[Immersioneers] 'A New Frontier': sign-up thread for the second Immersioneer game!

Zabuza said:
sweet, I'm glad chrizz can join us. I was worried about having to play without him , but this works out well for me. hopefully at some point in the future we can all play a game including manoj. I like the vote thing pretty cool, I also didn't mind the other point/scoring system , but perhaps it is indeed best to start with a simpler system. also if your going to play as Russia , can I play as japan then ?
Click to expand...
Yes, I'll put you down as Japan. :)

It's a bit worrying that we have two players who are friends irl... Might you two not conspire against the rest of us? :p It remains to be seen, I guess... It's definitely an advantage, but keep in mind though that secret war alliances are forbidden, as per the rules.

I've done my best to limit the power of alliances, but we really cannot know how well it will work in practice. The main thing is to avoid the situation where 3 or 4 players gang up on one Civ, leaving the target no chance of victory no matter what. That's just no fun at all and exactly what I wanted to avoid when I started this group. If you see a potential dog-pile forming, it's best to take the side of the under-dog, if only to prevent all those other Civs from gaining all their territory and snowballing out of control. ;)
 
@krasny: I noticed that you said earlier that you'd prefer an earlier starting time. Please post asap whether you can still play, as we've moved the game up by 3 hours and 20 minutes.
 
thanks, also we aren't friends irl. we just get along pretty well. also I don't think you have to worry about us pulling anything like that. we may both be Americans but we probably play more like Canadians or the swiss. we tend to stay neutral, unless attacked or threatened. although perhaps an comparison to an early America who only joined both world wars because it was dragged into it.
edit: i like the part about joining the underdog. their is a lot of evidence for that happening in history. for example England joined a few wars against the French and the Spanish to prevent one from taking over the other. queen Elizabeth the 1st said something like two leviathans we can deal with but one would be a problem. so to prevent one from gaining to much power and control over the other England would often join their conflicts and flop sides.
 
Last edited:
A 17.00 start is better than a 14.00 start.
 
MaximusPlatypus said:
Is it confirmed we are playing on Quick speed? I've been "practicing" to get some of my timings down for build order preferences and eurekas
Click to expand...
D'oh! That is indeed still undecided. I'd prefer it, and we haven't heard any dissenting voices. If there's anyone who'd like to play on Online speed, now's the time to tell it. ;)

@krasny: Cool, I was afraid we'd lose yet another player. Looks like it's going to be 7 brave men in our shoot-out tomorrow. :D (Not that this game is meant to be all about warfare, but I'd like to see *some* at least.)
 
Quick speed is fine with me. :) And don't worry, we don't know each other in real life. We met each other pretty recently in Civ 6 multiplayer.
 
The game is now a mere 5 hours and 15 minutes away! :eek: Get ready to bow before Lord Peter, peasants! :D

A last-minute amendment to the war rules (in order to make dog-piling more risky): if you declare war on a Civ that is already engaged in a war with someone else, their conquest limit will be lifted when it comes to your cities (i.e. they can conquer all your cities with any government, if they want to). So it's the same rule as is in effect for betraying alliances. I will update the rule-sheet shortly, but in the meantime, heads up for everyone.

This rule is necessary, imo, because otherwise you could just wheel in like a vulture to the carcass, declaring war on an engaged Civ even without a formal alliance with the other Civ that's attacking them. In fact, it would be preferable under most circumstances, because then the rules concerning alliances would not apply to you, allowing you and the other attacker to take more cities. Ofc this problem remains even with the new rule; but I trust that it will be mitigated enough that it won't be a huge issue. If I'm wrong, we'll have to alter the war rules significantly for the next game. They're still very much a work in progress, because we have yet to fight any actual wars! :crazyeye: Hopefully(?) that will change somewhat with this game...

EDIT: A Large map or a Standard one with Low sea level might be the best, after all; I've been playing on Standard maps with 8 Civs in sp for a while now and sometimes they spawn very close together, leaving half the world almost empty. With a larger map, everyone will have more space and chances are that we can all plant a good amount of cities. Also, the current conquest limits might fit a larger map just a bit better, especially if there will be many war alliances.

EDIT2: Also, Quick speed is locked in now as the play speed, as no one has complained about it. On a larger map, it's a virtual necessity, because the low movement rate of units means that on Online speed they will become obsolete before reaching their target. :crazyeye:
 
Last edited:
TeraHammer said:
Change my tentative into: For sure!

Also, I think I would like to play sea-loving England instead actually, can you change my civ please? Thanks!
Click to expand...
Consider it done. ;)

3 hours to go now! Hopefully all of our players can make it; if not, then a Standard sized map might work after all.
 
1 hour to go now. I'll put up the lobby and start whisping people in 30 minutes, so we can start when the clock hits zero. :)
 
That is a possibility, yes. Isn't religious *victory* impossible in mp, though? Since you can just kill the apostles and missionaries and prevent it that way. ... Or is that precisely what you meant by 'religious conflict'? :eek::mischief:
In that case you can rest assured: Russian missionaries will not be infringing on foreign borders. They'll have plenty of converting to do at home, to make sure the Russian people are properly inspired to build up their great culture. ;)

Should someone convert our cities, though, perhaps their bodies will in turn be converted... To atoms. :D
 
"Religion-based" meaning that a carpet of apostles is usually enough to trigger a war... and the civs I mentioned in my observation are the best at getting religions. Arabian apostles are usually followed by a secondary carpet of.... mamluks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
new player looking for a game
Replies
0
Views
472
YSMaster
Y
A
multiplayer game by cloud looking for players
Replies
0
Views
1K
Ant33
A
C
Looking for serious adult players to play by cloud game
Replies
0
Views
905
Cocos
C
The_J
New indie game release: Empires Shall Fall
Replies
0
Views
262
The_J
The_J
Blake00
Steam & GoG Christmas sales for Civ fans!
Replies
1
Views
769
The_J
The_J
Top Bottom