Game Settings Discussion Thread

No score mod could be very dangerous.I dont think Rb guys will have any advantage over us with demographics on, and i realy think we want to know if someone its building an army, what is whiping for.Demo's are important to know to whom you ally and if its beneffit you so lets not be hasty and ask for something we dont want, then we will end to judege teams after some names and thinking for example team RB its the enemy and in reality other team doing very well and we could find that to late.

So if we vote this and if i can cast my vote of course, its no mods.

 

Plako's point in public forum is very accurate. Mods as they are have not been run in this configuration AFAIK. As a software engineer I too find it very risky to run a year or two long game as a "test run". Even if the modder would be the best software developer in the world, there is always a risk of a game ruining bug. Heck, it's even possible that there is a latent bug in Civ IV source code, which this particular modification combination just happens to expose. I've seen similar things happen in my day job. So my position on mods is that I'm in favor of using only "safe" mods. Safe here meaning mods that have been run together several times.

 

If the "unknown BUG bugs" would affect all players the same, then perhaps go with the DM mod unchanged, so it's not an untested version?

I'm ambivalent on settings. I've always thought "no tech trading" just makes winners win faster and losers lose faster. Since I always lose, that's bad for me. Unless I've always been wrong and it doesn't really accentuate the tech gap?

Was a warmup game mentioned? I'd be interested in one.

 

I'll make a thread for it. We can't start until manolo has finished the modifications, but it would be fun to get max players.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

Great idea!This is what I was thinking as I was driving home today.

 

Oh, okay. We'll do that then Can you send me the files needed manolo? caledorn at gmail dot com is my email

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

My two cents: I prefer playing/lurking vanilla games with no mods. Of course, I'm ok with whatever the team decides. On all other settings I'm pretty neutral. I think team Amazon did some pretty fun stuff with espionage in the lest game, and think that can be a pretty big advantage for us here.

 

Manolo gave me a link. Sent it to you Via PM

 

Great! Thanks

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

Anyone who is going to play the test game needs the link to the mod, yes?

If we want to investigate any server side errors, the host needs to have logging turned on for the pitboss and look into the stuff that gets logged.

 

I just noticed that we're still undecided on difficulty level. Do we (especially our turnplayers) have a preference?

 

The higher the difficulty, the more valuable the resources become, especially health resources, because you get less 'free' happy faces and heath bars.

Higher difficulty means stronger barbs too. So if we are going for TGW (which I love as everyone knows) then we want a higher difficulty to make everyone elses expansion more difficult, but on the other hand, if we want to REX REX REX, we want the difficulty level as low as possible. I think the same logic applies to whether we want to ask for raging barbs. If we are going to beeline TGW, then we should absolutely ask for raging barbs as it will really slow our opponents down.

 

Another team is pushing for raging barbs. Does that mean they're likely pursuing a TGW strategy too?

 

What is the logic of asking for no vassal states?

I was just thinking about how a Terra map ought to work well for the whole pre-astronomy contact but also give opportunity for a navy, but if vassal states are turned off and extra-continental cities cost piles of money, that kinda defeats the purpose.

So I was hoping I could get our vassal choice explained.

 

I think everyone will have to think long and hard about TGW if it is set to raging barbs. The question is who will beeline it/get it.

And I think that WPC guys just tend to like raging barbs more than most. I am playing a game with them now where raging barbs was set as one of the setting AS A SURPRISE!! Ouch!

 

According to Plako's last post, barbs will be OFF. If we haven't voted for difficulty level yet, or if we want to change our vote, we should do so soon. With a toroidal wrap, difficulty can definitely influence whether we want an org leader or not.

 

I think the raging barbs setting was actually Ozzy's surprise, as he made the map for Terra Incognita.

 

Plako later said that barbs could be turned on to normal without breaking the map, but he seems to be completely ruling out raging unless he starts over.

 

I don't see why it would make a difference but he is making the Map so he knows better than I would.

 

I think his reasoning was that there are starting areas that are closer to "wastelands" such as dessert or tundra. It will be more difficult for teams to settle/de-fog those areas, so they will encounter more barb activity than other teams.

I'm not sure how he could edit the map to make normal barbs balanced, but raging barbs unbalanced, though??? I would think that if one is ok, the other should be, too.

It definitely seems like the consensus is moving towards barbs on in the planning thread. I'm not normally a fan of TGW, but I see how it did wonders in the last MTSD. With barbs on, maybe we should start thinking about a TGW beeline. That would make Inca and India more important, as they both have starting techs that lead to masonry (India having both pre-req's!)