Double Civs: Yes Or No?

[Lord Parkin]

One of the first things that needs to be decided is whether the teams are going to have 1 civ or 2 civs each. If you're not familiar with what it means to have "double civs", then read on. After you've finished reading, feel free to cast your vote above.

The major interesting point of a double-civ setup 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.

Once you understand what the double civ setup is, feel free to vote above for what you'd prefer. Leave a comment too if you wish.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Not surprisingly, as I was the one who originally proposed this variant, I'm all for it. To me it seems like it'd be an exciting and fun change to the standard game.

 

[champinoman]

Before I cast my vote I want to clarify something. Will the map maker be placing these 2 civs next to each other? or is it random distribution?

And how confident are we of the map makers being able to create even starts if we double the civs in the game?

 

[Lord Parkin]

I wouldn't worry too much about the even starts thing. If they can get six right, it isn't that hard to get another 6 right.

I'm fairly sure that if the double civs thing went ahead, the civs would be placed near to each other. Otherwise there'd be not much point in having double civs, because it'd just be like playing 2 different games at once until Optics/Astronomy, assuming they were on different continents. Regardless though, the placement of the two civs definitely wouldn't be random, it would have to be symmetrical - otherwise it'd be too unbalancing. For instance, if one team had both their civs start together and another had them split up, it'd be much easier for the former team to win a war against the latter.

 

[azzaman333]

It'll be balanced either way, so I wouldn't be worried about it.

 

[hell_hound]

I voted no, but I am open to both. I am slighlty concerned that it might slow the game down with everyone having twice as many things to argue about...

 

[fed1943]

Please just to check if I understood it right:
Sirius would start with two cities; one of them Leader A Civ X, other Leader B Civ Y; each city just could produce the things concerning its own ways, settlers too. Is it that?
And the Civs share automatically techs and resources or not?
BTW, I also voted no, but I'm open to change.

 

[AlphaShard]

I. Voted yes as I think it would be a fun varient for the game.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Please just to check if I understood it right:
Sirius would start with two cities; one of them Leader A Civ X, other Leader B Civ Y; each city just could produce the things concerning its own ways, settlers too. Is it that?

Yep, that's correct. Although it will be useful to use the two civs together (e.g. combined military stacks in wartime), as we'll be more powerful if we synergise our civs rather than if we play them individually.

And the Civs share automatically techs and resources or not?

Techs are researched together; resources must be traded separately (but of course you will always give any spare to your other civ). Other effects are shared line of sight (so you can see everything the other civ can see), and shared benefits from almost all wonders (e.g. Stonehenge gives extra culture to both leaders, Pyramids allows both leaders to switch into Representation if they desire).

BTW, I also voted no, but I'm open to change.

Okay, good to know.

 

[Irgy]

I voted yes in the other poll because I do like the idea, but I'm now coming around to the view that the game is going to be unusual enough already without doing something completely new in terms of these double civs at the same time. I won't be too upset either way though.

 

[pindicator]

I voted yes in the other poll because I do like the idea, but I'm now coming around to the view that the game is going to be unusual enough already without doing something completely new in terms of these double civs at the same time. I won't be too upset either way though.

Being new to multiplayer I think this echoes my feelings pretty accurately.

 

[champinoman]

Another thing to consider with the idea of double civs is that it is a lot easier to read the demographics and espionage screens against 5 enemy civs than 10 civs. Instantly each team has 2 cities making tracking an even bigger guessing game.

I think double civs makes the game more balanced for teams without big number crunchers as their skill is somewhat leveled out. Howe many people in our team are good with the demographics screen to the level of (or clsoe to) say, Sulla's demo game?

If we have some people able to run the complex numbers to track city builds then I think that 1 civ each is a better option. If we know that there are other teams that will beat us in this department then I'd lean towards 2 civs each to distort the numbers.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I don't usually bother to put much effort into analysing the demographics screens, as to me it's a lot of effort for very little (or no) useful information early on. I do keep an eye on GNP, MFG, food and soldiers though, as well as the populations of the top 5 cities. Not so much in terms of breaking down the numbers, but just keeping an eye on them and making sure we stay at or near the top of the pack. Much quicker to do, and almost as useful.

 

[Methos]

I voted yes, but it doesn't really matter to me. The oddity of a two-civ game does sound very intriguing.

 

[AlphaShard]

Another thing to consider with the idea of double civs is that it is a lot easier to read the demographics and espionage screens against 5 enemy civs than 10 civs. Instantly each team has 2 cities making tracking an even bigger guessing game.

I think double civs makes the game more balanced for teams without big number crunchers as their skill is somewhat leveled out. Howe many people in our team are good with the demographics screen to the level of (or clsoe to) say, Sulla's demo game?

If we have some people able to run the complex numbers to track city builds then I think that 1 civ each is a better option. If we know that there are other teams that will beat us in this department then I'd lean towards 2 civs each to distort the numbers.

It's not going to be THAT difficult when we have a over 24 hour timer. Come back with this when it's a 40 second timer, now THAT is hard.

I've already put forth my vote for double civs I do think it will be fun and challenging.

 

[BLubmuz]

I wouldn't worry too much about the even starts thing. If they can get six right, it isn't that hard to get another 6 right.

I'm fairly sure that if the double civs thing went ahead, the civs would be placed near to each other. Otherwise there'd be not much point in having double civs, because it'd just be like playing 2 different games at once until Optics/Astronomy, assuming they were on different continents. Regardless though, the placement of the two civs definitely wouldn't be random, it would have to be symmetrical - otherwise it'd be too unbalancing. For instance, if one team had both their civs start together and another had them split up, it'd be much easier for the former team to win a war against the latter.

IMO having the 2 different Civs not exactly close can be an interesting variant. To clarify, divided by a rival Civ.

Having them in 2 different landmasses can be interesting, but you can't axchange resources, nor help them in case of war until Astro.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Having them in 2 different landmasses can be interesting, but you can't axchange resources, nor help them in case of war until Astro.

Yeah, exactly. So if double civs goes ahead, it makes sense not to have the civs on each team separated by long distances or across oceans. They should be relatively close together so they can actually function as a whole.

 

[Zertuals_Ovrlrd]

How do we deal with culture battles between the cities of the two civs? Do we really want the iron mined hill within the BFC of the warmonger civ's high production city flipping to the other civ because the nearby Great Person Farm of the economic civ is pumping out the culture?

Z_O

 

[Lord Parkin]

Ah, that's the great thing about teams. Culture is completely friendly. All of the tiles in your big fat cross are automatically available, regardless of how much culture your teammate has in them. The only exception is if the tile is within the big fat cross of both cities. In that case, the city which is closer to the tile automatically gets it. If the cities are equidistant from the tile, then and only then is the allegience of the tile decided by culture.

As for flipping cities, I'm not sure if that's disabled or not between teammates, but I would assume it is. Certainly I've never had a city flip to a teammate, nor vice versa, and this is over the course of a LOT of team games... so I'm assuming it's disabled.

Hope that helps.

 

[Zertuals_Ovrlrd]

Thanks for clearing that up

I thought I remembered playing with an AI teammate in single player where the culture wasn't friendly and our two capitals ended up being very close. The culture battle was very frustrating to say the least

Maybe its handled differently in MP vs SP or was changed in a patch/expansion.

Z_O