Considering starting a PTBS 24 hr game based on Earth 1000 AD

[IanDC]

Connected fine this morning, had to do my turn again though.

 

[JMaltman]

Spike and I were both on this morning.

 

[JMaltman]

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?

What's the status on this?

 

[Johnhs]

I noted that the intention is that, if you have to totally restart, to do so with the original players. Now, I did try and join originally but all slots were already taken.
So, if any of the original players can't/don't want to restart, I would still like to join.

I am known as Firefox in the games I play in. Those of you that have/are playing with me, can testify that I am reliable and do stick with a Civ until the bitter end.

 

[Arckon]

What's the status on this?

I have found a map that I like. Since one of the advantages of doing a pitboss is that you can make the map HUGE, I think I want to start with a larger map this time.

Also, I am going to upload the scenario to CivFanatics and let people take a look at it before starting and I may revise it based on the feedback.

I am thinking for the game start, we just let people login and grab a civ, first come-first served when it goes live.

I'll wait for 12 hours to give everyone a chance to pick civs, then make my pick. I will take the last one left if all the rest get picked, lol.

Johnhs, you are more than welcome and anyone else also.


Everyone should let me know what they think about these things and see where the discussion goes.

 

[JMaltman]

I have found a map that I like. Since one of the advantages of doing a pitboss is that you can make the map HUGE, I think I want to start with a larger map this time.

Also, I am going to upload the scenario to CivFanatics and let people take a look at it before starting and I may revise it based on the feedback.

I am thinking for the game start, we just let people login and grab a civ, first come-first served when it goes live.

I'll wait for 12 hours to give everyone a chance to pick civs, then make my pick. I will take the last one left if all the rest get picked, lol.

Johnhs, you are more than welcome and anyone else also.


Everyone should let me know what they think about these things and see where the discussion goes.

The Earth thing was neat, but without everyone getting claimed, and with the natural clumpage of nations and unbalanced starts... it was more neat that fair.

And the no razing cities was very weird... and made me not want to kill the Egyptians when I could (and maybe should) have in their stupid runt city.

What kind of a massive map are you thinking? And how many players this time around?

 

[Johnhs]

@Arckon: Tks vm.

This might be self-evident to most but I think it should be re-itterated. Players must not enter into a HUGE map game if they are not absolutely certain their hardware can handle such a game.

Very frustarting if players start dropping out just when things get interesting.

 

[Arckon]

The Earth thing was neat, but without everyone getting claimed, and with the natural clumpage of nations and unbalanced starts... it was more neat that fair.

I am going to try and make the initial start fair in terms of starting access to copper, having enough grain production to have growing cities, and numbers of opponents (filling in with barbarians or poor terrain where few players border).

I think I will put 5 civs in the Americas this time and thin out Europe a bit. Also, since historically the Eyptians, Vikings and Chinese very likely had landed in America before Columbus, there will definately be mid-ocean paths to get between the continents using galleys.

And the no razing cities was very weird... and made me not want to kill the Egyptians when I could (and maybe should) have in their stupid runt city.

Well, it seems that there are enough negative factors in having a number of civs in proximity (like unceasing warfare) so that allowing cities to be entirely destroyed just seemed excessive.

What kind of a massive map are you thinking? And how many players this time around?

Something with about 1.5 or 2.0 times the dimensions of Europe. Probably some combination of distorting Europe larger and using a larger scale map.

@Arckon: Tks vm.

no problemo

This might be self-evident to most but I think it should be re-itterated. Players must not enter into a HUGE map game if they are not absolutely certain their hardware can handle such a game.

Hmmm, I was thinking that anyone able to run Warlords should have enough RAM to handle a HUGE map.

Most of the churn is going to occur on the pitboss, but it seems some things are done at the client level too.

Anyone not able to run a HUGE map?

Very frustarting if players start dropping out just when things get interesting.

Agreed. I would rather have a large map if using a HUGE map causes some to not be able to play.

 

[JMaltman]

Actually I was less worried about access to resources as being unbalanced - more that the uneven distribution of AI's and proximity to other Civs and barbs caused things to be more unbalanced. Some people had lots of room to expand to unchecked, others had room - but filled with jungle or mountains, and others had a lot of cruddy AIs crammed in next to them.

We might be better off thinning out the civs in Europe, especially if there will be too many AIs.

 

[IanDC]

Can't connect just now.

I'd be against galley passages to the Americas, if your doing that leave out the Americas & enlarge the rest of the map.

 

[JMaltman]

Can't connect just now.

I'd be against galley passages to the Americas, if your doing that leave out the Americas & enlarge the rest of the map.

And realistically, the Caravel+Explorer+Missionary style early contact is not unreasonable anyway.

 

[Arckon]

Can't connect just now.

I'd be against galley passages to the Americas, if your doing that leave out the Americas & enlarge the rest of the map.

I see you logged on since this message. The connectivity thing is annoying; have no idea why you couldnt log on.

As to the galley thing, why do you feel this way? Is it historical realism? Play balance? The idea is to have some kind of semblence to the historical positions and such, like the Aztecs coming out of Mexicao and so forth, but not make it so historical that a well played American civ has no chance.

Having played as the Incas this first game, I was honestly pretty bored with most of my turns since so few civs were in contact with me. It was just build, build, build, build, etc.

So I thought 5 Americans civs (Celts and Carthaginians added) with the possibility of galley travel between the hemispheres might keep it interesting for the American civ players.

And realistically, the Caravel+Explorer+Missionary style early contact is not unreasonable anyway.

Well, it didnt happen that way historically, so I am not sure how 'reasonable' it is to lock the American civs away from the rest of the world for the first 3500 years of game play.

It has been proven that the Egyptians could have made it to the Americas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra

The Chinese did
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2003/01/07/menzies/print.html

And the Vikings did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Viking_expansion.png

Polynesians could have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl

...and maybe the Phoenecians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia


So why isolate the American civs for so long just because that is how it happened to occur historically? It could have been different and isnt that part of the fun of playing games like civilization?

If we have an empty America, civs on the west end of Eurasia have a distinct advantage.

If we put no possible passage in, then the American civs will be backwards in comparison to the Eurasian civs as the game develops.

So why isolate them in this way?

It makes no sense to me.

 

[IanDC]

As to the galley thing, why do you feel this way? Is it historical realism? Play balance?

Both really

The historical side -

Egyptians/ Polynesians/ Pheonecians - might have got there but since they don't appear to have returned & tell anyone it doesn't count as contact - "if you don't write it down it never happened"

Chinese - this looks totally unsupported but is 1421 anyway.

Vikings - The best made case of them all but still looks like 10th/11th century.

None of these support a historical case for having meaningful contact with the americas before the invention of a decent ocean going ship.

Play balance -
All civs in this scenario have their unique problems (some more than others) & benefits, the americas have space to develop & security on the plus side the down side is slower tech since they have no early contacts to bring the tech price down. If you give them the contacts from the start they will have space, security & tech. I can see they can be slow to play which is why I'd say my solution is to cut the americas out of the map - west from Europe/Africa brings you to the Indies (as per the original mission plan ) you can then widen the remains of the map to balance things better & either play it with 21 civs or place 3 extras if you want to keep 24.

 

[Arckon]

Both really

The historical side -

Egyptians/ Polynesians/ Pheonecians - might have got there but since they don't appear to have returned & tell anyone it doesn't count as contact - "if you don't write it down it never happened"

Chinese - this looks totally unsupported but is 1421 anyway.

Vikings - The best made case of them all but still looks like 10th/11th century.

None of these support a historical case for having meaningful contact with the americas before the invention of a decent ocean going ship.

Heheh, this sounds like its turning into one of those 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' things that usually end up in an unresolved agree-to-disagree state.

My point about the possible prior contacts is that they were all done before Columbus discovered how to use astronomical data to determine latitude and longitude which is the essence of modern navigation (well, it started there anyway).

But the technical means and knowledge to get to the Americas prior to that was there. The Vikings did it by hugging the coastlines.

The Polynesians likely did it (settling most south Pacific islands anyway) by using knowledge of the sea, like clouds gather around islands, using known areas where specific types of fish are found/predominate, etc to find their way around on the open ocean.

The Chinese are thought to have reached the Americas before Columbus using essentially the same coastline hugging methods the Vikings used, and that the Polunesians and Egyptians were known to have used also, though their is little evidence that the last two actually did reach the Americas.

The point is all these cases prove that it should not be required to have Optics to get to the Americas, though it sure makes it easier.

Play balance -
All civs in this scenario have their unique problems (some more than others) & benefits, the americas have space to develop & security on the plus side the down side is slower tech since they have no early contacts to bring the tech price down. If you give them the contacts from the start they will have space, security & tech.

Having 5 civs in the Americas, one is in has a much better prescription for war than when having merely three as they are more crowded in. So I think that the Americas would be doing more fighting than simply building, thus I dont think they are as secure in that arrangement as you seem to think. Also, if contact was made, it is only one civ at a time. In our current game I still dont have contact with the Russians and Mongolians, so it takes time and effort to develop all those contacts. Meanwhile the Eastern Hemisphere has long had contact with large numbers of civilizations.

So, I think there is no real security (only takes one enemy civ to keep you building units instead of improvements/buildings), much less room for expansion, and the contact with other civs is still a gradual, resource consuming thing that has to be developed slowly as you catch up to the Old World civs.

I can see they can be slow to play which is why I'd say my solution is to cut the americas out of the map - west from Europe/Africa brings you to the Indies (as per the original mission plan ) you can then widen the remains of the map to balance things better & either play it with 21 civs or place 3 extras if you want to keep 24.

Cutting out the Americas leaves no modern era in terms of the changes that took place after the discovery of the Americas. Western Europe became so much more strategically placed after 1492, with better access to trade routes and various corners of the globe as a consequence. Without the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe remains a backwater of Euroasia and it sort of spoils the whole historical drama to me of that shift in the power center that took place from the Middle East to the Atlantic Coast.

And placing the three Americans civs in Eurasia doesnt seem fun either. Aztecs starting in China, Africa and/or Europe just seems wrong to me. Celts and Carthaginians in the Americas is far more palatable to my sensabilites.

So, I really dislike the idea of cutting out the Americas altogether.

But I promise you this; I wont be taking an American civ the next game. That will be an easy promise to keep, lol.

 

[Dandridge]

I think you should also avoid putting those barbarian cities here and there in the map. They just help the civs near them by giving free cities and promotions to the units.

 

[JMaltman]

I think you should also avoid putting those barbarian cities here and there in the map. They just help the civs near them by giving free cities and promotions to the units.

I agree with that too.

You could turn on normal (or even raging!) barbarians, for the few spots where they'll be able to pop up. But since there's no city razing, it makes it much more deterministic where your next city sites will be.

And furthermore Arckon - obviously the game of Civ is abstracted... so a few Polynesian outrigger canoes, or Viking longboats, or a single Chinese exploration mission does not constitute the scale of operation of a settler+galleon. The game dynamics don't prevent someone from beelining to get caravels to make the contact.

And I think we should randomize who gets what Civ. That way you can feel cheated by random numbers, but not by a first come first served strategic situation. Give everyone a random number, and then that's the slot from the top that they're assigned by you.

 

[Arckon]

I think you should also avoid putting those barbarian cities here and there in the map. They just help the civs near them by giving free cities and promotions to the units.

I agree with that too.

You could turn on normal (or even raging!) barbarians, for the few spots where they'll be able to pop up. But since there's no city razing, it makes it much more deterministic where your next city sites will be.

By what factor were there too many barbarian cities in the current scenario?

I think doing about a third of what we ahve now with Raging Barbarians would be cool too.

It seems that AI civ put out cities in the wierdest places and I was hoping to minimize this with the barbarian cities and also represent the neutral minor nations that *were* near major powers and subject to conquest.

But I can cut back on them easily enough; its actually less effort, lol.

And furthermore Arckon - obviously the game of Civ is abstracted... so a few Polynesian outrigger canoes, or Viking longboats, or a single Chinese exploration mission does not constitute the scale of operation of a settler+galleon. The game dynamics don't prevent someone from beelining to get caravels to make the contact.

I am not going to insist on the galley accessability, but I just see no reason to impose this artificial constraint; not playability, realism or anything else.

But if everyone wants the Americas isolated, it is no big deal. But I cant help but wonder how many insisting on an isolated American hemisphere plan to actually start there. Doubt its anyone.

And I think we should randomize who gets what Civ. That way you can feel cheated by random numbers, but not by a first come first served strategic situation. Give everyone a random number, and then that's the slot from the top that they're assigned by you.

LOL, no way. People pick their preferences because they like to play certain civs and not others.

Hopefully, all the civs will be claimed by someone anyway.

 

[Arckon]

All Hail the New Ceasar!

Ceasar Conquistador!

 

[Conquistador45]

I thought since I just died, (as the Aztec`s), and I have the mod and old version running, that it would be no problem to take another civ .

 

[Arckon]

I thought since I just died, (as the Aztec`s), and I have the mod and old version running, that it would be no problem to take another civ .

LOL, I am glad to see you take up the Roman mantle.

Rome was too big a player to go AI.

Now we have a hard core 8 players that look like they will hang in for some time.