Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

Is anyone debating these settings:

-ancient start
-normal speed
-unrestricted leaders
-no tech trading
-no random events/huts
-not always war
-one instance leaders

???

Seems like if that's what we're all sort of agreed on, we can get a few polls for "big issues":

-nukes (in/out)
-corps (in/out)
-spies/missions (all/no miss/none)
-BUG/etc mod (all/BUG-only/double move only/none)
-map preferences/makers (whatever)
 
I presume you mean pitboss games where most civs are controlled by one player? They tend to last for about 8-10 months on Normal speed, from my experience, so 14 months for Epic speed sounds about reasonable. Demogames with teams of players rather than individuals are vastly different though - not sure if you've played in them before, but you basically have to at minimum double the expected time frame for the game. It boils down to the team element... all those discussions between team members about what to do each turn take a lot of time.

When you're just playing your own civ as an individual (or with just one or two mates), you don't need to discuss things much (or at all) and things can move reasonably quickly. When you have entire teams that control single civs - some with as many as 50 players that will be chiming in - it takes time for discussions to reach conclusions and for turns to be played. That's where all those extra months come in. ;)

You're right, I haven't really played in a demo game before. We played with a 24 hour turn timer (quicker at the beginning). Should we expect a 48 hour or longer timer for this game?
 
Is anyone debating these settings:

-ancient start
-normal speed
-unrestricted leaders
-no tech trading
-no random events/huts
-not always war
-one instance leaders

???

Seems like if that's what we're all sort of agreed on, we can get a few polls for "big issues":

-nukes (in/out)
-corps (in/out)
-spies/missions (all/no miss/none)
-BUG/etc mod (all/BUG-only/double move only/none)
-map preferences/makers (whatever)

I dunno about unrestricted leaders. Has that been discussed? I think I'd be against that.
 
.. why'd you be against unrestricted ... that'll mean that there would be only 4-6 (depending on temper/playstyle) viable choices for a competitive game, while unrestricted have way more viable choices, both in Leaders and Civs

Another thing that should be in mind ... known starting screenshot before or after civ picking?
 
Our opinion on the settings:
- nukes (on/off) OFF
- spies or the civ-wide esp missions (no spies, nix the two missions, or all is still ok) ALL OK, may be no changing civics
- huts/events (on/off) OFF
- corporations (on/off) ON
- known tech bonus (vanilla 30% or higher, like 100%) DEFAULT
- BUG mod (included/not or included without # cities) NO
- double-move mod (on/off) OFF, gentlemen agreement, rules and judging
- always war (on/off) ON
- tech trading (on/off) OFF

- engineered starts (yes/no) is it advanced start? then NO
- wrap (none, 1-axis, 2-axis) 2-axis
- mirrored starts (yes/no) NO
- type of script (donut/pangaea/continents/archipelago/etc) something special
- map makers if possible
- restricted leaders (on/off) ON
- can have many instances of a leader (leaders exclusive to one team, or not) YES
- method of assignment (....)... PICK

Personally, I am not sharing the paranoia around spy missions. The situation when you have small civ without chance to win but trying to ruin your gameplay is wrong itself. It is failture of diplomacy, strategy and position. If it is so small and weak it cant really do much harm. Producing spies is way expensive, spending huge amount of EP without big empire is impossible, and nobody cancelled counter-intelligence. If this small country is so problematic, just destroy it.

But in our games we usually dissallow using chirsto-rendender to switch someones civics. I have no problem in not using this possibility or disabling this mission for entire game by gentlemen agreement.

About mapscript, I hope it will be not mirrored completely. Personally, I prefer to have random map at all, but I know it can be too unfair. So a bit tweaked start is the best solution imho. The key word is "a bit".
I have once tried donut splitted into the continents by few small channels.

OT4E
CivPlayers Team
 
'Engineered start' is something I mentioned in passing on RB site. I'm not sure if that's where everyone is getting that setting from, but if it is then what it means is each team will custom make its own starting BFC, with some allowance (like points)for resources, tile types, etc. It does not seem to be very popular, but I suggested it because alot of virtual ink was being spilled about starts being unfair, mapmakers being poor, etc.

Personally I would prefer a random Pangea map and lets go:)
 
Funny idea if you are bored by everything else... Seems to be very hard to balance though

I would prefer to avoid using any mod if possible.

OT4E
 
What do you mean by balance? Everyone decides what they want. Or do you mean balance how much each terrain type/resource is worth?

Yes, but may be it is easier than I think. Cant imagine trading forests for the gold mine or landmass. :rolleyes:
 
Hello civfantatics :hatsoff:

A new Team Democracy Game! *happy*
civforum.de will play definitiv in the game :)

Thats right. I think the CivForum.de will participate.

Sure!



My opinion, the map are to create by hand. Is definitely better

(sry, when my english isn't excellent)
 
So sorry, I knew you were committed to hosting. I wasnt clear whether you were decided on playing and hosting. Obviously you can do both, we do it all the time.:)

I guess I should have gone all the way to start of the thread to try and gauge who is wanting to play, but its been a while since this thread was active, so hmmm... IDK

Anyway

2metraninja
Caledorn
Sommerswerd

You are forgiven, as I remember our talks about that ;) Of course I want to play :cool:

Perhaps we should create a separate thread for recruiting? It's a bit weird that we're the site "responsible" for this MTDG, when mostly all the other sites already have large teams with lots of team signups already. Perhaps a headline on the CFC frontpage or something for the team signups would be a good idea? :)
 
Perhaps we should create a separate thread for recruiting? It's a bit weird that we're the site "responsible" for this MTDG, when mostly all the other sites already have large teams with lots of team signups already. Perhaps a headline on the CFC frontpage or something for the team signups would be a good idea? :)
You read my mind:D. I sent just such a request to the site Moderators a few minutes ago. So now we just wait patiently:yup:
 
You read my mind:D. I sent just such a request to the site Moderators a few minutes ago. So now we just wait patiently:yup:

Yay! :D

Should we ask CDZ if they want to field another team?

We can perhaps offer anyone from CDZ who wants to join to pick a team if they feel like joining. This should go for just about anyone I expect though. :)

There was something I wanted to ask - and that was the issue of team forums. Should we ask the teams to use the CFC forums for discussing tactics etc, or should each site use their own forums? As far as I can tell it would be easier for the after-game if everything was gathered here, but can we expect the teams to use the CFC forums for the sake of talking about this specific game?

Also - I believe we need a team captain for CFC (count me out of this one), unless you are going to take that role, Sommerswerd? :)
 
I think we should no look any further as we have already a team captain and that's Sommerswerd. I cant imagine someone more devoted and capable of being our CFC captain.
 
Top Bottom