classical_hero
In whom I trust
I like Emp's suggestion on team, but I think we should have eight separate teams and there be four teams of two where two nations are linked together.
Sounds interesting, I like all of those ideas. I also like the idea of having 2-4 continents connected by coast this time around, and some extra islands out in the ocean to reward those who want to go out settling early. (Joao got a little hard done by with his UU in the previous map, in that respect.) I'm sure the map maker will be able to provide us with something unpredictable and interesting, though!Maybe the map could be designed in a way that gives every team a close source of stone AND marble = Fun wonder races, More wonder building, and less early rushing.
If AIs were included, maybe we could all agree not to tech-trade with the AI, but tech trading with other Teams would be allowed. Or maybe the AIs could all be locked onto one team or AI alliance.
Or maybe there could be a large Barbarian civ with cities placed between each human team. That would make trade with the AI impossible and therefore policing would be unnecessary. The cities could be placed at extremely poor locations to make sure that human players would raze them instead of capturing them.
I did think of that option... but I reckon it'd just end up being a pain having two separate forums for discussions which need to be linked all the time. (E.g. what to research, how to work out city placement together - since the two civs on each team will likely be starting so close - and so on.)I like Emp's suggestion on team, but I think we should have eight separate teams and there be four teams of two where two nations are linked together.
As to our relatively small number of posts... we were actually pretty good in the early game. It was towards the later game quite a few of us in Saturn became fairly busy around the same time, which didn't help in our activity. It also probably didn't help that it didn't look like we were going to have any chance in this game for a portion of the mid-game, which possibly turned some people off. However, in the early game things certainly worked really well between us, and I'd do it the same way next time.
I do think that having fewer, shorter threads did help focus discussion though - largely for the reason that it's much easier to subscribe to a single thread and get email notifications of every new post, than to have to remember to zoom out to the forum level and check for new threads all the time. I certainly remember several times where I'd get an email, check a thread, make a post, and then log out - without realising that someone had started a new topic on some random matter. And yes, I'm aware that you can subscribe to whole forums, but it's awkward - for one thing it doesn't give instant notifications, only daily ones.
So I don't know about everyone else, but for me at least it was good to have most of our discussions focussed in a few huge threads. (In fact, our two biggest threads had well over 1000 posts each, and accounted for over half of our total posts! )
Oh, that reminds me - one other thing that really stimulated our forum activity during the long turn delays (which are fairly unavoidable at some point in these games) was our intra-team pitboss game. That game was not only great for learning multiplayer strategy for many of our team members, but it was also awesome fun for everyone participating too. I'd definitely recommend that all teams have at least one intra-team game next time around - it really helps add to the fun, not to mention the forum activity!
..., ...I abhor fixed rules and polls for making team decisions.
I don't think we have to have ridiculously food-rich starts. I just think that all of the starts should be balanced with respect to food (and hammers/commerce, of course). As long as all teams are on the same footing, it doesn't bother me. Although it'd be nice to have a bit more than a Crab and a plains-hill-Sheep next time.3. Lord Parkin (and Saturn) did not like their low-food start... so we make sure everyone has a food-rich start... Maybe just give all the Civs multiple seafood and multiple land-food at their starting locations (maybe throw in some close marble and stone too).
I'm okay with gifting a border city or two, but gifting an entire empire should probably be discouraged. Having a "No-Quit" rule seems a bit silly though... if people really don't want to play anymore, they won't. A rule saying they can't quit won't stop them doing so.4. City-gifting and Teams quitting ended the game... so we have a No-city-gifting, and No-Quit rule.
No brokering actually doesn't help anything (allies can still gift all their new discoveries to their partners), and slower game speeds actually make things worse with respect to tech alliances, because a military technological edge will last over far more turns and thus be far more lethal to the non-alliance member.5. Lord Parkin was discouraged that tech alliances put teams (Cav, Kaz, and MS) too far ahead in tech before other teams (Saturn, SANCTA) had any real chance to establish trading partners... So maybe play at a lower speed (Marathon or Epic) to make tech advancement slower, and use the "No-brokering" setting, to slow tech advancement and to preserve tech-monopoly trading advantages?
I'm not against playing Epic speed, although I'm not sure how keen other people will be. I know a longer game isn't everyone's cup of tea. I do think Marathon might be a bit much though. Normal speed games already last 1-2 years... with 3 times the turns that'd be 4-6 years. Will anyone still be around to play in 2016, when Civ V will have been out for 3-4 years and Civ VI will be on the horizon?What about having the next game set to a slower speed like Epic or Marathon. That way we would get alot more bang-for-the-buck with units, because it will take a long time for them to become obsolete.
Playing on Epic (or Marathon) speed would also stretch out the Early game longer... Folks have already commented about liking the early game more than the late game.
If everyone has a super-sized starting location, everyone will start the game with a super-positive attitude about their Civ, and there will be less early quitting.I don't think we have to have ridiculously food-rich starts.
Well...not neccessarily. First of all, I was talking mostly about turnplayers, not lurkers. I think if turnplayers commit up-front not to quit, and play to the end (or find a sub), they will honor their word. I read the Civ 4 ladder rules, and they basically ban quitters. Maybe we could do the same... ban folks who quit from turnplaying in future MTDGs... just an ideaHaving a "No-Quit" rule seems a bit silly though... A rule saying they can't quit won't stop them doing so.
There isn't anyway of simply stopping tech alliances from forming, short of adding out of game rules like allowing contact between all civs from turn 0, making a limit on the amount of techs each team can trade, or the amount of time each tech itself can be traded.
In small games of 5 players or less the diplomacy aspect of the game is a major unbalancing feature, and there isn't an easy way for the map maker to balance it...
That is so not right. First is losing interest then ...4. City-gifting and Teams quitting ended the game... so we have a No-city-gifting, and No-Quit rule.
I alsoI for one, really liked that last game we played.
I think, there is no endgame in DGs, only in very few MPs.What about having the next game set to a slower speed like Epic or Marathon. That way we would get alot more bang-for-the-buck with units, because it will take a long time for them to become obsolete.
Playing on Epic (or Marathon) speed would also stretch out the Early game longer... Folks have already commented about liking the early game more than the late game.
This sets are imo only for SPs, so that the AI can't trade their boni best.There is low interest in diplo without tech-trade and diplo is teh important trait of DGs, that from me, who make no/few diplo.No Tech Trading generally prevents tech alliances from forming.
There isn't anyway of simply stopping tech alliances from forming, short of adding out of game rules like allowing contact between all civs from turn 0, making a limit on the amount of techs each team can trade, or the amount of time each tech itself can be traded.
In small games of 5 players or less the diplomacy aspect of the game is a major unbalancing feature, and there isn't an easy way for the map maker to balance it...