Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

In Always War, war weariness for everyone is halved from what it would otherwise be. Statue of Zeus, Jails, Police State and Mt Rushmore work the same way as usual.

Note that war weariness is not gained by being at war, it is only gained when actual combats take place. The War Academy article on the topic is worth a read.

Lord Parkin said:

In Always War, war weariness for everyone is halved from what it would otherwise be. Statue of Zeus, Jails, Police State and Mt Rushmore work the same way as usual.

Note that war weariness is not gained by being at war, it is only gained when actual combats take place. The War Academy article on the topic is worth a read.

Click to expand...

What about sharing tiles with allied units?

cav scout said:

What about sharing tiles with allied units?

Click to expand...

You could use adjacent tiles. Or both attack from different directions.

Lord Parkin said:

You could use adjacent tiles. Or both attack from different directions.

Click to expand...

But you couldn't have a joint stack or defend/turtle inside an allied city. Always at War hardwires in limitations on gameplay. If gifting is something we want to prevent a simple house rule should suffice.

Always War have one crucial disadvantage to overwhelm all its benefits. Once in AW, there cant be made any turn order whatsoever and we cant avoid double-moves unless playing sequential turns. Because everyone is at war with everyone, anyone can decide to make attack at the time he loggs in and sees fit in doing so.

I've played a pitboss game with AW and simultaneous turns and it degraded to constant quarrels about turn order and at the end was just deserted from all the players. And those players involved were all world-class players - Ntenistromeros, Indiansmoke, Voxsu, Bemep, OT4E, LDeska, Penny.
Have you LP played a pitboss with AW to share experience how you were dealing with the double-moves issues?

Everyone remembers ROP rape in Civ III. In AW such a thing is possible once again. Not necessarily better or worse IMO, just different from how most people are used to playing. It will be interesting regardless of what gets chosen.

Here are the proposed game settings of Apolyton.

We have a strong crew (we think ) of 10 players standing by to get into this game.
DNK, Robert Plomp, OzzyKP, Mzprox, Ben Kenobi, Toni, Jobe, Hercules, Dick76 and Calanthian


General settings : a 9-10 team pitboss game, huge map, modded rules, ancient start, normal speed, simultanous turns.

Map: hand made, balanced, not mirrored, wrapped from both axis(torodial), prefered map has place for sea battles tough it could be pangea aswell

Leader/civ choice unrestricted leaders,
no more than one instance of leader/civ,
no banned leader/civ,
choosing according to a random order (1st player in order chooses leader or civ then the second and so on, if all choosed once then they choose again but in reversed order)

No tech trade
No huts
No events
Barbs: yes, but can be discussed
Nukes: yes, but can be discussed
Corporations are NOT removed
Always war: a definite NO! We like diplomacy between teams. Furthermore it ruins trade within the game..

Espionage on - see below


modded stuff settings which probably require mods are put here:

* Espionage: civic and religion switch actions are removed
* Spanish double move mod-majority thinks it's unecessary
* No-score mod
* increased known tech bonus

Game rule: No city gifting unless as part of a peace settlement

LOL 666 posts, Cal

Kidding, great that we have your preferences on settings.

Here's WPC's votes for the straw poll.

SETTINGS
- Game Speed: Normal
- nukes: On
- Espionage: On completely
- huts/events: Initial discussion in our team is divided. If this seems to need an official vote we'll probably need to do an official vote of our own.
- corporations: On
- known tech bonus (vanilla 30% or higher, like 100%): We're wary of it being raised too far. However, we'd probably support a modest bump to 50% or so, especially if tech trading is off.
- BUG mod: Again, our team is pretty evenly split.
- double-move mod: Yes
- always war: No
- tech trading: Off

MAP
- engineered starts: We don't want either the in-game Advanced Start option, or teams able to decide their own terrain like Sommerswerd was suggesting at RB. We'd like to see a mapmaker tweaking things, but that's it.
- wrap (none, 1-axis, 2-axis): 2-axis
- mirrored starts: No
- type of script (donut/pangaea/continents/archipelago/etc): If a script needs to be chosen, we don't have a clear vote right now, though I think I can say our team would like something in between archipelago and pangaea.
- map makers: I'm afraid we don't have suggestions, though we agree a human-made map (or human-tweaked, at any rate) would be preferable.

CIV SELECTION
- Unrestricted leaders: No
- can have many instances of a leader (leaders exclusive to one team, or not): Leaders should be exclusive
- method of assignment (....): Teams get to choose, order of teams randomized

Other things not in DNK's original list we'd like to see:
-Raging Barbs On
-No allied victory: the in-game allied victory option should be off, and it should be explicitly understood from the start of the game there will be only one winner.
-Vassalization Off
-City gifting rules: We suggest banning all city gifting via the diplo table in order to eliminate possible disputes
-Free tech exploit: We want to make sure other teams are aware there is an issue where both the Oracle and Liberalism can be exploited to receive more than one free tech. We suggest the admin review the game after each is built/discovered to ensure this was not abused.

Sommerswerd said:

Everyone remembers ROP rape in Civ III.

Click to expand...

I never played Civ III...can you explains ?

Darrell

darrelljs said:

I never played Civ III...can you explains ?

Click to expand...

When Right of Passage treaties (Civ3's Open Borders) were cancelled, no units were moved. So you could sign a RoP in order to walk your units into your enemy's core, then cancel the deal, declare war, and take out all their important cities in one turn.

Hello guys.

We started our vote for settings at www.civforum.de
So we soon will post our results here.
Stay tuned

Until a teamcaptain is elected you can contact me via PM for questions about Team civforum.de


Regis Hastur

Good News, CFC Moderator, r_rolo1 has agreed to be the Game admin... So now we have a host and an Admin and our Game forum should be up this weekend. Hopefully we will be able to post an advert then too

darrelljs said:

I never played Civ III...can you explains ?

Click to expand...

Kloreep said:

When Right of Passage treaties (Civ3's Open Borders) were cancelled, no units were moved. So you could sign a RoP in order to walk your units into your enemy's core, then cancel the deal, declare war, and take out all their important cities in one turn.

Click to expand...

Basically that's it except I think you could actually cancel ROP and warp the persons units out of your territory. The way to "ROP rape" was to sign Open Borders (Right-of Passage), then walk your huge Army into their land and then Declare War on them before they could cancel the ROP. Then there was no automatic Warp-out (like in Civ IV), you could just immediately attack cities...

Anyway, the whole point of me mentioning that, is if we play AW, then obviously we will be making meta-game OB treaties between teams, but since the game is hard-set to War, you would be able to make a OB treaty, then walk right up to the other guys city with your whole army and backstab without the usual DoW warp-out that happens in Civ IV... Just wanted to remind everyone that AW would make that possible again.

Don't forget city gifting was part of the reason MTDG 1 ended prematurely. Unit gifting has also caused a lot of arguments in the past. Always War fixes that quite neatly, amongst other things.

Sommerswerd said:

Everyone remembers ROP rape in Civ III. In AW such a thing is possible once again. Not necessarily better or worse IMO, just different from how most people are used to playing. It will be interesting regardless of what gets chosen.

Click to expand...

Only if you choose to let other nations trek through your territory.

2metraninja said:

Have you LP played a pitboss with AW to share experience how you were dealing with the double-moves issues?

Click to expand...

Indeed. Both with and without a double move rule.

You can make a turn order in Always War - just specify that during conflicts you have to stick to a side of the turn timer. No more complicated than in a regular game - you just replace the "when going to war..." rule with a "when initiating conflicts..." rule. It should be obvious to both parties involved when the periods of conflict which require a turn order begin and end.

Calanthian said:

We like diplomacy between teams.

Click to expand...

Remember that Always War has nothing to do with diplomacy (or lack thereof).

Anyway, RB will play regardless... just thought I'd explain in more depth about this setting.

Indeed. Both with and without a double move rule.

Click to expand...

For our particular game I think we all agreed that we should have double-move order, so games with double-moves allowed are not relevant.

You can make a turn order in Always War - just specify that during conflicts you have to stick to a side of the turn timer. No more complicated than in a regular game - you just replace the "when going to war..." rule with a "when initiating battles..." rule. It should be obvious to both parties involved when the periods of conflict which require a turn order begin and end.

Click to expand...

Yes, you sure can make turn order, but because you are in war with everyone, this turn order means you must play sequential turns. Just a case to my point - you suggest that if you dont intend to attack anyone this turn, you can move wherever you want. But what if you move earlier and then someone else joins and attacks you? But the one who was attacking you can be attacked by someone else a bit later and then he can attack you too. But you did not finished your turn in the first login and was going to finish it a bit later, as you did not expected that hostility. But now if you log in thats double-move. And so on and so on.

Remember that Always War has nothing to do with diplomacy (or lack thereof).

Click to expand...

Well, not absolutely nothing, but still it can be done even with AW on.

Anyway, RB will play regardless...

Click to expand...

Manly words, but I never expected anything less from such a renowned players anyway.

I just don't see the need for AW: forbidding city gifting is jus as effective and less disruptive to other portions of the game.

Got it thanks guys .

Darrell

Regarding civ/leader picks: it's worth pointing out that with 9-10 teams involved, this is going to be far bigger than any previous game of its sort. Consequently, whoever gets randomly allocated the last few leader/civ picks will be at quite a disadvantage - much more so than in a more standard 5-6 team game. Would your team be happy if you got the #9 (or #10) pick for both for traits and civ?

The advantage of a "snake pick" with unrestricted leaders is that it balances civ and leader picks for larger games like this. With a snake pick, getting first pick for either traits or civ means you get last pick for the other option... while getting one of the last picks for traits or civ means you get one of the first picks for the other item. So rather than giving a clear advantage to the people who pick first, it naturally balances out the choices in larger games like this.

With a snake pick, no-one will be able to get both power traits and a power civ... but no-one will be stuck with both poor traits and a poor civ either.

Anyway, just a suggestion.

I do agree that snake-pick is most fair way of picking.

Lord Parkin said:

With a snake pick, no-one will be able to get both power traits and a power civ... but no-one will be stuck with both poor traits and a poor civ either.

Anyway, just a suggestion.

Click to expand...

well ... truth with modifications ... people can end up with crappy traits/civ if they pick crappy ... and they can get off with great traits/civs (see Sullla/speaker in RB's second Pitboss) if others for some obscure reason ignore a good pick ... but yes ... per usual, not accounting for the balance between the different teams would be much more even with unrestricted snakepick than restricted (unless same civ/leader is allowed several times ... which could easily mean that we could end up with 4 Indias, 2 Egypts, 2 Ottomans a Mali and a Greece ... not exactly an interesting lineup