[Immersioneers] 'To Boldly Go': The first Immersioneers test-game(s)

[stiiknafuulia]

EDIT (07.11.): Thread 'closed'; go here instead.


EDIT (28.10.): The two test-games are STARTING on Oct 30th (Sunday)! The starting time will be 1 PM GMT (13:00) (unless agreed otherwise). (Be sure to watch the latest posts of the thread, as the time might still change!)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Although we now have two hosts, in case of one or both of them not turning up for the game, it's best to have everyone befriend everyone on Steam; this way anyone can be a 'spare host' if the need arises. (The host must invite all players to the game, and they must be his Steam-friends; there is currently no other way to join.)

EDIT: Here is the rule-sheet for the two games; you should keep it open for reference as we're playing, and alt-tab to it in case of major unclarities. If an unforeseen issue arises, we can always decide on the best policy while in-game, and later update the rule-sheet.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

[Until the mods give us our own tag (or forum), a home-made solution like this will have to do. ]

[EDIT: Sorry for the terrible formatting..! The new forum looks atrocious compared to the old one, and I'm still not used to its settings. I will try to edit the post to a more tolerable look when I'll have the time for it.]


Welcome to discuss the rules and scheduling of our first test-game of the Immersioneer concept (thanks again to Stroganov for the name! ).

As stated in the original thread, the first game will have the simplest possible rule-set, allowing us to form a base-line of sorts, to which more elaborate rules can be applied in the games to come.

There's still quite a few things to discuss. Here are the major issues:

Schedule

Spoiler :

The two test-games are STARTING on Oct 30th (Sunday)! The starting time will be 11 AM GMT (11:00) (unless agreed otherwise). (Be sure to watch the latest posts of the thread, as the time might still change!)

Method of contacting players

Spoiler :

I try to avoid using Steam as much as possible -- but it seems that the simplest way to get all players in the game is to make Stroganov the 'host' of the game and let him invite his 'friends' (members of the 'Immersioneers' Steam group) to the game lobby. So he will pick the agreed-upon settings and we will accept them (click 'Ready'), and the game will commence. If there's any problems, delays, etc, we can always post them in this thread.

Ideally, for future games, we'd all be on each others' friend lists, I guess. But since most Immersioneer type of games will require some special rules, we might as well make dedicated threads for them, and sort out the contacts in each particular thread. For this game we can go with Steam though, unless someone has a better suggestion.

Game Settings

Spoiler :

• 8 players per game (rosters to follow)
• No AIs (they would only mess up the game in various ways)

• All victory types are on (while 'winning' is not the main thing in our group, the goals add some focus to the role-play, and the more options available, the better)

• Difficulty: Prince (I'm not sure what it affects without any AIs; the main thing I guess it that it won't vary between players. I think it's safest to keep it at default, so, Prince it is.)

• Game Speed: Quick ('Online' is too fast, while 'Standard' will take ages)

• Map: Continents

• Map Size: Standard

• Sea Level: Low (In my experience (from sp), the game puts a lot of water between two rather crowded continents if you pick 'Continents' with a 'Standard' amount of land. So I propose a change to 'Continents' with 'Low' sea level instead. This way the suspense of meeting other players late into the game is preserved, while everyone gets to have enough land.)

(Rest are all Standard, apart from...)

• Start Position: Balanced (It should give everyone a fighting chance, with no tundra or desert capitals)

Multiplayer Turn Time & Combat Settings

Spoiler :

I will try out a few mp games today to be sure, but my understanding is that

1) It's best to go with 'Dynamic Turn Timer', so that the allotted turn time for each player will increase with more units and cities. Otherwise you might be overwhelmed in the late game, and not have enough time for all actions.

2) The 'Dynamic Turns' combat setting will make players at peace take their turns simultaneously, while players at war will play sequentially. I think this would be better than have wars become a click-fest, where combat results will depend on who will click fastest, and not on actual tactical skill. Otoh, if there are a lot of wars going on at once (think end-game world wars), this will increase turn times dramatically.
We will need everyone's opinions to decide here -- especially from those people who have played a few multiplayer games with each setting (if anyone already has).

Special conquest rules (to prevent warfare from dominating the game from the start, as happens with regular mp games)

Spoiler :

1. City States may not be conquered, nor their Builders stolen

This is a rule that will merit some discussion. CSs cannot be disabled, but their weak AI means that the players who spawn nearby and take them over will have an unfair advantage, which will snowball further as the game progresses. I propose a blanket ban on their conquest as a very rough solution; it may lead to issues down the line, but less than if conquests were to be allowed. If you disagree, feel free to propose your own solution. And yes, this means that part of Germany's unique powers will be useless in this game (woe is me, haha ).

2. Capitals may not be conquered before adopting a tier IV government (Democracy/Communism/Fascism)

As the capital is typically the most powerful city of each player, I think this rule will suffice to avoid most grievances. If you wish to protest it, now would be the time.

3. You may conquer any 2 (human, non-capital) cities as a Tier I government (Chiefdom; default government)

4. You may conquer 2 additional cities as a Tier II government

So, 4 non-capital, non-CS cities total as Autocracy/Oligarchy/Classical Republic. It seems like a lot, but otoh 3 seems like it might be too little. Feel free to debate these numbers; that's what this thread is for, after all.

5. You may conquer 3 additional cities as a Tier III government (7 total as Monarchy/Theocracy/Merchant Republic)

6. You may conquer any number of cities as a tier IV government

...including capitals! Note: even if you do this, you must leave one city for each player, so they can watch the game unfold until the end.

For now, we will do nothing to prevent the strategy of planting small 'junk cities' on your border to 'absorb' the attacks of your enemies. We'll see if there's need for a rule to prevent it, if it becomes a go-to tactic in this first game. No use chasing bogey-mans that may not appear in the first place!

You may notice there's no rule about pillaging, either. A similar logic applies here; let's allow any and all pillaging, then see if it's a problem and alter the rules accordingly. Which leads me to the next point...

Gentlemanly conduct

Spoiler :

The aim of this game, and any game of the Immersioneer type, is to have fun, not to dominate or bully other players. Even if you are within rule limits of taking a player's second best city, etc, but clearly see that they're upset about it, it would behoove you to err on the side of gentlemanly caution and devise a 'role-playish' way to end the war with honor for both players. If this seems like a 'wussy' or 'non-logical' thing to you, we kindly invite you not to join our group (or if already a member, to depart without further notice).

This game is about history, and while that includes battles and wars, they shouldn't be the one thing the game utterly revolves around. Nor should the artificial 'victory' -- it's a way to end the game and for everyone to 'go home' (so to speak), nothing less, nothing more.

Last but not least, rosters for the two test games (as they stand atm):

Game #1:

• stiiknafuulia: Norway
  
• (MeatThatTalks: Arabia) [Sleeping most probably]
  
• Skysword455: Kongo
  
• Haig: France
  
• TeraHammer: Egypt
  
• Grizbee: Russia
• inthesomeday: Brazil (tentative)

Game #2:

• LzPrst: Japan (HOST for game #2)
  
• Giorgio Rossi (Kralin): Rome
• fickle: Any Civ that's left
  
• Yves-Laurent: ???
  
• LinkesAuge: Greece
• UpperCut83: Norway

(Two more player spots are still available, for double-quick joiners!. Just post your preferred Civ, and join the 'Immersioneers' group on Steam! No Aztecs, Scythia, or (preferably) copies of previous Civs; all others are allowed.)

 

[pochesun]

Rules setting works for me. Also i am ok with basically any date you decide to set for our game, but time difference for players could be crucial - not sure how many people are in the same timezone. I live in Moscow so european timezone is what i will be looking for.
Btw, could anyone invite me to Immersioneer group in steam?

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I managed to play a test-game with purely random players... We have some more pondering to do, with these few observations:

1) The turn timer (even the dynamic one) is way too quick and it's hard to click fast enough to complete all your actions. This may have been compounded by playing on Online speed, though, as techs and civics are very fast to research there and will pop up constantly. If you're at war, though, then with the timer enabled you won't have time for anything but warfare (and sometimes not even enough for that). The timer would ideally be manually adjustable, but I guess that will only come with a patch (if it comes at all, that is)... If the players will be dedicated enough, we could just disable the timer, but I hesitate to do that in our first game (there should be some override that the host can do if someone goes afk for too long in a game without the timer; does anyone know if that is actually the case?).

2) Dynamic turns for warfare will make other player's have to wait ages for their turn. Otoh, to play with purely simultaneous turns will turn war into a click-fest, where the winner is the fastest clicker, instead of the best tactician. I see no easy solution; we must pick our poison here. The more players, and the more warfare they engage in, the worse the waiting will become with dynamic turns. I still support choosing that setting, because one time with the click-fest was enough for me!

@pochesun: There are two 'pochesuns' on Steam... I presume you're the one with a small initial letter? Anyway, I'm not sure if only Stroganov can invite people to the group or it any member can do it; I can't seem to find that option anywhere. You'll just have to wait for him to invite you (if he hasn't already), I guess.

 

[pochesun]

I managed to play a test-game with purely random players... We have some more pondering to do, with these few observations:

1) The turn timer (even the dynamic one) is way too quick and it's hard to click fast enough to complete all your actions. This may have been compounded by playing on Online speed, though, as techs and civics are very fast to research there and will pop up constantly. If you're at war, though, then with the timer enabled you won't have time for anything but warfare (and sometimes not even enough for that). The timer would ideally be manually adjustable, but I guess that will only come with a patch (if it comes at all, that is)... If the players will be dedicated enough, we could just disable the timer, but I hesitate to do that in our first game (there should be some override that the host can do if someone goes afk for too long in a game without the timer; does anyone know if that is actually the case?).

2) Dynamic turns for warfare will make other player's have to wait ages for their turn. Otoh, to play with purely simultaneous turns will turn war into a click-fest, where the winner is the fastest clicker, instead of the best tactician. I see no easy solution; we must pick our poison here. The more players, and the more warfare they engage in, the worse the waiting will become with dynamic turns. I still support choosing that setting, because one time with the click-fest was enough for me!

@pochesun: There are two 'pochesuns' on Steam... I presume you're the one with a small initial letter? Anyway, I'm not sure if only Stroganov can invite people to the group or it any member can do it; I can't seem to find that option anywhere. You'll just have to wait for him to invite you (if he hasn't already), I guess.

Ok, ill pm him here.
Also some observations from what i managed to play so far.
- Timer could be tricky. Though at very early turns 20 secs to complete all your actions should suffice, starting with turn 30 you might find yourself in a spot where you want to think a bit (plan district tiles, finding good spots for settlers, deciding which tech path to go etc) and at the same time u need to move units, control city production, observe map for emerging barb camps... Without due experience (i am definitely lacking it ) those actions/decisions are hard with a short timer. Probably we should just set it at, say 120 secs and dont forget to hit "end of turn" button On the other hand at late stages of the game 120 secs usually is not enough, not sure we could find the golden mean...
- Agree on dynamic timer, probably the best solution.
- I played a 5 hours multiplayer 8 man game today and several times 2 or 3 guys got disconnected and had to rejoin and aprox on turn 120 2 guys got disconnected and never came back. I would suggest the host has his auto saves settings at "auto save every turn".
- During my game i became a victim of rampaging barbs who wanted to, literally, rape me, i lost so much tempo due to thier agression and ended up getting colonized by another player. I forgot to check what barb setting we started the game with, but that was not a pleasant experience lol Just want to make sure we all coincide on barbs agression level.

 

[inthesomeday]

Very interested in this idea and I'd love to play in Game #2, though I can't completely commit just yet. If I do play I'd like to be Brazil.

Additionally, I'd love to help with developing some of the rules if that's open to discussion.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Very interested in this idea and I'd love to play in Game #2, though I can't completely commit just yet. If I do play I'd like to be Brazil.

Additionally, I'd love to help with developing some of the rules if that's open to discussion.

Welcome to the group. I'll put you down as Brazil (tentative).

As for the rules, they're meant to be almost finalized (for this first game), but as the game is still a week away, if you have some good ideas, then sure, let's hear them.

@pochesun: Unfortunately, there is currently no way to manually adjust the turn timer (that would be the ideal option, especially if the host could increase it as the game goes along). The dynamic timer setting makes the timer increase automatically, but the rate at which it does this is nowhere near enough (at least not on Online speed; on Quick it might be). The non-increasing timer is not an option at all, imo, because we will soon run out of time to complete orders if we choose that. So the choice is between no timer (disaster if someone goes afk for a long time), or the dynamic one (increases, but not fast enough). I guess we must choose the dynamic timer, as it's the least of two bad evils.

I'm not sure if some players can get permanently dc'd or if the people I played with simply got bored and left after rejoining a few times (we started with 6, but soon there were only 3 players left). I dc'd two times, but was able to swiftly reconnect on both occasions. It would be nice to hear from others who have tested mp, as to whether a dc can be permanent or not.

There is no setting to gradually adjust barb aggressiveness (arrgh )... Either we'll have to play with no barbs, or the 'rape-y' ones. As the barbs are meant to be a major part of the game, and will serve to curtail early wars (since you must dedicate some units to guard against barbs), I guess it's best to leave them on for now. Let's hope for a patch to add some more granularity to their aggression level.

 

[RebelScum88]

That Saturday would be best for me personally. Also, do you think it would be allowed for players to play as different leaders of the same civ i.e. gorgo and pericles? They do have different color schemes so they could be told apart.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

That Saturday would be best for me personally. Also, do you think it would be allowed for players to play as different leaders of the same civ i.e. gorgo and pericles? They do have different color schemes so they could be told apart.

I guess that's ok. It's not ideal imo, but if someone absolutely wants to, I see no point in banning it.

It's come to my attention that there's currently two exploits in multiplayer that are ruining it in random pub games. The first is that the production boost you get from clearing forests is not scaled on Quick or Online speed, meaning that it's brokenly op. People are scouting with Builders and chopping all over the place, and simply selling the Builder if barbs are going to capture it. ... Leading on to the second exploit, which is that selling units gives a huge amount of cash, and what's worse, it can be done together with the +100 % production policy for horse units, allowing you to make infinite amounts of money by building and selling horse units. With Scythia it works on steroids... Luckily we don't have them in our game!

Imo, the best policy is to disallow forest chops altogether, and to forbid the selling of units under any circumstance. The latter rule may seem harsh until you realize that units can be sold even outside your borders, and without any movement points left... Meaning that you might take greater risks in your attacks, and then simply sell the wounded, almost-dead units to recoup your losses. So, to prevent any edge-cases, it's best to ban unit sales altogether.

Ofc these exploits are pretty bad ones, so they may well patch them out before we'll start our games. Fingers crossed...

 

[ManojTheKing]

Stiiknafuulia... Please add me to the Immersioneers group on Steam.. I have sent a request.. my Steam UserID is ManojTheKing

As I have said in your other MP thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/threa...ical-form-of-civ-vi-multiplayer.572754/page-5).. I specialize in playing with India as my CIV. Please count me in. I will try to join you guys for the weekday matches (if any) and would 100% be IN for the weekend matches.

 

[fickle]

I should be available on either the 29 or 30 for game 2.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

@ManojTheKing: Welcome! I see that someone has already added you to the group. I'll add you as India to the roster of the second game.

@fickle: You're a new player as well? It's hard to keep track of everyone... If you are, welcome! We need to know which Civ you'd want to play as well, so please state that asap.

-- Yet another potential issue has cropped up: in case your opponent refuses to formally cede you the cities that you've taken in a war with him, they will stay marked as 'occupied', suffering from reduced yields and huge war weariness.
I'm not sure how to solve this, as the losing player might make an entirely honest claim that he intends to retake the cities, and will therefore refuse to cede them over. At the same time, he could just be being a nuisance and hoping to exploit the rebel mechanic to wreak havoc on the occupying player. Why they made conquest work so stupidly in multiplayer is anyone's guess... We *could* declare a number of turns that you have to control a city, after which the loser will have to cede it over if the conquering player so wishes. But it would have to be tracked manually, and even then some disputes might arise. Any good suggestions are welcome, as to how we could best mitigate this issue.

 

[Magnive]

I'd like to join in on the second game as Germany. I'd prefer to play on the 30th, as I will be gone for most of the 29th (in the CET timezone).

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Welcome, Magnive! I will add you to the list; you have picked a lucky Civ, as apparently production is king in Civ VI and Germany gets a half-cost Industrial District. I'm in the same boat, although I didn't anticipate this (usually science and food are more important, and I thought e.g. Rome would be a way better pick). We shall see if other players will view it as a threat to have such powerful industrial neighbors.

 

[Magnive]

Well, I certainly didn't pick Frederick for the +7 combat strength against city-states!

 

[fickle]

I've played civ all the way from back in civ 2 I didn't post a civ, because I'm still playing them all, and don't mind playing one of the ones left available at the end. That said, I have greatly enjoyed most of the civs I have played thus far (that shiny new-civ feel) and I'll post back if I decide on one for the game.

 

[Haig]

Cheers Stiiknafuulia, on this weeks saturday I'm off the town, so I can't play then.

I'd love to join game number #2 or #3 if it's okay.

 

[LinkesAuge]

If there is still a place left in a game I'd love to join as Greece. Steam nick ist Leinad000.

 

[Uppercut83]

Id like to join. can play whenever. Uppercut on steam. i joined the steam group also.
I want to play as Norway if not taken.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

@fickle: Ok, I'll put you down as 'any Civ'.

@Haig: I think you may have misunderstood; the games are meant to be played at the same time, just with different players. Ofc, since I won't be present in game #2, it *could* be played on a different day, if that's the best fit for its players. Most likely both games will be played on October 29th or 30th though, as it is the weekend and by far the best time. So, for now I'll make a note that you can only play on the 30th (I will read back a bit and update people's statuses a bit; I've been too busy irl to do it until now).

ManojTheKing pm'ed me that he'll be busy on the weekend, so we have one open spot in game #1. I'll simply bump the list up a notch, so the one to first join game #2 will now get to play in game #1 instead. It hardly matters, as the games will be identical, but meh, it's best to be consistent.
EDIT: Apparently he was in game #2, so, no need to change anything.

@LinkesAuge , @Uppercut83: Welcome to you both! Now that ManojTheKing has canceled, there's still room for both of you. I'm not sure if we should make a third game or not; it could get a little hectic with too many people posting in this thread. Otoh, most likely some people will fail to show up (due to rl issues), so it would be good to have some spare players. At a pinch, we could add 1 player to both games if it's needed (so 9 players instead of 8), as the map will likely be large enough to accommodate an extra Civ with low sea level. For now, let's keep taking names and see what happens.

EDIT: Any opinions on the issues that we're facing? The combat system and timer issue; selling of units for profit and avoiding combat danger; overpowered forest chops; refusing to make peace in order to cripple the conquered cities? These will have to be solved before we start the game, so now's the time to hear some suggestions! In case of not enough input, I'll just decide on a policy that seems workable, and we'll adjust it if it doesn't work.

 

[LinkesAuge]

My opinion on a couple of those issues:
dynamic turns - how exactly do these even work. Like can people still issue orders (managing cities, research etc.) while players are in war or is everyone forced into sequential turns because then it would obviously be a problem. Would be interesting to hear from someone how it works in action.
selling of units for profit - if it's done with the intent to abuse various existing balance issues then it should be forbidden (like the obvious Scythia exploit)
forest chops - atm I don't see any problems with forest chops, they have reasonable (opportunity) costs and other drawbacks.
refusing peace - maybe we should have something like a wargoal system in place? So if someone declares war on another player he has to state his goals (which cities or at least how many he wants to conquer) and each city that he adds to his war goal list gives the other player X amount of turns in which he can refuse any peace deals. That would encourage aggressors to limit their ambitions and give the defenders a chance to have prolonged wars if they want to as well as a chance to reconquer their cities if possible. The defender would also get the same amount of allowed cities to take in a peace deal as the attacker stated in his war goals (thus another incentive for the attacker to be cautious with them).
An example:
Player A = attacker
Player B = defender
turn cost per city: 15
war goal: 2 cities

If Player A captures 2 cities from Player B after just 10 turns then Player B could refuse any peace offers for another 20 turns if he wishes to and/or has a chance to reconquer his cities. Once that time has passed and Player B couldn't reconquer one of his cities (any reconquest would "reset" the timer) he would be forced to accept a peace deal in which he cedes those cities just as Player A would be forced to offer such a peace deal once the conditions are met.
I think a simple system like that (and some common sense) should prevent any abuse of wars (numbers are obviously subject to change).

Another question is how diplomacy/alliances between players should be handled. I personally hate secret alliances in which 3 or 4 people gang up on one player so I would at least vote for transparent alliances between players. If we want to use war goals as part of our rules then I would also add the rule that joint wars can't increase the number of max cities the attackers can take, thus any alliance gains less per player than if they would attack on their own.
I could work on a more detailed rule set if people are interested in the general idea.