Interest in yet ANOTHER Pitboss game?

GFletch

Warlord
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
156
I'd be more than willing to set one up. Size, obviously, would depend on how many people would be interested.

It would be a Warlords-enabled game, Raging Barbarians option.

Anyone interested?
 
I'm not keen on Raging barbs, but I will give it a shot. Give me a reason to try out that option in SP a little bit. :)
 
I could join. Regarding map I would though prefer something a little bit uncommon. Maybe Fantacy Realm? I think in GGP's 2nd pitboss game we've had some form of Fantacy Realm map. It may not have been very balanced, but interesting anyway.
 
What else is about this? I am interested but need more info.

The idea I would have is Warlords Pitboss game, between 6 to 10 players, Raging Barbarians activated.

I'm flexible in terms of the map ... Fantasy Map would be fine with me. Any other suggestions?
 
Couple of rules I would implement .. nothing too drastic -- taken directly from theoob's fantastic Pitboss rules, located here:

1. Missing Turns -- Anyone who misses 3 consecutive turns (which would entail not taking a turn for at least 72 hours) without notifying me that they are going to be away will be replaced by an AI player immediately and then replaced by a human player as soon as is convenient. Once you have been replaced by a human you will not be able to take your game back.

To notify me of planned absences, you should either send me a PM or an email, and you should also rename yourself in the game to 'on holiday' or something like that, in case I miss your email (it's happened in the past). Note that I must have heard from you in some way, it won't be enough to say that you tried, if you rename yourself in the game there's no plausible way I can miss it.

2. Consecutive Turns -- It is possible to take a 'double turn' in the game by being the last to finish for one turn and then the first to finish the one after that. This has a positive effect because it speeds the game up, but the downside is that it can be exploited for military advantage by moving twice before your opponent has a chance to react.

So to keep the upside of double turns while eliminating (or at least minimizing) the downside, the rule is that if you are at war with another player (or are about to go to war with them, eg. sneak attacks) then you mustn't take two turns before they've had a chance to take one, or in other words you cannot go after them in one turn and before them in the next.

You can use the civstats log page for the game, or the RSS feeds from the same page, to tell if the other player has taken their turn (ask me about this if you don't know what I'm talking about).

A player must give his opponant as much time as needed to avoid a double move against him, playing first in the turn only when failure to do so would result in the turn being missed. In the case of sneak attacks or the outbreak of war he should alert his opponant via PM or email.

3. AI's -- When a human player drops out and I'm looking for a replacement, I have the AI take over temporarily. While the AI is in charge, you may not make any deals with it other than cease fire arrangements (which may or may not include reparations). This is because the AI may agree to silly deals which the human replacement would have to maintain for the minimum of 10 turns before they can cancel it.

4. No War in First 10 Turns -- To be more specific: no declarations of war are allowed in the first 10 turns of the game. On normal speed + ancient start this is 4000BC to 3640BC, otherwise you just know some poor (perhaps inexperienced) sap is going to be gone before they have a chance to do anything. You may however make preparations for a rush in this time, as long as it doesn't necessitate a declaration of war in the first 10 turns.
 
I like all of your house rules. I would suggest a refinement to this, however, if you're open to it:
One exception: you may always take your turn when 12 hours have passed on the turn timer (since the timer seems to run slow this will probably be a bit more than 12 real hours), regardless of whether they have taken their turn or not, otherwise it'd risk you not having a chance to take your turn at all.

I believe that rules like this should be rephrased so that you are asked to wait as long as possible without missing your turn in a scenario in which you are supossed to move after an opponant, and give them a reasonable time frame in which to make their move.

The 12 hour rule doesn't always address that neatly. Imagine a scenario in which GFletch usually playes in the 20th hour of the turn because that's what his schedule allows, and Fosse plays his turns whenever he wants to. One day Fosse logs in during the 24th hour after GFletch has played and declares war, landing an enormous stack of units on the coast one tile off GFletch's capital (the transports were unseen, just out of GFletch's line of sight because Fosse is an amazing strategist. ;) ). When Fosse finishes the turn, he presses the red button and a new turn begins. Fosse logs out because 12 hours haven't passed. The next day GFletch has no idea he's at war or that once the 12th hour passes (while he's at work) he's a sitting duck. Fosse logs in at the 18th hour -- well past the rule's proscription -- and razes GFletches capital. Two hours later GFletch logs in to find he's at war and his capital has been razed by an army he didn't even know existed. But no rule has been broken. A player should be able to log on at the same tiem every day and not risk such a situation.

If the rule instead were:
A player must give his opponant as much time as needed to avoid a double move against him, playing first in the turn only when failure to do so would result in the turn being missed. In the case of sneak attacks or the outbreak of war he should alert his opponant via PM or email.

Then Fosse, following the rule, would have waited until the 23rd hour to play if GFletch hadn't logged on by then. At the 23rd hour Fosse would say, "Well, I have to go to bed now so if I don't play my turn, I lose it," and it would be okay. Or GFletch, seeing the email before he left for work, would play in the 10th hour -- throw cannons at Fosse's stack -- and Fosse could go whenever he wanted after that.

I absolutely agree with this:
you should talk to your opponent(s) and come to an arrangement about the order you are going to take your turns in.

I'm sorry for being so long-winded.

I would be okay with a Fantasy map. Never played it before, should be fun.
 
I like all of your house rules. I would suggest a refinement to this, however, if you're open to it:

To be fair, they're theobb's rules, but thank you nonetheless. :)

I believe that rules like this should be rephrased so that you are asked to wait as long as possible without missing your turn in a scenario in which you are supossed to move after an opponant, and give them a reasonable time frame in which to make their move.

The 12 hour rule doesn't always address that neatly. Imagine a scenario in which GFletch usually playes in the 20th hour of the turn because that's what his schedule allows, and Fosse plays his turns whenever he wants to. One day Fosse logs in during the 24th hour after GFletch has played and declares war, landing an enormous stack of units on the coast one tile off GFletch's capital (the transports were unseen, just out of GFletch's line of sight because Fosse is an amazing strategist. ;) ). When Fosse finishes the turn, he presses the red button and a new turn begins. Fosse logs out because 12 hours haven't passed. The next day GFletch has no idea he's at war or that once the 12th hour passes (while he's at work) he's a sitting duck. Fosse logs in at the 18th hour -- well past the rule's proscription -- and razes GFletches capital. Two hours later GFletch logs in to find he's at war and his capital has been razed by an army he didn't even know existed. But no rule has been broken. A player should be able to log on at the same tiem every day and not risk such a situation.

If the rule instead were:

Then Fosse, following the rule, would have waited until the 23rd hour to play if GFletch hadn't logged on by then. At the 23rd hour Fosse would say, "Well, I have to go to bed now so if I don't play my turn, I lose it," and it would be okay. Or GFletch, seeing the email before he left for work, would play in the 10th hour -- throw cannons at Fosse's stack -- and Fosse could go whenever he wanted after that.

I absolutely see your point on this -- the rule as it stands is unfair to those who have limited time to play the game ... and Pitboss games are designed specifically to allow those with limited time to play.

I'll make the change to your suggestion immediately. I appreciate your post.


I would be okay with a Fantasy map. Never played it before, should be fun.

I need to check when I get home from work to see the sizes the Fantasy Map allows. Depending on how many play, we need to pick a map that is appropriate.

If anyone has any other suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
 
The Game is Up and Running!

IP: 24.154.139.119:2054

There will be 10 spots in the game total. Grab your civ and take the first turn.
Those who have PM'ed me should have a response with the password. Send me a PM with your email address for the password to the game.

Good Luck all!
 
Lemme know if someone can't get into the game. It's is now up and running.
 
It appears you have Simultaneous Turns set to off. This means that the players must play each turn IN ORDER. I don't think that's what you intended (otherwise no need for the double move rule), so you should reset the server to amend that.

You have to select that in the Pitboss setup screens.
 
Wow, I'm not a smart man.

The game has been reset, and Simultaneous Turns are now on. Please retake your civ. Same password as before.
 
Top Bottom