Actually I thought you would concede much earlier. So, yes, very well played and made life tough for me much longer than I had thought.
Considering starting a PTBS 24 hr game based on Earth 1000 AD
- Thread starter Arckon
- Start date
- Status
Actually I thought you would concede much earlier. So, yes, very well played and made life tough for me much longer than I had thought.
JMaltman
Prince
While on one hand this is a very good and exciting game... on the other hand I think that it quickly veered off the original intention - which was to try and preserve a 24 player on Earth experiment for a good amount of time.
But because of the timing of the patch, and quite a number of early drop-outs/mix-ups, I think things got even more unbalanced early than we might have expected.
If we're continuing - then I vote for Arckon to assist with Rome for the interim - and if possible, get some e-mail instructions from the new guy.
But because of the timing of the patch, and quite a number of early drop-outs/mix-ups, I think things got even more unbalanced early than we might have expected.
If we're continuing - then I vote for Arckon to assist with Rome for the interim - and if possible, get some e-mail instructions from the new guy.
I dont mind filling in for Rome, but I dont want JMaltmans friend to stay out if he would play it and if my friend Steven Stout feels uncomfortable in that civ with so much going on.
I think the preferable solution would be for JMaltmans friend to take Rome, if he can, and let Stout play something else, maybe Russia.
But I will fill in as best I can and I will get Stout's approval on any deals offered.
As to the patch: I have heard some say that the saved game is dependant on the mod so that if you patch the mod its like having a different mod and the saved game wont load up. So if I patch, it seems like we lose the saved game. but we are losing so many potential players, it almsot seems worth it to start over.
But its up to everyone else.
Also, IanDC, I am going to play Rome before you on the turns since you went after Rome on the prior two turns, ok?
I agree with all you said here.
I just dont want to risk losing the saved game by pathcing unless everyone agrees to do it.
richm
Warlord
As I am currently at war with DanDridge these are difficult questions to answer and I don't wish to appear as I am running away from a fight but when one player starts playing two civ's then it is time to reconsider where we are going in this game.
I would support a restart.
I would support a restart.
crazyjoe0813
Warlord
Is there a version of this mod for the patched version of Warlords yet? If so I'd be more than happy to take over whatever remains of the Korean Empire... I had to drop out because of the lack of patch compatibility with this mod...
Not that I'd expect some kind of conspiracy, but this sound a little suspicious, since JMaltman's Mali has been in war against me (Persia) for hundrerds of years... Rome just would be a good parter for him...
Yes, there is an updated patched version of the mod, but would our saves work with it? That is the key question.
I would be in agreement to patch the server, load the updated patched mod, then see if the saves still work and restart the whole shebang if they dont.
But I would like to see a majority solidly behind that first. In case of a restart, I think we should agree to declare DanDRidge the winner as he has been leading the game for the longest time.
Me playing the other civ is only till Steven can take over or untill JMaltmans friend can enter the game. If he gets the old copy of the Earth24 mod he might be able to.
Not that I'd expect some kind of conspiracy, but this sound a little suspicious, since JMaltman's Mali has been in war against me (Persia) for hundrerds of years... Rome just would be a good parter for him...
Well, I can understand your misgivings, but I dont think that they apply for the following reasons:
1) Englands war with Rome is going to tie down Roman troops for the longest time, probably another 12-15 turns minimum IF Rome even survives, which is seriously in question. So no matter who takes over Rome, they wont be attacking Persia for a long time, if EVER.
2) Even after peace ensues with England, Rome will have to keep the bulk of her forces 'facing' England and would only be able to give half-hearted support to any war on Persia.
3) No matter who played Rome, the 'King of the Hill' strategem would tend to make anyone wary of continued Persian advance in technology/power/etc.
4) Rome was originally played by a fairly competent player from what I saw. That he had to retire was a windfall for Persia, effectively removing Persia's closest rival from the game as the incredibly BAD computer AI was then placed in charge. For a human player to take over Rome merely ends this crippling of Rome a little early to MAYBE do things that the Roman player would have been doing otherwise for much longer than they would be now.
So while I understand your misgivings, DanD, I really think that returning Rome to player control is really in the best interest of the game's overall integrity. As it is now, it just feels broken to me.
With all the time we invested in this game so far it would be a pity to just end it (especially now that Agemo finally resigned and I am at war with an AI instead of a real player 
)
However, we could start a second game right away with 24 players. Lets see how long we can continue with 24 this time. I'd be in.
)However, we could start a second game right away with 24 players. Lets see how long we can continue with 24 this time. I'd be in.
JMaltman
Prince
How about this?
We start recruiting for the next game now - but continue this one for a while?
As for "my friend" taking over Rome - I tried to get him in because he's a competent player. He may be a friend, but he'd throw me to the wolves if it was in his interests.
And at the time I initially attacked, and the AI Rome was fighting you as well, if that had been a human, you would have been in trouble. But you managed to buy him off and then he started his pointless foray through my open borders to the Zulus instead.
We start recruiting for the next game now - but continue this one for a while?
As for "my friend" taking over Rome - I tried to get him in because he's a competent player. He may be a friend, but he'd throw me to the wolves if it was in his interests.
And at the time I initially attacked, and the AI Rome was fighting you as well, if that had been a human, you would have been in trouble. But you managed to buy him off and then he started his pointless foray through my open borders to the Zulus instead.
Well, I'll start working on a new scenario with a better map.
Then I'll email it to the current players and post it to Civfanatics.
If the current game doesnt look like its going to get more competitive, we can try to patch the game and see if the save still works with the patched mod.
If not, then we start the new scenario.
Hows that sound?
Then I'll email it to the current players and post it to Civfanatics.
If the current game doesnt look like its going to get more competitive, we can try to patch the game and see if the save still works with the patched mod.
If not, then we start the new scenario.
Hows that sound?
Well, maybe a human player wouldn't have started a desperate war against Persia in the first place.
Don't give up now...
IanDC
Prince
Having trouble getting connected & civstats appears to have lost the plot a bit
Edit - got on but it was very slow.
Edit - got on but it was very slow.
richm
Warlord
I have repeatedly tried to log in with no luck. I am unable to connect to host for the 2nd time today at 8 hrs apart. The 2nd time I did connect but it loaded so slowly eventually it said lost connection to host. I won't try to connect again today and will miss my turn.
- Status
