Facta Non Verba PBEM

J

Jon the Gun

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
68
All,

Turn order is as follows:

inky13112
Michkov
Phisportsfan
Nighthawk419
Aeonian.lion
Jon the Gun



Original Post:
Spoiler :
At the moment my initial thoughts are:

BTS (no mods)
Huts - off
Advanced start - yes
Map - Pangea/Inland Sea/Highlands (any map that won't limit finding each other until 2015!)
Civ limitations - open to suggestions on those not allowed
Aiming for everyone to take their turn on the same day
Speed - marathon/normal (see below)
Numbers - depends upon interest received.
Tech trading - off or brokering only (not if multiple civs per person applies)
1-3 civs per player as an optional so that you get more bang for your buck

For the file management, I am thinking of using dropbox and email. The saved file will be placed in a location shared by all and a simple group email will continue that notifies everyone when a turn has been taken. So you save the game in dropbox and hit reply all to let everyone know that your turn has been taken. No clogging up email accounts with files!

Please only acknowledge your interest if you are a) willing to take a turn every day (most of the time) b) serious about playing and not going to bin it after a few turns c) interested in making the most of playing against actual people. By that I mean you are willing to engage in some decent levels of diplomacy and military teamwork through private and open discussion. Your skill level is not particularly important.

I am torn between making this a long game (marathon) or trying to get through a number of games with a ladder system in place. The latter will provide some interesting games later on where positions in the table may dictate who should be a target or friend. Any thoughts? I have played in many Risk ladder games like this and it gets seriously interesting later on. The ultimate aim is to be the first to finish on X number of points (allocated on position finished) and so people who are topping the ladder get very little support in the later games with the 'little guys' rallying together to the bitter end!

About me: I am a long long term civ player but relatively new to PBEM. After countless marathon games clocking over 70hrs a piece I am in serious need of some civs on the map without the A.I tactics - just too predictable and unimaginative. The game is rammed with potential from a diplomatic standpoint but you never get much out of the AI. I am looking forward to late game situations that hold clever bargaining, cold war style key resource supplying and open boarders. All of this will rely heavily on having people involved that would stay to the end because they like the interaction and tactics even if they aren't the clear leader - just enjoy the ride! I am hoping that this is what drives most PBEMers to this multiplayer style of game. You can rely on me to be admin for the entire time.

Right, so if those who are interested can start posting their preferences and ideas about how they would like the game to go we can get this thing in motion. I am flexible on numbers and I think it will largely depend upon interest.


Second Post

Spoiler :
The following details will be updated as initial discussion takes place so that we can narrow down an agreed start:

Version: BTS (no mods)
Big Picture: Ladder System details (pending)
Speed: Normal
Civs: 1 per person
Banned Civs: None (pending)
Map: TBC (all civs reachable)
Adv Start: 1 city, 0 settlers, 1 worker, 1 scout, ~200cr for population/techs/improvements/etc... (pending)
Barbarians: ?
Huts: Yes
Tech Trading: No
Tech Brokering: No
Cadence: 1 move per day

Players Interested:
Jon the Gun
Nighthawk419
inky13112
aeonian.lion
Michkov
Phisportsfan

Ladder System:
(Updated thoughts)

Ladder Example

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/64766672/Table1.png
Please ignore the final score.
Throughout this example the alliances were made and broken on overall scores and weaker players in one game can find themselves teaming with a leading civ because the roles are reversed in the other game. My initial thoughts are that this should be limited to 2, maybe three, simultaneous games otherwide it would get simply insane!!!

Interested to hear your thoughts on this guys...
 
I am always interested in a new PBEM. I've been going with so many mods lately it will be nice to get a new one with plain old BTS.

However, I've also been starting with lots of "multiple civs" PBEM's, which is getting overwhelming. I'm only in if I can just have my 1 civ and be done with it. Not meant to be a threat - I just cant handle another multiple civ game, if you get others wanting more, then by all means go without me.

I do really like the idea of a ladder type of scoring system. Although I would recommend "normal" speed. Even with a fast moving PBEM game, it will take 1-2 years to finish on normal. Marathon would be ugly. And depending on how many players you get, it will prob be a smaller-ish map (not huge anyway) and marathon speed on a smaller map like that is crazy.

So - I'm in for 1 civ (I'll even do 1 if everyone else has multiples!), normal speed, whatever map.
 
You said marathon and I was excited, but then described the ladder system and that actually sounds really interesting, and would mean games might actually finish. :p

I am in and am happy with just 1 civ. If we do advanced start it may be a good idea to set some ground rules for the advanced start, depends what others think I suppose.

As for map, it would be interesting to play on one of the less used non-globe maps, though I'm not sure about how well balanced those are? I am fine with anything though.

I think tech trades (but not brokering) would be interesting, as most MP games tend to disallow them. Don't know how well this would work in practice obviously.

Anyway ready to start whenever
 
Nighthawk419 said:
I am always interested in a new PBEM. I've been going with so many mods lately it will be nice to get a new one with plain old BTS.

However, I've also been starting with lots of "multiple civs" PBEM's, which is getting overwhelming. I'm only in if I can just have my 1 civ and be done with it. Not meant to be a threat - I just cant handle another multiple civ game, if you get others wanting more, then by all means go without me.

I do really like the idea of a ladder type of scoring system. Although I would recommend "normal" speed. Even with a fast moving PBEM game, it will take 1-2 years to finish on normal. Marathon would be ugly. And depending on how many players you get, it will prob be a smaller-ish map (not huge anyway) and marathon speed on a smaller map like that is crazy.

So - I'm in for 1 civ (I'll even do 1 if everyone else has multiples!), normal speed, whatever map.
Click to expand...

Great points! I think with a ladder involved a single civ game would be ideal. May have to avoid anything longer than normal on speed. Thinking out loud - do you think 2-3 simultaneous games with the same players would work so that the ladder would have more of an immediate influence i.e. good incentive to hang on in all games and get as many points as possibe - a consistant 2nd placer will be doing better than a dominating civ in one but all over the place in the others... Just a thought. Though we could be in for some seriously complicated diplomacy where trading takes place accross games!!! May be one to avoid...

inky13112 said:
You said marathon and I was excited, but then described the ladder system and that actually sounds really interesting, and would mean games might actually finish. :p

I am in and am happy with just 1 civ. If we do advanced start it may be a good idea to set some ground rules for the advanced start, depends what others think I suppose.

As for map, it would be interesting to play on one of the less used non-globe maps, though I'm not sure about how well balanced those are? I am fine with anything though.

I think tech trades (but not brokering) would be interesting, as most MP games tend to disallow them. Don't know how well this would work in practice obviously.

Anyway ready to start whenever
Click to expand...

Very pleased to hear the ladder system has potential. It worked sooo well in risk (simpler I know) but it got very tactical in alliances and strategy after a couple of games. You need players who see the bigger picture!

Interested to hear ground rules on advanced start - open to all thoughts on this.

I agree regarding the maps. I am open to anything as long as interaction starts early on.

I am keen on tech trading as well but unsure of how people respond to them on PBEM games. Any other guys have thoughts on this?
 
I tried marathon once, and this was with two regular internet friends with whom I have finished tens of pbems over the past years, and many epic at the start of that period.
We gave up after a few moves and changed to normal.

For the file management, you could always use www.pbemtracker.com, as it's available already and works.

Slightly sad about no huts, but hey...


The thing about tech trading is that the first to Alphabet and Currency tends to clean up by being a tech whore...
ah...btw, will there be ai ?
 
bathsheba666 said:
I tried marathon once, and this was with two regular internet friends with whom I have finished tens of pbems over the past years, and many epic at the start of that period.
We gave up after a few moves and changed to normal.

For the file management, you could always use www.pbemtracker.com, as it's available already and works.

Slightly sad about no huts, but hey...


The thing about tech trading is that the first to Alphabet and Currency tends to clean up by being a tech whore...
ah...btw, will there be ai ?
Click to expand...

I haven't had a good experience yet with marathon either. I have looked into the tracker and happy to use it if people like it. I haven't used it yet myself.

I can change the huts rule but I hear bad things regarding unfair advantages.

I can appreciate that people will do that. Not keen on it myself either. Would prefer to leave it off. Open to the general consensus though.
 
I think the problem with tech trading is you can get teching "alliances" where you get a bloc of civs teching and trading amongst themselves and if you get pushed outside the bloc, the game is basically over for you. Generally I've seen tech trading is off in MP games.

Plus from my personal opinion/experience - tech trading makes the teching go so much faster in the game. So normal speed with no tech trading still gives you a little balance to where there is a window of opporuntity if you get the right tech or you are at least in a certain age for a while to have a war before all troops are updated. With tech trading on and normal speed, you could theoretically zip from swords to guns super quick out of nowhere, seems kinda unrealistic to me. but thats just my opinion, I'll try whatever.

However that being said, it could work out with this ladder system, esp if we are doing multiple games at once. I really dont have enough experience to know.

And bathsheba is right on marathon or even epic speed. I have a buddy that we did PBEM games just the two of us, doing upwards of 10 turns a night... we did marathon once and couldnt even get out of the ancient era before we gave up and went back to normal haha. Marathon works for a live group, but not for PBEM imo
 
oh and re: ground rules on advanced starts...

Could go minimal advanced start with forced - 1 city, no settlers, 1 worker, 1 scout, and only a couple hundred left for population/techs/improvements/etc... that would be relatively consistent among the people while still getting us past those super early super slow turns.
 
I like your thoughts re the advanced start and have drafted them into the specifics. Still open for discusion though. I have dropped the marathon option. Thanks for your help.
 
I'd like to join.

1civ/player sounds good to me. But I'd like to have huts turned on. On everything else I'd take whatever the game throws at me.
If someone could explain the ladder system to me that would be great though.
 
re: ladder system, I like the third option, the one with the every 50 or 100 turns we re-settle the scoreboard. My vote for every 100 turns and we also start a new game with mirror settings at the 100 turn mark. Definitely seems awesome, the idea of trading between semi-related games is crazy haha.
 
Thanks, but actually, I will drop out of this.

I cannot commit to regular repated games, need to see how things are at the time, as workload regularly becomes an issue - and there are signs of upheaval at work over the short term.

Good luck with the ladder, and happy hunting...
 
aeonian.lion said:
multiple civs does seem overwhelming. i would prefer just one each. and no tech trading also. other than that, it all sounds great.
Click to expand...

Added you to the list. I think everyone is agreed to use just one civ and most seem to be happy with tech trading off. Thanks for your thoughts.

Nighthawk419 said:
re: ladder system, I like the third option, the one with the every 50 or 100 turns we re-settle the scoreboard. My vote for every 100 turns and we also start a new game with mirror settings at the 100 turn mark. Definitely seems awesome, the idea of trading between semi-related games is crazy haha.
Click to expand...

I agree. It gives people shorter term goals as well as longer ones. mirror settings is also really interesting! Thinking out loud... you could even have the same map and starting locations to give people more experience of the risks and advantages early on. Though this could have big negatives if your starting location isn't great. These details can be ironed out later but I think we could go firm on a score awarded after 100 terms or something similar, as well as a starting a second game so that points play a role. At the 200 turn point on the first game you would begetting scores in from the 100 turn mark in the second game as well which would start influencing the first game. We could even add a target number of points to be achieved so that all games don't have to finish. Again just a thought and welcome to hear everyone's ideas on this.

Michkov said:
I'd like to join.

1civ/player sounds good to me. But I'd like to have huts turned on. On everything else I'd take whatever the game throws at me.
If someone could explain the ladder system to me that would be great though.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you here. You are added as well. I have turned on huts as most seem keen to have them. I will come up with a better description of the ladder for you so you can see what you think...

Also, for everyone, I am looking to kick this off fairly soon. If we can tie down a list of players and details then we could get going by Friday. I would love to wait longer to get more players but I guess that those who aren't on during the week are likely to not be daily turn takers as well. I could be wrong though and if any of you guys know anyone interested then let me know.
 
bathsheba666 said:
Thanks, but actually, I will drop out of this.

I cannot commit to regular repated games, need to see how things are at the time, as workload regularly becomes an issue - and there are signs of upheaval at work over the short term.

Good luck with the ladder, and happy hunting...
Click to expand...

No problem and thanks for letting me know. If you change your mind then let me know before we go live later in the week. There won't be a second game for a number of months as it stands.
 
Nighthawk419 said:
So - I'm in for 1 civ (I'll even do 1 if everyone else has multiples!), normal speed, whatever map.
Click to expand...

inky13112 said:
I am in and am happy with just 1 civ.
Click to expand...

Michkov said:
I'd like to join.
Click to expand...

aeonian.lion said:
I'm in.
Click to expand...

All,

Happy to start with five and willing to wait a few more days for others if they are interested. If you have any final thoughts on the pending questions above about the starting details then please let me know.

Can you all start this weekend? I am hoping to kick it off on Saturday morning.

Regarding the ladder... I will give it a little more thought. I think there is scope to play at least a second game at the 100 turn point of the first. Scoring per 100 turns seems workable but the details on how the positions are scored can be agreed upon later. I have put in a rough table of how it could work out.
 
Re: the map, my thoughts/opinions are that having literally the exact same map and starting positions will make the games very stale... if you get screwed once, youll get screwed over and over again and someone might not have a chance to ever "win" the ladder because they got screwed at the start. Yes there would be some differences game to game, but not enough to make it meaningful.

My vote is more for picking one type of map and then just having a brand new randomly generated version of that map each time.

For example, if we go with a pangea, then we always do pangea with the same settings, but the map will be different every time and starting spots will be different.

Other than that I am fine with everything else, fine with 5, 6, whatever we get by the weekend, that works. Map doesnt matter to me, but make sure you get the map SIZE right depending on the number of players and whether we have AI's or not. if we are going with just 5 of us, id say a "small" size map is probably right.

(also, PS - Jon the Gun - its your draft selection in "Triumvirate uprising")
 
I agree and I think Pangea should stick unless anyone has better suggestions?

I would like to leave AI out of this unless anyone has any objections. It will create an even playing field.
 
Pangea is fine with me. I also enjoy Global Highlands, although there will be a lot more land with that one.

also PS - I might have a 6th player. he is not big on the CFC forums but hes a buddy of mine and reliable to play his turns... I'm talking to him this evening about it and if hes interested we might have a 6th
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
NEW GAME 2022!! Realism Invictus Mod
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
25K
Temae
T
DanQ
Nominate One More Turn for the 2025 Podcast Awards
Replies
4
Views
259
DanQ
DanQ
Berrern
List of working / non-working UI Mods on patch 1.2.4
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
shaglio
shaglio
G
Consequences of Razing
Replies
10
Views
909
gamemaster3000
G
A
Update on the Timeline for the 4UC Integration
Replies
8
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Back
Top Bottom