get the handicap that dV gets ++ something else, free settler maybe. Oh wait, that's just another city for the barbs to take from me before I get any defenses built!:sad:

Another thing to consider is whether anyone is going to be away for extended periods, so we can make sure teammates are available to cover if possible.

Main trips I have coming up when I'll be offline are
oct 10-20
dec 18 - jan 5

I'll also be away for several weeks sometime in the summer of 2009 (getting married) but not sure of the exact date yet. Possibly around july 4th.

I'll be away from Feb 6 - Feb 15 '09. Probably some at Christmas time also.

Has anyone PM'ed hw for an invite?

I've been able to log in!

Still waiting for aj, C63, and dV!

I'll be away from Feb 6 - Feb 15 '09. Probably some at Christmas time also.

Has anyone PM'ed hw for an invite?

I PM'd hellwitch. Haven't heard anything back yet.

If lots of people are away at the same time (e.g. christmas) we can always pause the game for a few days when necessary..

I'll prolly be able to play for christmas, my wedding is comming up in august but not sure if it means i will be unable to play(in most pitbosses you can easily be away for 48 hours without much notice...). I have a laptop and there is both internet here and at my parents place and everywhere in between(yes there is internet on the 500 km bustrip there :D ).

Oh and going by the order munro posted things in(1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6) i now decide that the teams are me and ronnie, adrianj and munro and dv and cq63. That is unless there are some objections or strong feelings otherwise.

Those teams sound good to me, depending on what we hear back from hellwitch (and confirmation from C63 that he's ok with the amount of online time required as well).

aj - we should start thinking about civs as well; which leaders will be good for this map type, and compliment each other in a 2-way PA. I'll have a think about this and try to catch you on IM to discuss.

Dual installed, patched, and in the game! :goodjob:

I waited until I finished BOTM 07 and got it submitted, all from the dual install folder, to be sure everything was working before installing the patch on the main folder.

So I am good to go ...

In my dual installs, I set up duplicate folders in my games as well as program files ... and the saves from 3.13 go automatically to into the 3.13 my game folders, etc.

AlanH had suggested this ... but you are saying that even running from a renamed parent folder, the saves find their way into the normal civ folders in my games?

When we play BOTMs in the 3.13 version (until new HOF mod), you may find that just clicking on a saved game will want to open 3.17 by default, in which case you may have to open the 3.13 first, then load the save from within the game.

Also, for Vista users, be sure that both versions of your dual install do not have the options screen hangup problem related to folder permissions settings. Do this by starting a new single player game using HOF, going to the HOF options, and being sure you can exit.

dV

Well after the turn rollover, I am timing out trying to log into the game ... anyone else tried to get back in?

dV

I can still get back in ok (connecting via IP) sok the Pitboss game is still running. Could be some kind of network issue. I should be online tomorrow after work; IM me if you are still unable to connect and we'll see if we can figure it out.

We should either get hamachi or you need to open port 2056 as people might have wildly varying ips(that is why dv can't get in)... I'll also be looking to log in from different places eventually...

Yes, I'll probably just open up port 2056 - but that shouldn't be stopping dV getting in as he was able to log just a few days ago (to this specific game) and I doubt his IP has changed since then (and I didn't have any new IPs in the firewall log when I checked it yesterday).

oyzar - are you able to connect still to the current (BtS 3.17) game at the moment? Can you test it out?

his ip changed.. i specifically asked him about it.. and yes i can still connect.

Ok - thanks. I'll look into making that firewall change when I get back then, and ask dV to try reconnecting.

I was able to get back in! Any word from aj and C63?

Yes, I'll probably just open up port 2056 - but that shouldn't be stopping dV getting in as he was able to log just a few days ago (to this specific game) and I doubt his IP has changed since then (and I didn't have any new IPs in the firewall log when I checked it yesterday).

his ip changed.. i specifically asked him about it.. and yes i can still connect.

My recollection is that dial-up always gave one a different IP address each logon (hmm ... only been a year since I dial-up was all I had :lol:).

My current connection is a wireless broadband card via my cell provider, and that, like dial-up, seems to give me a new IP every time I reconnect, even from the same location.

Which has not been a problem for any other pitboss games I have been in ... I wonder how they manage access .... we could ask oob what he does, as he is hosting a game that I have no problems with.


dV

Pretty sure neither oob nor whiplash have firewalls or if they do that they have the correct ports open...

Ok - firewall all figured out now. It should allow new connections regardless of IP address.

Also - to register your leader at civstats, it looks like I'll need to set up a password for you to provide at registration, so I'll chose something random and send it to you via PM.

Link to the game is http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=1010

<duplicate post deleted>

The leaders will change when we change the game so there is little to no reason to register now.. it would be nice if cq and adrianj tested the game first, although cq is gone already...

hi folks. I would like to play but i will need some time to get BtS 3.17 and to try to connect

I've connected and played 1 turn successfully as Asoka :)

The leaders will change when we change the game so there is little to no reason to register now.. it would be nice if cq and adrianj tested the game first, although cq is gone already...

Well, no reason for YOU to register, as this is old hat to you. But registration is what establishes the email notifications, isn't it? And we want to be sure that is working for everyone, so at least the players new to pitboss and civstats should register in the test I would think ...

aj said he would be gone 7/14 to 7/17 ... and C63 to 7/20 IIRC. So I guess you will have to be patient ... it is good to try out new things! :D ;)

dV

I PM'd munro already, I am not able to get back in now that changes have been made.

Also, now that we have heard from hw, do we want to try and get Toller Pretzel to even out the teams 2v2v2v2 or are we going for 2v2v3?

Or we could reqruit someone to the team both for next round and for this one...

Well, if we push to 8 (or even 10!) we may need a new test game to get everyone in it (only six slots in current test) ...

Or we could have the new players replace us in the same game if we give them our civ passwords ... which is easier?

dV

my civ pw is nothing.

i am timing out again when trying to connect??? any ideas?

You changed ip and munro didn't add you?

not sure i follow you here???

You changed ip and munro didn't add you?

I don't think that's it. I've opened up the firewall to allow connections from any IP (for the appropriate ports) and both dV and hellwitch have been able to connect since then - from new IPs - without any further intervention from me.

Ronnie - as discussed, could be that you are trying to connect to the wrong IP, since this was also the problem for dV yesterday - maybe a typo in a PM or IM that I sent both of you? Either way it seems specific to your setup somehow so we'll sort it out over PM / IM (would rather not post my external IP on a public forum).

Edit: working again now; there was an issue with my firewall settings. All required ports should be open now.

Well, if we push to 8 (or even 10!) we may need a new test game to get everyone in it (only six slots in current test) ...

Or we could have the new players replace us in the same game if we give them our civ passwords ... which is easier?

dV

10 sounds like a lot of players.. and is this is the first time at pitboss for most of us, it'd be good to keep it a bit more informal and within the team as far as possible.

That said, I'd be very happy to see Toller Pretzl come back if he was interested in joining us for this pitboss game (and / or the next SGOTM?) or oyzar also knows another norweigan player - Rusten? - who might also be interested (and might also be a possible recruit for the next SGOTM? Looks like he is a pretty good deity player too... 8) )

Shall I PM TP first since he is already a gypsy king and most of us know him already?

I spoke to Rusten via IM and he is waiting to decide on the next SGOTM, he may go to OSS as he knows someone on that team also. For now, why don't you go ahead and PM TP and see if he is interested.

I'm back.

As I mentioned last week, there doesn't seem any chance I can get into the game from Uni, where I do most of my playing. I'll try log on when I get home tonight - although I wouldn't anticipate any problems, considering I logged onto a previous test game.

Edit: And my IP will also be variable from home. But it looks like this is no longer a problem.

I have 0 pitboss experience, in fact, I have 0 experience at any kind of civ4 multiplayer.

FWIW I agree with whoever it was that said barbs are good. If we're playing 1 turn per day for a year I would definitely like some challenging barbarians to deal with in the early game.

Dates I will be away:
6th - 28th September (confirmed)
29th November - 4th December (approx.)
Week between christmas and new year (most likely.)

Can I make another quick suggestion: My home PC has had graphics issues in the past. I think I've sorted them out, but just to be on the safe side, can we have the map a slightly smaller size. I imagine this will also encourage some earlier action as well.

Standard map with 8 people is already fairly crowded.. With pitboss it really shouldn't be a problem as you don't actually do the turnflipps just loading up the map...

We managed to get aj connected from his uni / workplace using hamachi (https://secure.logmein.com/products/hamachi/vpn.asp) (a private, free VPN) - so standard size / home PC graphics issues shouldn't be an issue now.

If anyone else is already familiar with hamachi and wants to use it in preference to a regular connection, just let me know and I'll PM you the details. (Existing connections via the public IP you already have for me should continue to work fine).

Also - I sent toller pretzl a PM this evening to see if he'd be interested in joining us, to take the final spot for 2v2v2v2.

What is everyone's preference for difficulty levels by the way? Would anyone (else) be up for emperor difficulty? Just to make the initial barbs and city planning a bit more interesting, and possibly make some of the less useful leader traits (agressive, protective, expansive, organized etc) a bit more useful due to the more challenging start conditions, and make some of the early decisions a bit more interesting (e.g. so it isn't necessarily just a straightforward chopfest - need to consider health etc as well).

Emperor barbs shouldn't be too hardcore - esp. in teams of two humans co-operating.

Thoughts?

I'm game for whatever! This is my first effort at multiplayer, I have no experience to base any sort of opinion! I'm mostly comfortable playing Emperor solo. It definitely adds barb activity early, and the health and happy caps are definitely more restrictive than Noble.

Hello everybody. Thank you for the invitation, it's an exciting idea. I think this setup is probably not right for me though, because of the huge commitment involved.

Will it be like this ? : I select France, my team-partner selects Germany, and then when I am on vacation he plays both France and Germany ?

Yes, exactly. And also any days of the week that you aren't able to get online (everyone needs a day off from time to time, even from civ :p).

I haven't played pitboss before, but I'd imagine if you can be online 5-6 days a week that would be fine. You can either have your partner play your turn on your days off, or just queue up orders and builds etc.

Also, we can always pause the game for a few days if needed if there are any extended periods when both team members will be away (unless your team is winning of course! :lol:) or if needed at, say, christmas.

If this sounds good, let us know! :king:

So will two members of a team also want to beat each other ? Or have they won as a team when one of them wins ?

And what happens if two members of a team sandwich a member of another team on the map, while the other part of that team is far, far away ? Will it be an early exit for the sandwiched player ?

So will two members of a team also want to beat each other ? Or have they won as a team when one of them wins ?

And what happens if two members of a team sandwich a member of another team on the map, while the other part of that team is far, far away ? Will it be an early exit for the sandwiched player ?

Two civs who are teamed work for one for pretty much all purposes, so if you try to sandwitch one civ odds are his team mate will help him out :p. The other teammate won't be far far away as the teams start together... You win as a team when the team wins... Not entierly sure how a team space race works, but you need 3 cities(in the team) for culturual, or domination of total land / pop and conquest is obvious(eliminate all non-teammates).

Right - it works like a permanent alliance, so you share research, victory conditions etc.

Also - as oyzar says, the mapscript always ensures you start next to your partner, so there shouldn't be any chance that you end up isolated. So it should all be pretty fair! :)

Yea, i am already very exited for this game. When we plan to start. We are wiating for C63, right? And do we have consensus for the teams?

I'm game for whatever! This is my first effort at multiplayer, I have no experience to base any sort of opinion! I'm mostly comfortable playing Emperor solo. It definitely adds barb activity early, and the health and happy caps are definitely more restrictive than Noble.

I've played once and win but no fighting at all because all the ather 3 players surrender when the saw my forces. It was 1v1v1v1.

Multi can be treated as aways war because you can be attacked anytime. Most of the games if not all the games are conquests. In team play you are dead without your partner so give him and ask help whenever you need.
And so on. I've read few articles for multi already but there are more.

toller pretzl was able to connect into the test game ok, so just waiting for confirmation from C63 that he is able to log in post-BtS 3.17 upgrade. I think he gets back tomorrow, so hopefully we'll be ready to start shortly.

How do these look for teams?

Munro / adrianj
ozyar / Ronnie1
da_Vinci / hellwitch
Conquistador 63 / toller pretzl


I split hellwitch and toller pretzl up to try and even out the skill levels a bit (as they are both rather good :p). Does the above look like a good fit for everybody? Post here or send me a PM if you'd prefer anything different.

Also -

It might be fun (and fairer) if teams choose their civs / leaders in private; just send me your choices in a PM with a subject line like 'confidential - civ choices for pitboss' or something like that so I'll know not to read it until everyone has chosen and we're ready to set up the game. aj and I have already starting discussing the choices and there's a bewildering array. :)
I'll randomize the team order (if necessary for this map type?) so that the starting configuration is random - i.e. oyzar / dV won't necessarily be next to hellwitch / dV; everyone will start next to their teammate though
any final objections / suggestions on the game settings, before we tie them down? (Note the proposed emperor difficulty, which will affect happiness and health caps, and barbs).
one last note - please remember when disconnecting from each pitboss session, to use 'exit to main menu' rather than 'exit to desktop'. Apparently the latter can sometimes cause problems.

To give us a target to aim for, should we aim to finalise teams and game settings by end of monday, say, and finalise leader choices by end of wednesday or thursday? I should be able to get the game set up pretty quickly after that.

Its ok for me. Just one more rule. : No Roman leaders, please ;) because praet. are winning advantage if used properly.

Sure no praets is fine. It isn't necesarry to randomize team order as that will be rather random once the game starts up anyways. Can we please have always war so we don't get any silly trading of gold / cities or whatever(we already have a partner). This obviously doesn't mean we HAVE to attack each other imeadiatly but it will lessen WW(by 50%) and it will rule out most dilomatic options.

Its ok for me. Just one more rule. : No Roman leaders, please ;) because praet. are winning advantage if used properly.

I just wonder if that's true. What wil happen to Rome if it is pitted against a China that first holds it off with axemen, and then starts churning out cho-ko-nu's ?

I just wonder if that's true. What wil happen to Rome if it is pitted against a China that first holds it off with axemen, and then starts churning out cho-ko-nu's ?

Sure china is good, but there is no doubt that it takes way longer to get to cho-no-kus than praets, and axes aren't exactly that good against praets either :p. I am fine either way though.. I don't think praets unbalance the game...

No praets is fine with me too. I am also not sure how unbalancing they would be, but I am happy not finding out this game. :)

Edit: @C63 - welcome back! When you get a chance, please you can test that you are able to connect to the new BtS 3.17 test game mentioned earlier in this thread? Since all 6 slots have already been claimed, please use oyzar / toller pretzl's leader - both in game (civ is not password protected) and when registering your leader at civstats.com. (Password set to C63default - let me know via PM or IM what password you'd like to use to register your leader on civstats for the real game).

@aj - doen't look like you have registered your leader yet at civstats.com - can you create an account there and try to register your leader at http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=1010 The civstats leader password for your civ (in this game) is Isabella. Also, once you're in, let me know what you'd like me to set it to for the real game. This is used to receive new-turn notifications via email, and for sending and receiving out-of-game diplomacy messages.

Note: the password for your overall account at civstats.com should be different and completely private (since you might want to use civstats.com to track other pitboss games you play in the future).

Edit2: I'm not sure about always war though. ozyar - can you elaborate on this a bit? With no technology trading already off, is there anything left which is that unbalancing? Unlike technology trading (which allies could use to effectively double or triple their research rates) - gifting gold or cities doesn't actually create any net benefit, because it costs the giver an equal amount. And always war would remove an interesting extra dimension to the game - peaceful trade routes, resource trading, religious spread, alliances for mutual defence etc - not to mention the need to choose your wars more judiciously (and end them when required to help deal with the WW).

Sure, there will be a lot of warring (probably) but no need to make it any easier than it always is - or remove the alternatives which add an interesting extra dimension to the game IMO - unless it really is unbalancing?

IMO AW is not needed because w will lose some very intresting options. Imagine - you can even trade troops like if someone have only horse and other only metal - cahrriot for spear is fair trade IMO. Also gifting two cities with are away from each of the team but close to the other.

IMO there are very intresting option in Multiplayer mode which will make the game intrestion and it is better to not cut them off.

About praet. - well if played well nobody have chance to win vs human who already have igon and few praet to protect it. Axes are good but weeker than them - 8 vs 7.5 str. When it comes to promos its even worser for the axe - every axe got .5 for every Combat lvl but praet got .8. Also a CR2-3 praet. army cannot be stop even from lbs or crossbow(including cho-ko-nu). Also because the come very early when they don't have counter you can split the in stacks of 2 and then cats wont' help too. The nearest equal counter units are warelephants but they dont have the same potential for offence - no CR promos and they have equal couter unit which is cheeper - spears, they don't recieve terrain bonuses.
I have played gotm 32 and win (in the replay) because i was able to brake 3 deity AIs with them - Sal, Alex and Luis. IMO they are so unbalanced that i can't loose even on Immortal if i got iron. Ofcouse in multi a human can find a way to deal with them successfully but this will be unfair adv. for the "roman" player.

been off sailing, one marina did not allow me to access net yesterday ... but I am back in touch now

Won't always war kind of obsolete some of the VC's? I'm OK either way I guess, but it seems like it will have to be either Conquest or Domination for Victory.

Hi all! I'm back and just set up my 3.17 install, also successfully loaded and played a turn of the test game.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting psyched for this game :)

I'm happy with everything suggested so far. No Romans, no tech trading, NOT AW, emperor difficulty. A couple of questions for me though: No Tribal Villages? Random events enabled? IMO both of these make the game more fun, but if we're worried about tribal villages making things unbalanced, then random events should also be turned off.

Everyone come up with what leaders you want, and we can get this game going!

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting psyched for this game :)

I'm happy with everything suggested so far. No Romans, no tech trading, NOT AW, emperor difficulty. A couple of questions for me though: No Tribal Villages? Random events enabled? IMO both of these make the game more fun, but if we're worried about tribal villages making things unbalanced, then random events should also be turned off.

Everyone come up with what leaders you want, and we can get this game going!

Yes, I do think the random events add some interesting flavour (and help to balance out the overly-powerful slavery civic somewhat) and add some interesting choices (e.g. keeping cash contingency / workers nearby v. playing lean for maximum efficieny but with some increased exposure). Since we are playing for fun, I would prefer to keep them (they are also a fundamental part of the 'flavour' of BtS IMHO).

I'd be happy keeping huts for the same reason, but feel less strongly about those (because there are fewer interesting decisions to make with them - although I suppose they are still a fundamental part of the game and help to balance out the game a little for civs starting with scouts v. warriors - and not unbalancing the way tech trading could be, for example).

Anyone have preferences either way?

No real preferences. Kind of feel like Huts are not so good, and RE not so bad. More than willing to go with consensus on this.

About the leaders. What if a leader is requested more than once, does that matter? I suppose with all human players, we could all conceivably play the same leader. Not sure about this idea.

No real preferences. Kind of feel like Huts are not so good, and RE not so bad. More than willing to go with consensus on this.

About the leaders. What if a leader is requested more than once, does that matter? I suppose with all human players, we could all conceivably play the same leader. Not sure about this idea.

I would like no huts but random events. I would also like no barbs though so you don't have to listen to me :p. Ron talk to me on msn whenever you catch me on so we can iron out civchoices and the like.. duplicates are allowed but not too good idea inside the team...

dV do you recieve my PM for the leader choice?

dV do you recieve my PM for the leader choice? Yes, saw that ...

We had some discussion on MSN as to whether teaming C63 with me and you with tp might work out better from a time zone perspective (well, at least for C63 and I who are only one hour apart) ... what are your thoughts on that?

dV

Yes, saw that ...

We had some discussion on MSN as to whether teaming C63 with me and you with tp might work out better from a time zone perspective (well, at least for C63 and I who are only one hour apart) ... what are your thoughts on that?

dV

I am ok. Don't know TP opinion.

hellwitch - I spoke to tp about teams on IM a couple of days back and was happy teaming up with you, so unless he's having last minute doubts (!) I think we should be set with the following teams:

1) Munro / adrianj
2) oyzar / Ronnie1
3) Conquistador 63 / da_Vinci
4) hellwitch / toller pretzl

As for settings, looks like general agreement / acceptance of the following?

emperor difficulty
barbs ON
huts OFF
random events ON
romans DISALLOWED
duplicate leaders ALLOWED


Also - I'm assuming no handicaps (i.e. everyone plays at emperor) but if anyone feels like they need a boost (or a handicap!) to help keep things as well matched as possible, just say - we could always have one team playing at monarch (or immortal) while everyone else plays at emperor, for a small handicap if needed.

Assuming no further objections to any of the above by the end of today - get with your teammate and start thinking about leader choices! PM me your choices once you've decided, and I'll publish the full list once everyone has chosen (and before the game starts). aj and I have already made our final choice.

Assuming we can have this done by wed / thurs, how do people feel about a late thurs pm start? (US eastern time)

About the leaders. What if a leader is requested more than once, does that matter? I suppose with all human players, we could all conceivably play the same leader. Not sure about this idea.

Duplicate leaders are allowed (no real reason to disallow them) although I expect there'll still be an interesting amount of variation! Since we're picking our leaders in private, we won't know until the game is about to start whom everyone has chosen, but I imagine there'll still be a healthy amount of variation (esp. since the romans have been disallowed - no more JC & Augusts combos for everyone... :p)

Assuming we can have this done by wed / thurs, how do people feel about a late thurs pm start? (US eastern time)If we get details worked out, Thursday sounds good!

I might get flamed for this wild thought, but... could a "random leaders/ unrestricted civs - but no duplicates allowed" be an acceptable option? At least to me, it sounds like fun - and even reduce the need for boosts/handicaps as it could reduce the influence of the better leader selection from the stronger players.

I might get flamed for this wild thought, but... could a "random leaders/ unrestricted civs - but no duplicates allowed" be an acceptable option? At least to me, it sounds like fun - and even reduce the need for boosts/handicaps as it could reduce the influence of the better leader selection from the stronger players.
Considering how this game will likely be played over a year or so, it's strange how keen I am for it to get up and running :) At least if everyone was given a random leader the game could start earlier - assuming we make a decision on that sooner than people decide on their leader choice.

This being my first multiplayer game, I have no real preference for my leader choice - since what I might think is very strong might in fact be quite poor, and vice versa. Not to mention figuring out synergy with my teammate :confused:. So I'll just go with the concensus on this one. In fact, consider me going with the concensus on everything :crazyeye:

I'd prefer to stick with the leaders that aj and I have chosen, as it's added an interesting extra dimension to the game, and I'm interested to see how our choices work out now. :)

Also, it means that people can choose leaders that sound most fun to them (and suit their style of play).

Obviously you could always elect to take a random leader if you want (with or without a monarch bonus to compensate) and I could just regenerate it if you get romans (or maybe romans would be allowed in this case? :eek:) Or if everyone wants all random leaders, I'm happy to go with that, but would prefer to pick our own.

Like aj - I am happy to go with the consensus though if everyone wants random leaders for everyone! :crazyeye:

If i ever could talk to ron we could figure out what leaders we wanted out of this game. I have some ideas, but not sure if they are the best...

Problem with random is some teams will start with 3 techs (or even two? :eek:) and some with 4 techs, which could be problematic ...

dV

I recomend to start with 4 techs...

I don't like random leaders because choosing leader is part of the whole game and strategy.

I had not considered all of the "options" available for choosing leaders. Starting with different techs would seem to make the most sense of course. I assume both civs start with the same knowledge, ie, we don't have to wait for alphabet to exchange knowledge.

I'm sure i haven't thought through all of the ramifications, where is oyzar by the way?

I had not considered all of the "options" available for choosing leaders. Starting with different techs would seem to make the most sense of course. I assume both civs start with the same knowledge, ie, we don't have to wait for alphabet to exchange knowledge.

I'm sure i haven't thought through all of the ramifications, where is oyzar by the way?

Technology trading is off !

Sharing technologies with your teammate's civ is automatic - you automatically discover any technologies that he does, and visa versa. You can also both research the same technology simultaneously to speed it up (the :science: are combined) - i.e. exactly like a normal permanent alliance.

Sharing technologies with your teammate's civ is automatic - you automatically discover any technologies that he does, and visa versa. You can also both research the same technology simultaneously to speed it up (the :science: are combined) - i.e. exactly like a normal permanent alliance.

Thanks for the clarification. I have never been in a permanent alliance before.

I had not considered all of the "options" available for choosing leaders. Starting with different techs would seem to make the most sense of course. I assume both civs start with the same knowledge, ie, we don't have to wait for alphabet to exchange knowledge.

I'm sure i haven't thought through all of the ramifications, where is oyzar by the way?

I am here.. You are the one who keeps disapearing from convos :p. Anyways if you don't get back in time read what i said on msn...

I and TP are ready with the leader and waiting for the start. :)

Seems like we are just waiting for me and Ron then... We had some discussion last night but Ron was working at the time so we didn't get it done.

How about low sealevel? More land = better :D. Also i think me and Ron finally agreed on civchoices so we should be ready to roll... Also i think i said this before but can we please not have any pw on the game itself as it just use extra time...

Leaders have been chosen!


Munro / aj = Alex / Huayna Capac
C63 / da_Vinci: Elizabeth / Shaka
TP / hellwitch = Sitting Bull / Pacal II
oyzar / ronnie = Pacal II / Cyrus


Hellwitch and oyzar both playing the new mayan leader. No other duplicates.

I'm fine with low sealevel but now that people have chosen their leaders we probably shouldn't change it unless everyone is in favour - anyone have any preference to stick with normal sea level as originally proposed?

I should be able to get the game setup and started this evening (3-4 hours from now).
I'll set the timer to 48 hours for the first turn to make sure everyone has time to register their leaders, then afterwards will set to 26 hours as planned.
Game will not be password protected (just remember to password protect your civ, and share with your partner).
Also - as mentioned earlier, when disconnecting from the game, please be sure to select 'exit to main menu' first as we have reports of problems otherwise (e.g. if you try to exit directly to desktop).

Let the fun begin! :)

I have no opinion at all.

Lets get it on!

Edit: I vote low sea-level if it means the game will start today :)

You can't change the turntimer during the game unless you use saveconverter! so i think you should set it to the correct time first opportunity!

i vote low sea level!

anyone have any preference to stick with normal sea level as originally proposed?

Yes. It's not a dealbreaker of course, but my testgames were played that way.

The game is online!

I wasn't sure of the mapscript shuffling, so I used a random number generator to give the following team / player order:

1 adrianJ Inca
2 Munro Greece
3 C63 England
4 da_Vinci Zululand
5 Ronnie1 Persia
6 oyzar Maya
7 toller pretzl Native American
8 hellwitch Maya

So oyzar / hellwitch - whoever comes to claim his leader first,
Pacal 1 = oyzar
Pacal 2 = hellwitch


(Need to chose the right one to ensure you are end up with the right teammate)! :)

civstats game ID is 1019: http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=1019

The passwords for registering your civstats leaders are the same as before. If you forgot it or want to change it, just send me a PM and I'll set it up for you.

Finally - due to a technical glitch (being in the staging room while I was setting up) aj's leader doesn't have a civ password protecting it at the moment. So please be careful not to pick incans by mistake... Or you'll see everything. :( Anyone (oyzar / dV?) know if it's possible to add a password later? I already tried going to 'my details' from the options menu and setting it there, but that didn't seem to work.

BTW - normal sea level as several folks stated a preference for that after my post above (tp above, C63 and dV via IM - and me too); sorry oyzar and ronnie

after aj takes a turn, if he resigns, I think he will kick to AI ... then if he takes it over from AI, he gets a new chance to add a password ... or I think that will work.

oyzar, can you confirm this?

dV

Ah - good thinking dV. oyzar - can you confirm? Otherwise I can always test it out.

BTW - if anyone prefers to use hamachi (free private VPN software that can be useful for getting around firewall issues), we have a network set up with network name GypsyKings. I sent you each a PM with the network password. If you don't use Hamachi (or don't know what it is) you can ignore! :crazyeye:

Yeah resigning to ai and reintering would work.

Why did it say at civstats that oyzars civ is America ?

No idea.. I didn't end my turn because i am waiting to discuss what to do with ron, but hellwitch settled his city already and yet didn't end turn... If we don't end turns it will be long between them.

i can end my turn anytime in the next 2 hour if needed

i can end my turn anytime in the next 2 hour if needed

Well there is no reason to not end the turn once you finish it. As it is now you will be the only one left to end the turn when me/ron takes our turn in aprox 1.5 hours. Once everyone have ended their turn, a new one begins.

Yes - good point. I forgot to mention this explicitly, but if you've finished playing your turn, please 'press enter' to end your turn before disconnecting from the game. When everyone has ended their turn, the next one will automatically start. This just helps to keep the game moving along a bit faster. The 26 hour turn timer is a failsafe to make sure it doesn't get stuck on one turn if someone forgets (or is unexpectedly away) but in general we should be aiming to all play our turns before this timer expires anyway (or risk missing a turn)! Just rembember to hit enter when you're done. :)

So in whose hands is the game at the moment ? Can I see this from the civ screen ?

You can see from civstats that me / ronnie1 / hellwitch have not yet ended our turns yet... Once we do the new turn will start, i assume you are sharing pw's with hellwitch so once me and ronnie finishes(as soon as ronnie find time between work probably). Btw do you have msn?

i don't end my turn because i that haw i can change the build up later if i want it simple!!!

Heh ok. Anyways ron is quite bussy at work though so in 2+ hours we have managed to move our scouts but not yet decided where to settle..

i don't end my turn because i that haw i can change the build up later if i want it simple!!! Well, after one hits end turn, one can still change research, city builds, (don't know about launch a civic or religious revolution, but I would assume so as well), sliders ... or move units that have not moved.

That is due to the "simultaneous turns" nature of pitboss multi-player ... we are all playing our turns "simultaneously", rather than in order, from the game's perspective. In which case end turn simply means that the time is no longer waiting for you, not that you can't still do stuff.

To what extent do we want to have rules about not "playing twice" in the same turn? One could envision a scenaio where one's build choice might change after you see someone's unit come threateningly near; or you might stop short of committing that worker to keep on mining until you see that no threat to him has materialized.

When not at war, one has the liberty to move early or late in turn ... so I guess this issue really only arises if there is an advantage to moving some things first, and some later, after you see what others have done.

I don't recall this issue having explicit rules in my pitboss experience ... have you seen this come up, or rules for it, oyzar?

dV

Only during war and then there are rules against double moves / double logins(not allowed to login before a guy then after a guy again for example). I've not ended turns before because of issues i want to resolve before ending my turn, like talking with my team mate or waiting for some trades to come in and the like so i can totaly understand why hellwitch did it. I was just curious as there shouldn't be that much you can do on the first turn after having settled :p. Oh and 5 people logged in after under an hour of play on the new turn. If we continue like this turns might be quite fast :p. Finished the first one with 11 hours left on the timer for example.

Ok, I did as was suggested - retiring to let AI take control.

Now the Incan Empire is no longer an option to select!!

I've been discussing this with Oyzar, and it seems that the most likely cause is that "Take over AI" was not enabled. We have 2 options:
1) Reload to a save before I retired... I'll just have to live with having no password.
2) We start a new game.

I don't mind playing with no password, provided no completely random person finds the IP. I trust that noone else playing this game will log into my civ, especially since it will be obvious by looking at civstats.

I apologize to everyone for this inconvenience :(

Edit: To add to the list of problems, I can't login in to the game from Uni when other players are in... I have no such problems from home. I'm not sure if it is all players or just some - so far I haven't been able to get into a game with Munro, Oyzar, or TP.

We're going with option 1. Munro has reloaded the save. The only person other than me that this affected was dV I believe.

Now, just forget I said anything :)

I think I have found a way to get into Hamachi ... if I don't connect to Sprint via their connection software, but use the control panel (what used to be the connection manager, now conducting business under a new name), I can connect to the net, and yet the sprint connection manager thinks I am not connected.

Connected that way, I can get Hamach to connect, both networks are shown, and I get the select a network option.

Now, I just need someone to PM me (not post here, of course!) the password for our network.

dV

Ok, logged in successfully with hamachi tonight, so if we need to go exclusively with that, I am good to go.

dV

the game is advancing well for now - 12-14 hours per turn :). I hope we will keep the pace.

I notice that in civstats there are still some players whose civ is unknown. Is this because they haven't yet registered their leader?

I notice that in civstats there are still some players whose civ is unknown. Is this because they haven't yet registered their leader?

For me : yes. I just don't see that option anywhere.

Edit : I am registered to the game, though. Maybe I just need to input some text from within civ4 ?

leaders are showing as unknown because they are from bts. Civstats is not yet updated for bts..

Folks - an important in-game development:

Due to a miscalculation / misunderstanding of the MP rules, toller pretzl has the opportunity this turn to capture (and raze) Ronnie's undefended capitol.

Obviously, this has the potential to be rather unbalancing (not to mention unfortunate for Ronnie) so before we continue I want to suggest a couple of options.

tp and hw win. We restart the game.
tp raises R1 capitol. We continue the game with 7 players.
tp does not raise capitol; play on as 4v4 (tp / hw + R1 / oyzar v. c63 / dV + Munro / aJ).
tp does not raise R1 capitol (this turn). R1 is allowed to complete his warrior which finishes in 1 turn's time, and R1 'idles' his units some number of turns as a penalty / to compensate for / simulate earlier warrior build.

Separately, we also have the option to start a second game in parallel. (Ronnie and I tested this out this evening and it seems to work fine).

To me, option 4 feels a bit contrived, and given how early we are in this game, and that it is our first experience with MP for many of us, I am leaning towards option 1 - declare victory for tp and hw, complete restart (same map settings, new leaders if desired) - but am happy with the other options and / or with starting a second game in parallel if people prefer.

What does everyone else want to do?

Since it was my ignorance/error, I'll go with the consensus.

I personally think option 4 is the best but i am fine with whatever... Playing as 4 vs 4 could be a bit weird at least.

I've played few MP games last 2 weeks and in such situation you just loose. Yes you got the bad feeling but you will never make the same mistake again.

Ofcourse we can decide to not take R1 capitol but it must be in normal diplomacy way: R1 is in bad position so you want peace (or cease fire) - and we could give it to you but we will have some demands for it. As it is option 4 here it is broken because that way R1 will not only be punished for his mistake but he will gain IMO advantage of this situation.

I just want to say that We(tp) must decide what to demand (if we decide to not kill R1) for somekind of peace deal. :)

As it is option 4 here it is broken because that way R1 will not only be punished for his mistake but he will gain IMO advantage of this situation. Oh ... I did not realize before that the point of the game was to dole out appropriate punishment ... :mischief: I thought that primarily this was an introduction to pitboss for a large number of the GK.

That being said ...

I just want to say that We(tp) must decide what to demand (if we decide to not kill R1) for somekind of peace deal. :) This point has merit, especially since the parallel second game is viable. If everyone is willing to play second game (or at least a reasonable number), then the question really is how to resolve the first game. For that options are:

1. Kill R1, play on

2. Spare R1, with simple compensation (he delays worker moves as if he built warrior when he saw warrior coming).

3. Spare R1, with whatever draconian compensation hw is dreaming up ... :deal: :mwaha: :evil:

4. End the game, declare tp/hw victors

(having removed the "reward R1" option that hw doen't like ... :lol:)

And it does make sense that tp/hw get to decide.

As to oyzar's comment that 4v4 seem strange, I have experience with that ...

My first pitboss was a 4v4v4v4 inland sea, I was invited by g_storrow (some will remember him as a GK briefly) to take over a civ.

The game quickly became a 2v2 on our western front (I had the border), and a 2v2 on our northern front (we had SE corner). So from a coordination point of view, didn't have to have long discussions each turn among four, just among 2 sets of two. Did need all four to agree on research ...

Also, the team on my west border had killed off one civ early ... which made their victory inevitable, since I could not talk our northern neighbor into stopping attacks on us and teaming to take down the giant soon enough.

While I was able to hold the west border (barely) most of the game, the big team rolled up the rest of the 3 civ team, rolled over our northern enemy, and when their infantry arrived on my border (we had just got to rifles) and cracked through my Maginot line (I was France), they were also streaming through our northern border.

All of which illustrates that the game, if R1 is killed off, is likely to become de facto either a 5 on 2 or a 4 on 3 (depending on whom oyzar allies with). Because otherwise, tp/hw will have so much room to expand into the R1 vacuum, with a weaker 1 civ team as neighbor, that to do anything else guarantees them the win.

so for tp/hw, one might say "be careful what you wish for ... "

Final point ... it is just a GAME ...

dV

For me, the main concern is that the game stays fun. As long as I can view the game as an exciting head-to-head, it's easy to log in to the game every day, in fact it's something to look foward to. (It also helps that me and hellwitch tend to need little discussion to agree on a strategy).

That's why I don't much like the solutions where we have to make a different move than the best one. (Which, if Ronnie moves his worker out of the city, might actually be to demand his worker for peace - but I don't think that will help Ronnie much.)

I'd also like to mention that Ronnie's mishap, in my and hw's opinion, is not a simple matter of one small miscalculation. Why cut it so close ? Is it wise to build worker first if you start with a scout ? Maybe the strategies that are best against the AI are not the best in a multiplayer game.

So I'd prefer any of these :

- start anew altogether, declare this game a trial run
- start anew and also continue this game with 7 ("parallel games")
- just continue this game with 7

Why build worker first? It is only 33% chance that he have a guy starting with a warrior as closest neighbour. And then you have about 50% chance of the warrior going in the "right" direction. There is also quite realistic chance that even if the warrior goes in the right direction it won't reach the capital before the warrior is finished anyways(it was one turn difference).. In my 10+ pitboss games i've seen something like this happen twice(including this) and in the other case warrior first was actually too slow due to extreme proximity...

As for the options i am sure we can solve this in a diplomatic way.. Just talk to me on msn tp...

So I'd prefer any of these :

1- start anew altogether, declare this game a trial run
2- start anew and also continue this game with 7 ("parallel games")
3- just continue this game with 7 Note that from R1's perspective, 1 and 2 are identical, and 3 is ... well, no fun.

And it appears that tp (and perhaps hw too) don't have any interest in any of the "spare R1" options in the current game ... that's OK.

#3 is my least favorite option (hopefully everyone's least favorite).

So maybe we agree to start a new game. Do we all agree on that?

Then either this one goes forward with 7, or we ditch it. That will depend on if the seven want to be playing in 2 games here. C63 is away this weekend, I don't know if he has time for two games (although if one person does not have time for two games, then R1 might take over their civ if the rest want to keep this one running?).

I am fine to continue this one IF we also start a new one. If keeping this one means we can't start a new one, then I would rather ditch this one and start new.

dV

From a strategic perspective, worker first is sound if you know the average distance between cities, how fast you can build the warrior, and if your scout can give you early warning. Not so sound perhaps without teams and inland sea, where you can't define the warrior approach route to scout and recon.

In this case, scout did give early warning, but an unfamiliarity with simultaneous turn implications lead to a miscalculation of the cushion. Sound strategy, but glitch in execution?

dV

Oh ... I did not realize before that the point of the game was to dole out appropriate punishment ... :mischief: I thought that primarily this was an introduction to pitboss for a large number of the GK.

That being said ...


loosing is aways unfun to matter how and when. Me and TP want just to play but things happend that way.



3. Spare R1, with whatever draconian compensation hw is dreaming up ... :deal: :mwaha: :evil:


:lol:


4. End the game, declare tp/hw victors

This is definetly the worse. Its all for the game and the fun .



Final point ... it is just a GAME ...

dV

Thats my opinion too.

For me, the main concern is that the game stays fun. As long as I can view the game as an exciting head-to-head, it's easy to log in to the game every day, in fact it's something to look foward to. (It also helps that me and hellwitch tend to need little discussion to agree on a strategy).

That's why I don't much like the solutions where we have to make a different move than the best one.

I agree with this. I am uneasy with any solution that doesn't allow tp to make the 'best' move because the game starts to lose its competitive appeal if all players are not playing to win right from the very beginning. Otherwise, any eventual win would be rather unsatisfying if I knew that my opponents could have done better and chose not to..

So I think we should continue with this game with tp raising Ronnie's city as according to their best advantage, and we can start a second game in parallel for Ronnie (and anyone else who gets eliminated.. :eek:) to enjoy in the meantime. If there are some that don't want to play a second game in parallel that's fine too - we don't necessarily need 8 players to make for a fun second game. (In fact 3v3v3 might make for an interesting variation if it comes to it).

So - tp, play on.

And assuming Ronnie is now out, who would be up for a second game?

I would be up for a second game! I think I could manage both in parallel as well.

Just to add my two cents - I think given HW's and TP's leader selection, everyone should have been expecting some form of early rush, or at least an early attack since they were the only team to start with warriors rather than scouts. Ronnie took a big risk - opting for earlier development rather than defence - and the gamble didn't pay off. C'est la vie. I think TP should definitely enjoy the advantage they get from this situation, otherwise we're pretty much condemning them for what has proved to be an excellent strategy and leader choice.

If we wished to clear this up for next game, perhaps everyone should be referred to OOB's ruleset, where there is no warfare before a given date. Although, I don't favour this, as I like the challenge of the early planning around a possible attack at any time.

http://theoob.googlepages.com/pitbossrules.html

Edit: Perhaps I should have read the rules myself - an attack after 3500BC is perfectly legitimate under OOB's rules. So defending against an early rush is still a priority.

i appreciate munro's opinion, but as this was truly caused by my misunderstanding of a GAME MECHANIC. I had full view of the tp's warrior for the past 6 turns, I can build warriors in 3. This was caused by me not understanding/realizing how movement occurs during simultaneous turns. Also, oyzar happened to be away for the 2 turns when he could have told me to change builds, and I of course didnt realize what was happening until it was too late. It was not a choice of early development. I dont believe this is an unrecoverable situation. We are negotiating a solution that is acceptable to both tp/hw and R1/oyzar. If we cannot come to a resolution, then it will play out anyway. We are trying to negotiate a deal that would NOT alter tp/hw's strategy as a whole, possibly just DELAY it for a single turn. I personally dont believe that a single turn this early, will impact anyones long term strategies.

Because it was only a 1 turn error, i think we should try to find a diplomatic solution.

I of course, would prefer to keep playing, and have already learned a much greater understanding of how mp mechanics work in relation to turns.

If it is unrecoverable, I would prefer to start over with all teams so we get the game we were trying to get. We are only into this a VERY FEW turns, and a complete restart would seem like the next best option.

These are just my opinions of course, and i am still willing to go with the consensus.

Both me and hw are up for a second game. We could make an extra rule for that game, like "no war before 1000 bC". That would make it a distinctly different game. Although you might expect some teams to then pick their leaders for the greatest military advantage at 1000 bC :mischief:

It does seem as though everyone who's posted so far (everyone except C63?) is up for the 2nd parallel game if someone does go out early. C63 - when you return, what're your feelings on this idea?

Either way, with 7-8 players I'm sure we can have a meaningful 2nd game and all be much the wiser to the MP mechanics and early game strategies! And it's hard to imagine of any deal that would be better for tp / hw than raising Ronnie's capitol right now (and I think we should all be playing to win, that's part of the fun).

But, since it sounds like you're still in diplomatic discussions, I've added another 12 hours to the turn timer to make sure you've had time to discuss (and can do again if needed - just let me know). But, I think we should keep the '2nd game' option on the table in case that tp / hw decide there is no advantage in clemency. Either way, I suspect many of us will probably make quite a few mistakes in this first game anyway - either new to MP or new to BtS - so it's a decision that will come up sooner or later I am sure.

And it's hard to imagine of any deal that would be better for tp / hw than raising Ronnie's capitol right now (and I think we should all be playing to win, that's part of the fun).I could build some great cities for them to capture later.:p

I could build some great cities for them to capture later.:p But do they trust you ... ? :mischief:

I can't imagine that there is much more to negotiate ... either they are willing to forgo the raze for something you are willing to give, or not.

dV

While i agree that it won't be fun to not do the best move i still belive diplomacy should be possible... Example of a better deal is easy o come up with. For example it is better for them if we give them a worker than to raze ronnies city...

I've added another 12 hours to the turn timer to make sure you've had time to discuss (and can do again if needed - just let me know).

I can't connect to the game at the moment. I don't get past the dialogue-box "Connected to host". Also the turn timer at civstats keeps adding minutes every so often.

I can't connect to the game at the moment. I don't get past the dialogue-box "Connected to host". Also the turn timer at civstats keeps adding minutes every so often.
Same here!

I am also a newbie to MP. Just so that I don't make the same mistake, can somebody explain to me what the game mechanic Ron is referring to? Does a newly built unit not appear at the end of your turn ready to defend in the IBT?

Hi all, I'm back. Although it is taking me a while to understand completely the alternatives to the current issue, I'd like to mention that:
1. I am ok running a 2nd parallel game if that's what everyone wants.
2. If I were TP/hw I'd want to raze R1's city. They took their chances and their strat worked out well.
3. I am ok with awarding the win to tp/hw if that is what the majority wants (I do). If it is not, most likely the other 2 teams should be engaging (with oyzar?) in an informal alliance against tp/hw to compensate for their current advantage on land grabbing. This could also be fun (although not so much for R1)
4. I believe next game should have tribal villages (huts) on to give the civs starting with a scout some compensation against the ones starting with warriors.

I can't connect to the game at the moment. I don't get past the dialogue-box "Connected to host". Also the turn timer at civstats keeps adding minutes every so often.

Going to bed now. Once the game is back up, we'll need another extension to finally finish this turn.

Same here!

I am also a newbie to MP. Just so that I don't make the same mistake, can somebody explain to me what the game mechanic Ron is referring to? Does a newly built unit not appear at the end of your turn ready to defend in the IBT? No it does not ...

I think Ron ran across two issues:

1. tp either was in at the prior turn end, or had logged in before R1, but had not ended turn, and logged out during the turn without moving. I think Ron thought he was counting from the warrior location after it moved in that turn, when in fact, it would move after him in that turn.

Issue is how to recognize when a player has played their turn in this simultanous turns setting. Asterisk on name in either game or civstats shows that.

2. In SP, we are used to our unit build finishing at the end of OUR turn, to be ready before the AI moves IN THE SAME TURN.

In MP, simultanous turns, that unit will not build before EVERYONE has finished their turn, and the turn rolls over. THERE IS NO IBT IN MP ... since in SP, IBT is when the AIs make their moves ... no AI! :lol: If someone does leave the game and is replaced by AI, AI will move first in the turn, because it is simultaneous, and the AI is always "logged in!"

So if the defender is not ready at the start of the turn, he can't help you during that turn at all. If it finishes in at end of this turn, it will only appear at start of next turn, not before those playing after you finish current turn.

dV

Thank you for the clarification! That is exactly how it seemed to happen! I saw tp at 6 squares away, plenty of time, then, it appeared to move 3 squares, in 2 turns, and then i was too late by a single turn.

I believe we have reached i diplomatic solution, and will log back into the game later this evening!

Not sure if Ronnie had the same issues with access this evening, but I've restarted the server, and reloaded the save - let me know if you still have any issues getting in.

Glad to hear a diplomatic solution was reached. Sounds like Ronnie needs to play first? There should be about 12 hours left still on the turn timer, but I can reload again tomorrow evening if needed, in case Ronnie is not able to log-in again before the end of the turn.

Meanwhile, the rest of us should wait until we've had confirmatipn that both Ronnie and tp have played before logging back in, to avoid having to replay our moves (and / or receiving any unintended advantage from whatever the next turn reveals).

We did reach a diplomatic agreement, now we just need to play. The current turn timer runs out in 50 mins though, and R1 is not online, so we will need one more extension.

Ok, I decided to move anyway, before the timer ran out, according to the diplomatic agreement. I know that R1 was going to hit enter anyway in that turn, so this should be ok without a reload.

Ok - great. So everyone else is good to continue play as normal?

Ok - great. So everyone else is good to continue play as normal?

Yes, assuming that Ronnie keeps his part of the deal :) Since his worker couldn't move anymore last turn after all, we had to include the current turn into the deal as well. To be absolutely safe it would probably still be best to wait till ronnie and me have moved.

I am good to resume ... if that question is on the table.

dV

Edit: Wow, a 1000 hour (40 day) turn timer! :eek: I guess we go ahead and play anyway?

dV

I am good to resume ... if that question is on the table.

dV

Edit: Wow, a 1000 hour (40 day) turn timer! :eek: I guess we go ahead and play anyway?

dV

Yes - it turns out it is possible to modify the turn timer after all, once the game is already in progress... but the changes don't take effect until the following turn. :mischief:

I've set it back to 26 hours for next turn onwards. :)

Well We will have even more troubles with the simulatious turns when more troops are on plot. IMO the rule for not "playing twice" will be hard to be met(it could happen that everyone need to wait for other player). I suggest that if you have played in the end of a turn it will be good to paly the next one after at least 1/3 of the turn timer or after 2/3 of ther other players have finished their turns. I'm almost sure that in some positions double move will happand but lets try to avoid it. Especialy things like moving fast between two forest or hill which are 2 tiles away each other.

Well We will have even more troubles with the simulatious turns when more troops are on plot. IMO the rule for not "playing twice" will be hard to be met (it could happen that everyone need to wait for other player). I suggest that if you have played in the end of a turn it will be good to paly the next one after at least 1/3 of the turn timer or after 2/3 of ther other players have finished their turns. I'm almost sure that in some positions double move will happand but lets try to avoid it. Especialy things like moving fast between two forest or hill which are 2 tiles away each other. The question is, does everyone have a window to play about twice a day (about 12 hours apart)? If so, this tends not to be a problem. Also, when a war arises, there can be times when turn order is not critical, and one team might by agreement move twice to set a more ideal turn order.

Biggest issue will be warring on two fronts ... which is an issue if both players are playing on both fronts. By gifting units, one player might manage each front to avoid this problem, if UU are not an issue.

dV

[party]One of the other threads says that oyzar got married.

Congrats oyzar. :goodjob:[party][party]

WooooOOO!!!! Congratulations oyzar!
:banana: :band: :dance:

Folks,

As I may have mentioned to some of you on MSN, I am moving house at 7.30am EDT (11.30am GMT) on friday so our pitboss game is going to be unavailable for a short time while we move into the new apartment.

In theory internet access will already be on in the new place so the outage should not last very long (if all goes well it should be up again the same day) but in case there are problems connecting in the new apartment it might be longer.

Obviously I will save and pause the game before disconnecting so the turn timer will be stopped. And I will post back here once it's back up and running.

I don't move house very often so hopefully this should be a relatively infrequent inconvenience! There will also be new IP address for you to connect to (unless you are using Hamachi) so I'll send that out via PM as well once I know what it's going to be.

Cheers,
Munro

Thanks people, and good luck with moving Munro.

Hmm, I can't connect right now, and it's 8.30 GMT ; I don't get beyond "Contacting host".
Maybe I'll have more luck at the new address

Thanks oyzar!

@tp - hmm. I haven't moved out yet, so everything should still be up. Anyone else had any problems connecting?

civstats says we are off line

Ok - I'm heading home now and will check it out and reset the server if required.

Good news is that I've just confirmed the internet access is working in the new place so outage during the move should be less than a day.

Server is back up now. The problem was a windows auto-update (requiring mandatory automatic reboot). Pitboss has been restarted so you're good to log back in (for another 12 hours anyway - until we move tomorrow morning).

I'll look into disabling the windows auto-updates as well.

Edit: server is now DOWN. Saw everyone had moved except for tp and needed to get a head start on the packing. Should be up again within 24 hours. I'll post back here and PM you all the new IP address as required.

And the server is back up! :band:

Unless you are connecting via Hamachi you need the new IP address, which I've sent to you each via PM.

21 hours left on the current turn timer and counting. :eek:

:clap: That's very good, when I move it usually takes a few months to get internet.

Why does it think that aj still has to complete the turn ?

Maybe because he reloaded for aj's autosave...

Yes, I did. That was the last autosave and I assumed it would be from the end of adrianj's turn (I wanted to make sure there was the maximum amount of time left on the timer for tp to play as I wasn't sure how good the timing was for him as I had stopped and started mid-turn).

However, now I see that's the autosave from before adrianj's turn.

All the autosaves are from logins. If you got time you can log in right after you end your turn to create autosave points after your turn have ended...

Hi. TP is on a holiday till 27 august and i'm out of town for this weekend (23-24 aug). Thats why we would like to pause the game for 2 days because none of us can play. I will post a message at the last time i can play here. I'm sorry for this break but ...

I could probably hook you up with a sub though...

I've no problem with pausing the game over the weekend. That would be my preference rather than looking for a sub, as it's only a couple of days.

I guess you can just put on a 96 hour timer or something and we can just wait... it is not like the timer have ever ended without anyone taking their turn anwyays...

With adrians mapping i can definatly see how MW and other teams could do what they did in sgtom 06. Hopefully we'll be able to ultelize this in sgtom 08. Several other teams are playing SG's as practice for the next sgtom. Playing pitboss works just as well :D.

With adrians mapping i can definatly see how MW and other teams could do what they did in sgtom 06. Hopefully we'll be able to ultelize this in sgtom 08. Several other teams are playing SG's as practice for the next sgtom. Playing pitboss works just as well :D. What "adrian's mapping" are you referring to (oh K of A)?

dV

I'm not even sure myself what Oyzar is referring to...
Creating test maps? A different Adrian?

I guess you can just put on a 96 hour timer or something and we can just wait... it is not like the timer have ever ended without anyone taking their turn anwyays...

Good idea. Done. (Will take effect on the next turn).

What "adrian's mapping" are you referring to (oh K of A)?

Nothing... *whistles*..

Ask us after the end. :shifty: :)

Nothing... *whistles*..

Ask us after the end. :shifty: :) You will have to revoke oyzar's security clearance, it would seem ... :rolleyes:

dV

You will have to revoke oyzar's security clearance, it would seem ... :rolleyes:

dV

Drawn and quartered possibly, especially given his propensity to point out others spoilerish info!:p

I don't have a clue about what is going on here, but then again I might be supposed to be in this state of complete ignorance.

I'm off from now on. I will be back in 48 hours so see you soon guys.

Is there a sign up thread available for SGOTM 8. I can't find it.

Given that pretty much everyone are at war with someone it would be nice to have some order that means that someone won't have to wait for all the other players to be able to play... As it is me/ronnie are before tp/hw who are before munro / adrian who are before dv / cq.. this means dv / cq have to wait for everyone before they can play... If it was me / ronni and munro / adrian before hw/tp then everyone would have half the timer to play on instead... Assuming there is no combat happening right now it would be nice to change it so it is more practical for everyone...

Note - I have reset the server as part of its semi-regular / weekly maintenance to ensure the OS continues running smoothly and responsively.

I will do this from time to time when no-one is logged in, but it does appear to reset the civstats.com history so here's the current history archived here in case anyone needs to refer back to it for any reason.

(If anyone knows of a better solution to this problem let me know)!

8/23/08 4:20 pm Munro Logged out
8/23/08 4:20 pm Munro Finished turn
8/23/08 4:11 pm Munro Logged in
8/23/08 3:15 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/23/08 3:15 pm Ronnie1 Finished turn
8/23/08 3:12 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/23/08 10:37 am oyzar Logged out
8/23/08 10:36 am oyzar Finished turn
8/23/08 10:30 am oyzar Logged in
8/23/08 10:05 am da_Vinci Logged out
8/23/08 9:51 am A new turn has begun. It is now 2520 BC
8/23/08 9:51 am da_Vinci Finished turn
8/23/08 9:45 am da_Vinci Logged in
8/23/08 7:41 am Conquistador 63 Logged out
8/23/08 7:40 am Conquistador 63 Finished turn
8/23/08 7:37 am Conquistador 63 Logged in
8/22/08 11:42 pm Munro Logged out
8/22/08 11:41 pm Munro Logged in
8/22/08 10:34 pm Munro Logged out
8/22/08 10:33 pm Munro Logged in
8/22/08 10:23 pm adrianj Logged out
8/22/08 10:23 pm adrianj Finished turn
8/22/08 10:18 pm adrianj Logged in
8/22/08 9:54 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/22/08 9:53 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/22/08 1:31 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/22/08 1:31 pm Ronnie1 Finished turn
8/22/08 1:24 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/22/08 11:47 am hellwitch (tp) Logged out
8/22/08 11:47 am hellwitch (tp) Finished turn
8/22/08 11:44 am hellwitch (tp) Logged in
8/22/08 11:41 am hellwitch Logged out
8/22/08 11:40 am hellwitch Finished turn
8/22/08 11:37 am hellwitch Logged in
8/22/08 4:53 am oyzar Logged out
8/22/08 4:50 am oyzar Finished turn
8/22/08 4:37 am oyzar Logged in
8/22/08 2:38 am Munro Logged out
8/22/08 2:38 am Munro Finished turn
8/22/08 2:29 am Munro Logged in
8/22/08 1:17 am da_Vinci Logged out
8/22/08 1:17 am Conquistador 63 Logged out
8/22/08 12:44 am A new turn has begun. It is now 2560 BC
8/22/08 12:44 am da_Vinci Finished turn
8/22/08 12:44 am Conquistador 63 Finished turn
8/22/08 12:43 am Conquistador 63 Finished turn
8/22/08 12:34 am hellwitch (tp) Logged out
8/22/08 12:34 am hellwitch (tp) Finished turn
8/22/08 12:31 am hellwitch (tp) Logged in
8/22/08 12:20 am hellwitch Logged out
8/22/08 12:20 am hellwitch Finished turn
8/22/08 12:19 am hellwitch Logged in
8/22/08 12:16 am Conquistador 63 Logged in
8/22/08 12:15 am da_Vinci Logged in
8/21/08 10:52 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/21/08 10:51 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/21/08 8:38 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/21/08 8:36 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/21/08 7:13 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/21/08 7:13 pm Ronnie1 Finished turn
8/21/08 7:13 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/21/08 6:19 pm Munro Logged out
8/21/08 6:19 pm Munro Finished turn
8/21/08 6:09 pm Munro Logged in
8/21/08 5:36 pm oyzar Logged out
8/21/08 5:36 pm oyzar Finished turn
8/21/08 5:33 pm oyzar Logged in
8/21/08 5:18 pm adrianj Logged out
8/21/08 5:15 pm adrianj Finished turn
8/21/08 5:10 pm Ronnie1 Score increased to 112
8/21/08 5:10 pm A new turn has begun. It is now 2600 BC
8/21/08 5:10 pm adrianj Finished turn
8/21/08 5:08 pm adrianj Logged in
8/21/08 1:14 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/21/08 1:13 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/21/08 6:13 am Conquistador 63 Logged out
8/21/08 6:12 am Conquistador 63 Finished turn
8/21/08 6:05 am Conquistador 63 Logged in
8/21/08 12:32 am hellwitch (tp) Logged out
8/21/08 12:32 am hellwitch (tp) Finished turn
8/21/08 12:31 am hellwitch (tp) Logged in
8/21/08 12:30 am hellwitch Logged out
8/21/08 12:30 am hellwitch Finished turn
8/21/08 12:29 am hellwitch Logged in
8/21/08 12:21 am Munro Logged out
8/21/08 12:21 am Munro Finished turn
8/20/08 10:49 pm Munro Logged in
8/20/08 8:40 pm da_Vinci Logged out
8/20/08 8:40 pm da_Vinci Finished turn
8/20/08 8:30 pm da_Vinci Logged in
8/20/08 7:18 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/20/08 7:18 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/20/08 7:12 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/20/08 7:11 pm Ronnie1 Finished turn
8/20/08 7:09 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/20/08 6:45 pm Ronnie1 Logged out
8/20/08 6:05 pm Ronnie1 Logged in
8/20/08 6:00 pm oyzar Logged out
8/20/08 5:58 pm oyzar Finished turn
8/20/08 5:52 pm oyzar Logged in

Civstats history shows just fine for me...

I'm am back. You can set the timer as normal. :)

I'm am back. You can set the timer as normal. :) That seems faster then expected ... hopefully no problems with the trip? Or were you traveling faster than the speed of light?

dV

That seems faster then expected ... hopefully no problems with the trip? Or were you traveling faster than the speed of light?

dV

Well my speed was around 120+- 20 km/h :smoke: when the road was clear although the reason i am home earlier is because i skip part of the planed route.

Welcome back. :cool:

Turn timer has been reset to 26 hours and will take effect from the next turn.

Cheers,
Munro

hellwtich / tp both moved before me / ron in his turn. I would very much consider that a double move. It didn't affect anything this turn(but you guys couldn't know that given that you don't have vissiblity of my land!) but it certanly affect plans and expected results. I suggest we stick with the turn order in the future(us first, you guys after)...

hellwtich / tp both moved before me / ron in his turn. I would very much consider that a double move. It didn't affect anything this turn(but you guys couldn't know that given that you don't have vissiblity of my land!) but it certanly affect plans and expected results. I suggest we stick with the turn order in the future(us first, you guys after)... I agree, sticking to one order keeps things cleaner. Oyzar, I assume you don't need a reload, as when you go first next turn, things will have evened out (the so-called "double back")?

dV

Ya, units not in contact right at the moment so that would clear things fine...

I guess the same could be said about hellwitch and myself. Earlier on in the war hellwitch was first to move, but things have relaxed a bit with us alternating in the last few turns. In general I think I'd prefer to move after HW, but I'd rather not hold up the game too much.

I guess the same could be said about hellwitch and myself. Earlier on in the war hellwitch was first to move, but things have relaxed a bit with us alternating in the last few turns. In general I think I'd prefer to move after HW, but I'd rather not hold up the game too much.

I also suggested you swapped earlier(at a time that would not matter for either of you...) so the game would go faster(so you wouldn't have to wait for hellwitch who would have to wait for me/ron...).

NICE avatar Adrian!!! Love it!

NICE avatar Adrian!!! Love it!
Hehe, thanks. It beats the old Celtic warrior I had that never really meant anything.
This is where I got it: http://www.sp-studio.de/. (plus minor paintbrush size/quality modifications)
HW and I could swap turn order as of next turn I suppose. Better check that it is ok with him first.

The problem is that i can find time to play in every 24 hours but i can't play exactly at the same hour every day. I will try to turn back the order as it was. It is not so hard to keep the order now but when we start fighting on more than 1 fronts this order will became a mess.

@oyzar. I don't think this double move changed anything or i have gained any adv. from it. And the reason i did it was because i was afraid that i will miss the whole turn otherwise.

Ther other problem is that for a week and a half i am alone. Now tp must be back today and more options will be available for keeping the turn order.

Hello everybody, I'm back.

As to the roster order, I thought we should follow Munro's original order in time of war :

1 adrianJ Inca
2 Munro Greece
3 C63 England
4 da_Vinci Zululand
5 Ronnie1 Persia
6 oyzar Maya
7 toller pretzl Native American
8 hellwitch Maya

That's why I don't understand that aj wants to move after hw. But probably my view is too simple.

Well obviously you don't have to wait for the people you are not at war with...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=288968

Would be nice if we could get together a decent number of us on msn to discuss things about the new sgotm :).

neither tp nor hw finished their turn when they were in the game, why is that?

neither tp nor hw finished their turn when they were in the game, why is that?

For me the answer is : I played only units that concerned aj, no units that might concern R1 or oyzar.
This is because the current order requires that I play before aj but after oyzar.

Ahh ok, at any rate i finished my turn by now so you can play the rest.

I think we are at a point where the turn order between HW/TP and myself can be corrected. Well - maybe not *right* now, HW might not appreciate it. But the turn after that I think things should be in the clear.

So this time tomorrow, I will take a double move.

Hello everybody, I'm back.

As to the roster order, I thought we should follow Munro's original order in time of war :

1 adrianJ Inca
2 Munro Greece
3 C63 England
4 da_Vinci Zululand
5 Ronnie1 Persia
6 oyzar Maya
7 toller pretzl Native American
8 hellwitch Maya

That's why I don't understand that aj wants to move after hw. But probably my view is too simple.

I agree with this turn order. So long as we stick with this during times of war things should be ok shouldn't they?

I mentioned earlier, but I'll say again now - I will be away for most of this month. From Sunday the 7th - Monday the 29th Munro will be playing all of my moves. I'll still have intermittent access to MSN/email/forums, just not the game itself. So I'll still try to keep up with SGOTM8 :)

There is something wrong. I can't connect to the host this morning!!!! I tried 3-4 times.

And IMO aj you can make your double move in case your units wont go between 2 defensive tiles without giving me the chance to attack them on open ground (or at least to see where there are going to) andin case you don't use them for attacking!

There is something wrong. I can't connect to the host this morning!!!! I tried 3-4 times.

I have the same problem. Maybe it's another windows update ?

I have my windows auto update off!

Yes - sorry, the server blue screened and I was rebooting.

Surprised it took that long though - looks like there might be a separate problem where the server won't accept new logins while I'm updating the Message of the Day (ironically enough, with an apology for the earlier downtime)...

Let me know if you are still having any problems.

Edit: I think tp means the auto-update on the server. That did cause a problem before, but that wasn't the cause this time.

Folks, I have moved the pitboss game to a different server on my network.

If you connect via Hamachi, please c