5 settlers game : seeking 7 players : Read for details!

[Narz]

Whats up my Civ II peoples?! I love MultiPlayer but the games, especially with six or seven players tend to be very slow. Also, I notice many of these games tend to be city-building contests. He who builds the most (and best) cities the quickest gains a huge advantage.

Of course I wouldn't waste your time with all these details that you probably already knew unless I had a solution!

Here it is, I've created a scenerio. The map is random (large world, small land mass, continents), I did not look at it. Here's what I did do. I gave each Civilization 5 settlers and 2 militia to start. I also made two small changes to the Rules.txt file, the first was eliminating the settlers unit from the game (i.e. : you can't build any new settlers), the second was making Engineers cost 200 shields (you still need Explosives to build them). So basically this is a builder's game, a slow deliberate (very deliberate) expansion is key here. Other than this it is a normal game. The only other change is : no goody huts.

There is only one house rule, one wonder for each Civ. The choice of which one is yours.

Because of the preciousness of each settler and each city I set the barbarian level to Villages Only. The difficulty level with be Diety, the moves and production will be normal.

Ideally I'd like to get seven players willing to meet once a week for about three hours (not too much to ask, right?). So who's down?

- Narz

Note : I will also post this on Apolyton.

 

[HawkHunter]

barbs are set to villages only & you say there is'nt gonna be any huts in the game HMMMMM so we wont to worry about barbarians huh

 

[atawa]

5 settlers is not a game, if you want fewer city's just adjust your riot factor.

 

[Narz]

5 settlers can be a game, any more cities than five with so many players and the game will not last long anyway... the moves will be long but its doubtful the game will even reach 1AD before everyone drops out...

Also, I don't like the riot factor, its just a nuscience, why not keep things simple?

So anyway, who's down?

- Narz

 

[Trev]

Interesting variation, I will be willing to give it a go, but as I have a very limiting schedule, please check on my availability before assuming I can play. Best time would be approx Sat 9am GMT.

There also will be some weekends in Dec/Jan I will not be available. Tends to be the time for holidays in Australia


ICQ is 168676967

 

[Narz]

Ok I changed the scenerio a bit. Here's the new deal :

Small map, every player on his own continent, five settlers, 2 warriors and one horseman to start. No more settlers may be built, after engineering is discovered engineers may be build but they cost 200 shields. Still no barbs and no huts. The small world virtually ensures an interesting game, players will be meeting each other quite early on!

For a smaller map like this I think the 5 settler-game will be quite interesting, it will make war more profitable (each city is much more valueble), but it will also make peace more profitable as well (5 cities in Democracy can produce much more than a warring Civilization stuck in Monarchy). Besides the one-wonder rule I will add just one more house-rule, no city-bribe. I'm sure everyone can understand the reason for this. It will be interesting to see how various types of players handle a game like this, whether they build five cities right away or "save" a couple of settlers for a rainy day on a land far away

I hope to attarct at least five players who are down to play the game until completion. Because of the small map and accelerated start (due to the 5 starting settler units) the game should progress much more quickly than your average MP game.

I have never played a complete game with more than three players so I hope that this can be my first. I have not been the most reliable player myself it the past but I will commit to this game (at least until Dec. 27th when I have to move, at that time I may have to put the game on hold for a couple weeks while I resettle). Looking forward to getting some players!

- Narz

 

[Pistrov]

Hi Narz,

Have you started this game yet or when are you going to?

 

[hartster2]

hey Narz good idea man, anyhow how have u been ive missed u man Ive been moving around the country side i think its ure turn in our chess game i was trying to check but my other password stuffed up anyhow we'll play soon email me man
hartster

 

[kolumbusus]

Oh man, u are making never ending game here, why? 7 players, large map, 1x1x?!?!?! when people suggest that kind of settings I wonder: Will this be their first mpg game? Although i think your proposal of 5 setts is worth of trying with some different settings: 50x50 map, 4 civs, no wonders at all, 2x2x, maybe 10 setts. Man that will make great war game, even better with 2 vs 2 team play, no mountain ciites. Let me know if u are interested,....
bye

 

[hartster2]

Kolumbusus...Sorry man i think you havr no real idea here man, no offence I think it sounds to me like you have never played a MPG 2x2 what the hell is that thats a beginer thing man, what?! cant you played a hard fought time consuming game where you have to use your Intellect and patience, its a reality thing man...and dont diss my buddies you ignorant freak
Hartster

 

[kolumbusus]

Ma intention was not to offence anybody, specially any of civers who had become really rear thing among gamers .
If u read my post again u ll notice that i agumented every word i said and I still stand behind what I have said! Large map itself make a game neverending, add more than 3 players and 1x1x settings and u and with really screwed up game, where noone will meet , before 1 AD or something,.....4 setts each means that your civs will be so far from one another, war is excluded totaly. so, theres a race for enginners and who gets them first will start to build like crazy , but with 200 shields needed u ll get one per 5 turns at start. Not to mention waiting time in your alone spot with no goddy huts exspansion is limited) u end with a game ehere u move your few units and micromanage 5 cities and then wait for 5-10 mins for your move. Later when someone gets engineers first he will start an expansion, because your civs will be totaly spread around the globe one will get huge tech advantage(with good capital and collosus wonder prob.) and will build start buildong engineers and cities like crazy. Imagine 6 players moving 3 or 4 units, while one is moving 20 units? it means 1 min x7+ 3mins x1 = 10 min waiting time!!! and most havent even get to engineers! when other get to engineers they will notice they lack to far behind ( 5 cities against likee 20 or 30) they will give up. So , conclusion is, :
1. map is to big (even madium map is to big for that kind of game)
2. theres to many players (i suggest 4 at most)
3. 1x1x settings make s game boring cos u wont meet noone before like 1000BC and produsction and trade is so limited that one that gets to engineers first can call it a win!
4. 5 settler game with like 50x50 map apllies to great war game with 4 players with 2x2x settings where noone gets to many cities and moves are not toooooooooooo slow.5. theres one way settings are interested for: if want peace and no war action, boring game with long moves and a feeling u are playing never ending game GO for it!

If u dont agree with that i want u to post your comments, BUT with arguments! With my experience I can say that what i posted is the most pobable scenario that game will evolve in. And I played alot believe me, prob. more than u ever will,.....
Bye

 

[FLQ.Storm]

simultaneous play makes quick games with reg options
but everybody should have the same internet speed, because the quicker players will get bored always waiting for the 56ks

Create a small map with 7 players, small land mass, continent, war will be present.

icq 81521163