Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

I think the more teams, the better. If we can have like say 10 teams, that will make for great diplomacy and turns. Realms Beyond will field a team for sure if we get this thing moving. I will ask the guys from Apolyton and WePlayCiv and if they are interested, thats already 3 inter-site teams.

Lately I am trying to taunt the SP GOTM and SGOTM guys from CFC in to MP without much success :( Either they are not that competitive or they truly fear the unnamed horrors which awaits behind the "Multiplayer" button in the Civ opening menu :D

We have like 8-9 ready teams in the SGOTMs with traditions and old bonds - some of those teams play together from 2-3 and more years. I can see those becoming teams of their own, but they need to make the decision and take the challenge of course.

After all, I think that smaller, but better motivated teams is the way to go. I joined MTDG2 later, but from what I have saw there were like 1-serious players per team left at the end from a team of 30 players in the beginning. Democracy and voting is great, but with too many players per team they may be a bit sluggish and inefficient.

Can we get support from well - established SGOTMs and GOTM players in spreading the word and convincing the players to join this?
 
I'm not experienced enough with MTDG's to say what's the better path - 2 teams, 4 teams or many teams. What I can say though is that considering that the endgame in the last MTDG was played by a select few people I agree with 2metra's statement that "few but dedicated players" is needed on each team. Gather too many of the good players in a team and you effectively block out several of them from the opportunity to enjoy the game, which I think can lead to disinterest.

I have a dedicated machine that can host the PitBoss for sure now, as I just upgraded my desktop to a beast of a computer (from something that was more than adequate for modern gaming. I'm spoiled.). So whenever enough interest has been awakened, the hosting is ready. :)
 
So to get a new MTDG going we need to:

  1. Find a host Thanks, Caledorn! :thumbsup:
  2. Find some admins
  3. Resolve any outstanding disagreements
  4. Form teams!

I would be more than willing to act as an admin, although I'm willing to let someone else be admin as well.

The argument over 2 or 4 teams will probably have to be settled by poll, given the lack of consensus.
 
Suppose I count as an Apolyton player, though I've played a few MP games on CFC also. Regardless, I'm in. What are the differences between these two teams exactly?

I do hope we're using some sort of crafted map, rather than the rather silly pangaea scripted ones. Also willing to throw in my hat in map making if needed. I have a few released maps, to give an example of my approach, here.
 
A suggestion I have for the map this time is close starts with everyone in contact with each other. One of the things that gets complained about alot in these games is that too much value is placed on meeting the other teams first and forming the inevitable unbreakable alliances.

Indeed, a big part of the success in the last two MTDGs was being the first to meet and form a bigger alliance. If all the teams start in contact at least they all have an equal chance to form alliances. Maybe they can be placed in sight of each other but be separated by mountains or water or something, with plenty of room to expand away from each other...
 
A suggestion I have for the map this time is close starts with everyone in contact with each other. One of the things that gets complained about alot in these games is that too much value is placed on meeting the other teams first and forming the inevitable unbreakable alliances.

Indeed, a big part of the success in the last two MTDGs was being the first to meet and form a bigger alliance. If all the teams start in contact at least they all have an equal chance to form alliances. Maybe they can be placed in sight of each other but be separated by mountains or water or something, with plenty of room to expand away from each other...
With tech trading off, the whole landscape of the game changes. The ETTT was, from it's inception, a tech-trading alliance. It wasn't even completely unbreakable, given the war between us and CDZ over their ridiculously aggressive settlement and culture-building, and the war that did break out between us, Amazon and Sirius.
 
Yeah - totally agree - with tech trading off, it is completely different game and alliances form harder and they are no that unbreakable.
 
Definitely no tech trading in MP in general, imo. I hope we're going without random events either.

Quick brainstorm... Has anyone tried this approach before for teamwork:

Each member gets his own city/region to "control" (through the turnplayer), with the ability to choose builds, improvements, etc, and the ability to control units created there and workers created there, though such units can be requisitioned by the entire team for the "central government" through the usual team-level decision making processes.

I think it might be interesting to try out such a federated approach, as it would allow different strategies for development to be played side-by-side in an integrated empire. It would keep non-turnplayers a bit more involved too, and would allow, say, players with specialties in certain areas to have cities or regions dedicated to their own talents.

So, if the team has 5 players, each player gets a region of 2-3 cities to make decisions for, though all will come together to discuss empire-wide issues, and all will provide certain units/buildings when the team decides they are needed (for expansion, war, wonders, cathedrals or whatever). There can still be discussion of micromanagement of cities or regions at a team level if someone has input into another's approach or someone asks for it. This takes some of the burden off of the turnplayer also, which will make the position that much easier (and less likely to cause dropouts).
 
Yes, we had this option in Team Amazon, but I am not sure it was used actively. Maybe with more dedicated players it can be done nicely.
 
I think this idea was also tossed around in Quatronia, but we didn't use it. It would put a team behind, as their turnplayer would have to deal with all of the regional governors.
 
Yea and with the "regional governors having direct control" there will be no fear" to keep the local systems in line"... That is unless we somehow mod in the Death Star and the rebels don't blow it up;)

Seriously though, I think DNK's idea would work best in a Diplogame, where accomplishing a victory condition is not the goal of the game.

I don't think having tech trades off does anything to stop unbreakable alliances from forming. Sirius' betrayal was only possible because one player unilaterally did it without authority (which basically ended his team and almost ended the game). In fact it was only their forced re-entry into the unbreakable alliance that allowed the game to continue. CDZ & Q remained allied for the entire game. There was tension but never any war.
 
It was the size of the alliance that made it unbreakable I suppose. The only reason we didn't attack ereH ro (which was on our side of the petal) was out of fear of retribution from Sirius and Amazon. Indeed, retribution from Amazon over attacking us was what cost Sirius. And the size only. came to be because of tech trading, and mutual fears of each other.
 
:) I cant help myself smile over the impact on the game the silent fear from the almighty Amazons and our over-aggressive and skillful on the diplo-front Captain Sommerswerd have caused :)

Anyway, I am actively advertising the MTDG3 over different civ4 MP communities and for now it seems like we will have teams from:

- RealmsBeyond
- Apolyton

awaiting reaction from:

- WePlayCiv
- the Polish community
- the Spanish community of Apolyton

Had written an invitation to the SGOTM teams here at CFC, but not a single reply after 70+ views of the thread. Lets see if we can get the SP crowd take the challenge and measure up against humans.

Will write invitation to The League too.

Things start to move at speed I think. :)
 
Regarding keeping people in line: the death star is the turnplayer. How out of line can someone get, who isn't directly playing the turns?
 
@Sommer: Uh, the reason Sirius couldn't do that much damage was because of FORCED tech-parity we had with them. If they didn't or couldn't share all the things they teched from the start, that war would've been a lot more difficult for us. Espionage and stealing techs would've only gotten us so far.
 
Regarding keeping people in line: the death star is the turnplayer. How out of line can someone get, who isn't directly playing the turns?
Very out of line:) (see the last MTDG where one player just took over and DoWed an ally without any permission from the team, ruining his teams chance to win)...

But think of it another way. Let's say that ONLY the turnplayer has the password to even log in to the game, but 2 of the 5 regional governors have a radically different ideas from the other 3 (like they want to build troops and the other 3 want them to build Wonders. Let's say that the turplayer sides with the Wonderwhores over the Warmongers, and refuses to assign the builds the Warmongers want. What happens then? The Warmongers quit:(, that's what. So even if they can't log in, they still have control or the team/game is broken.

And the most substantial factor in the last MTDG endgame was the invincible General 2metra:D, hero and Saviour of Nabaxica! Everybody knows that:goodjob:

@ Bowsling- I see your point, but we recently finished a Diplogame at Apolyton called DoE (Destiny of Empires), that had tech trades off but it still collapsed over... you guessed it... "unbreakable alliances. I mean like Q, you might want to leave, but you can't because its suicide, or like India in DoE, you want to stay independent but then the alliances steamroll you. Or like Sirius, you defect, but then you get dogpiled and forced back in.

Its a complex problem, that's all I'm saying. We cant assume we can just click "No Tech Trading" and it will just go away. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than fixed alliances.
 
@Sommer: Uh, the reason Sirius couldn't do that much damage was because of FORCED tech-parity we had with them. If they didn't or couldn't share all the things they teched from the start, that war would've been a lot more difficult for us. Espionage and stealing techs would've only gotten us so far.
I don't understand what you mean by this:confused: What did I say that you are responding to?:confused:

Thinking about DNK's suggestion (which is very interesting, and has been suggested and discussed before, but never implemented AFAIK), maybe we can give folks control of individual regions or cities and somehow (probably through the "colony" system) give them the freedom to form a breakaway nation if they want, or join another already existing civ if they want. I can think of a few ways to implement this that we could test.
 
As Magno said, Spanish community is discussing about the invitation. We hope to give you a reply in the next few days.
 
Top Bottom