Double-Civ Setup?

[remake20]

It looked like a good amount of people wanted to try this, but I wanted to see for myself. If you don't know what this is it means each team has to civs that are teamed together. One advantage is having increased (but not much) research which would also speed up the game and you could probably think of others.

EDIT: Here are somethings that Lord Parkin told me to add.

The major interesting point of a double-civ setup - which was missed in the first post - is that you get to have two unique units, two unique buildings, up to four starting techs, and up to four traits. Thus you get the opportunity to tailor your team much more to your tastes.

Will you spread out your unique units, having one strong UU in the ancient times and the other UU in the mid-game? Or will you have both UU's arriving at the same point in the game, for some truly potent stacks?

Will you choose a range of traits to be an all-around decent civ, or emphasize just a few economic or military traits to be a powerhouse in one area?

Will you deliberately ensure that you get four starting techs at all other expenses, or will you accept some overlap between your two leaders' techs in exchange for an excellent UU or trait combination?

Personally I think it's a great idea to introduce some variety and excitement into the usual demogame format, without venturing into completely unfamiliar territory.

 

[BLubmuz]

I voted yes, since this can be a nice variant. But we need a larger map, since if we have 6 competing teams we need 12 civs.

Probably a tectonics Earthlike map can host 12 different Civs even if small.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Voted "No, but with some other variation", but would go with the old format as well. Just not a fan of the team set-up, think it will bring more complications than fun.

 

[Lord Parkin]

The major interesting point of a double-civ setup - which was missed in the first post - is that you get to have two unique units, two unique buildings, up to four starting techs, and up to four traits. Thus you get the opportunity to tailor your team much more to your tastes.

Will you spread out your unique units, having one strong UU in the ancient times and the other UU in the mid-game? Or will you have both UU's arriving at the same point in the game, for some truly potent stacks?

Will you choose a range of traits to be an all-around decent civ, or emphasize just a few economic or military traits to be a powerhouse in one area?

Will you deliberately ensure that you get four starting techs at all other expenses, or will you accept some overlap between your two leaders' techs in exchange for an excellent UU or trait combination?

Personally I think it's a great idea to introduce some variety and excitement into the usual demogame format, without venturing into completely unfamiliar territory.

Check out my own write-up of a multiplayer team game for an idea of what it's like.

 

[slaze]

Stupid, stupid idea to have 2 civs. People lose interest because their civ gets crippled and this makes this doubly likely to happen. 2 civs are essentially one civ starting with 2 cities. Why don't you just build a second city. It also puts more pressure on map maker with grouping starting locations etc

 

[Indiansmoke]

Stupid, stupid idea to have 2 civs. People lose interest because their civ gets crippled and this makes this doubly likely to happen. 2 civs are essentially one civ starting with 2 cities. Why don't you just build a second city. It also puts more pressure on map maker with grouping starting locations etc

If you don't understand something it does not mean it is stupid!

The idea is great, having 2 civs is tottaly different from 2 cities and opens up lots of new strategic possibilities, if someone will get crippled it will happen with one or 2 civs so that is not a critiria, the only thing that needs care IMO is the map placement for the2 civs.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Stupid, stupid idea...

Ouch, Harsh... Calling someones idea "stupid" (or "silly" for that matter) might start a flame war.(I learned alot about this on team Kaz in the last MTDG) And afterall it is basically the same as just saying... I am against/don't like that idea.

I am much more interested in the reasons someone does not like (or likes) an idea... BTW I think slaze had some good reasons... I am also concerned that 2 civs/leaders will make turnplaying more complicated and time-consuming than it already is... 2 sets of screenshots to make, double the micro to keep track of... double everything...

However, that is also why the idea is intriguing... I will play either way, so I am just more interested in the pros-cons.

If we end up doing 2 leaders, can I play with Julius Ceasar and Augustus Caesar?

 

[CommandoBob]

(This is nagging at me.)

If we do this setup, how do we play the turns?

Would it be:

• Team 1 Civ A
• Team 1 Civ B
• Team 2 Civ A
• Team 2 Civ B
• Team 3 Civ A
• Team 3 Civ B
• Team 4 Civ A
• Team 4 Civ B

or

• Team 1 Civ A
• Team 2 Civ A
• Team 3 Civ A
• Team 4 Civ A
• Team 1 Civ B
• Team 2 Civ B
• Team 3 Civ B
• Team 4 Civ B

or

• Team 1 Civ A and Civ B
• Team 2 Civ A and Civ B
• Team 3 Civ A and Civ B
• Team 4 Civ A and Civ B

This last one assumes that the turnplayer could move a unit in Civ A, move a unit in Civ B and then come back to move another unit in Civ A, which may not be possible.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hmmm... That is interesting... Now we having goooood conversation...

If I am the turnplayer for Team 1, won't I have to log in to play for team A, and then log out, and then log back in to play as team B?

If I am co-operatively roading somewhere... to attack a rival civ for example. Can I log in and build a road with my two A-Team workers then log-out...
then log-in to B-team and move two B-team workers on the road A-team just built to a tile fruther ahead...
then use the 2 B- Team workers to build another 1-turn road, then log out,
then log in to A-team and move my A-Team catapults along the road to colateral damage an enemy then log out
then log in to B-team and move my B-Team Praetorians along the road to finish off the enemy?

Also, if we are playing simultaneous turns, does the rival team have to sit and watch me do this before they can act, or can they counter-attack my workers/catas while I am busy logging in and out? Is it just a matter of who can log in and out the fastest?

 

[remake20]

I'm kind of against the simultaneous tuns idea, because of the double move. eg. Last team to finish turn moves a until. Then at the start of the next turn move again. That way move 2 spaces before anyone can act. And if you have a knight that is 4 (or is it 6) spaces before someone can act.

 

[DaveMcW]

Double-Civ should be playtested in a demogame against AIs before being used in a multi-team demogame.

 

[remake20]

I don't see how that would help?

 

[Indiansmoke]

Double-Civ should be playtested in a demogame against AIs before being used in a multi-team demogame.

...why?

 

[Indiansmoke]

(This is nagging at me.)

If we do this setup, how do we play the turns?

Would it be:

• Team 1 Civ A
• Team 1 Civ B
• Team 2 Civ A
• Team 2 Civ B
• Team 3 Civ A
• Team 3 Civ B
• Team 4 Civ A
• Team 4 Civ B

or

• Team 1 Civ A
• Team 2 Civ A
• Team 3 Civ A
• Team 4 Civ A
• Team 1 Civ B
• Team 2 Civ B
• Team 3 Civ B
• Team 4 Civ B

or

• Team 1 Civ A and Civ B
• Team 2 Civ A and Civ B
• Team 3 Civ A and Civ B
• Team 4 Civ A and Civ B

This last one assumes that the turnplayer could move a unit in Civ A, move a unit in Civ B and then come back to move another unit in Civ A, which may not be possible.

I guess it would be first option if non simul turns...if simul it does not matter.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I guess it would be first option if non simul turns...if simul it does not matter.

Then in a War on simultaneous turns, can I move both my teams before my opponent moves either of theirs? Or do I have to move one team and then wait for them to move one of their teams?

If I can only move one team at a time in War... Do I have to always start with the team who moved first in the war or can I move first with either of my teams as long as I don't move them both"

Or is it just a race to see who can move the 1st team, log out, log in with the 2nd team, and then move again the fastest.

I will play regardless of which rule we use, but I would prefer the rule is established before the game rather than during the game.

 

[remake20]

I think we need seq turns.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

or can I move first with either of my teams as long as I don't move them both

No. At the start of the war, a play order is defined by how people/team log in. Then you must keep this order for every turn the war goes on. Just that. It's avoid 4 space moving knights for intance. It's quite easy to do (cheating, ie double moving is easily spotted) provided the timer is not too short (otherwise people can have trouble coordinating). It does speed up the game a lot.

edit: I do realize that your question is about double civ team and simultaneous, but I don't think that change things... the first order of play must be preserved to avoid double move issues (and really, a team which is about to attack WILL coordinate its play order, so you are likely to end up with an order like: Attacking team civ1 -> Attacking team civ2 -> defending team civ1 -> defending team civ2...)

 

[Lord Parkin]

(This is nagging at me.)

If we do this setup, how do we play the turns?

Would it be:

• Team 1 Civ A
• Team 1 Civ B
• Team 2 Civ A
• Team 2 Civ B
• Team 3 Civ A
• Team 3 Civ B
• Team 4 Civ A
• Team 4 Civ B

This seems by far the most obvious and intuitive way of arranging the order of play, regardless of whether we end up having simultaneous or sequential turns. Let the turn player for each team play both moves together during a single online period - it saves so much hassle and confusion later on.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Stupid, stupid idea to have 2 civs.

So you'd prefer not to play this particular variant. There's absolutely no reason to start throwing personal insults around.

People lose interest because their civ gets crippled and this makes this doubly likely to happen.

Not true. We still have the same number of teams (give or take one) as the previous game. What you state would only be true if there were double the number of teams.

In fact the reverse to what you state may even be true for the planned setup, because if one of the civs on a team is decimated then (depending on the map layout) they may well have a second civ which can still do fine by itself. Especially since if one civ on a team is killed, the other gets a research bonus (-33% cost from before) which compensates slightly for the lost research from the second civ.

2 civs are essentially one civ starting with 2 cities. Why don't you just build a second city.

This is not true. You are probably unfamiliar with how a "teamed" game works. May I suggest you check out the link I provided in my post above yours.

It also puts more pressure on map maker with grouping starting locations etc

Pressure on the map maker? What pressure? It's not that hard to craft a map with 8 or 12 starting locations. Why would this even be a factor in your argument?

Double-Civ should be playtested in a demogame against AIs before being used in a multi-team demogame.

I see no reason for doing this at all. Many of the members here have tried team games themselves before, and those who haven't can easily and intuitively grasp how it works. There is no fundamental difference from the "normal" game. You just get two UU's, two UB's, and more options on trait and tech combinations. Aside from that, a "teamed" game basically plays as a regular game. It's really just a bit of flavour to make things more interesting.

 

[remake20]

Again, I'm with you LP. I think it's a great idea!