Gypsy Kings - pitboss session (closed game)

[Munro]

No praets is fine with me too. I am also not sure how unbalancing they would be, but I am happy not finding out this game.

Edit: @C63 - welcome back! When you get a chance, please you can test that you are able to connect to the new BtS 3.17 test game mentioned earlier in this thread? Since all 6 slots have already been claimed, please use oyzar / toller pretzl's leader - both in game (civ is not password protected) and when registering your leader at civstats.com. (Password set to C63default - let me know via PM or IM what password you'd like to use to register your leader on civstats for the real game).

@aj - doen't look like you have registered your leader yet at civstats.com - can you create an account there and try to register your leader at http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=1010 The civstats leader password for your civ (in this game) is Isabella. Also, once you're in, let me know what you'd like me to set it to for the real game. This is used to receive new-turn notifications via email, and for sending and receiving out-of-game diplomacy messages.

Note: the password for your overall account at civstats.com should be different and completely private (since you might want to use civstats.com to track other pitboss games you play in the future).

Edit2: I'm not sure about always war though. ozyar - can you elaborate on this a bit? With no technology trading already off, is there anything left which is that unbalancing? Unlike technology trading (which allies could use to effectively double or triple their research rates) - gifting gold or cities doesn't actually create any net benefit, because it costs the giver an equal amount. And always war would remove an interesting extra dimension to the game - peaceful trade routes, resource trading, religious spread, alliances for mutual defence etc - not to mention the need to choose your wars more judiciously (and end them when required to help deal with the WW).

Sure, there will be a lot of warring (probably) but no need to make it any easier than it always is - or remove the alternatives which add an interesting extra dimension to the game IMO - unless it really is unbalancing?

 

[hellwitch]

IMO AW is not needed because w will lose some very intresting options. Imagine - you can even trade troops like if someone have only horse and other only metal - cahrriot for spear is fair trade IMO. Also gifting two cities with are away from each of the team but close to the other.

IMO there are very intresting option in Multiplayer mode which will make the game intrestion and it is better to not cut them off.

About praet. - well if played well nobody have chance to win vs human who already have igon and few praet to protect it. Axes are good but weeker than them - 8 vs 7.5 str. When it comes to promos its even worser for the axe - every axe got .5 for every Combat lvl but praet got .8. Also a CR2-3 praet. army cannot be stop even from lbs or crossbow(including cho-ko-nu). Also because the come very early when they don't have counter you can split the in stacks of 2 and then cats wont' help too. The nearest equal counter units are warelephants but they dont have the same potential for offence - no CR promos and they have equal couter unit which is cheeper - spears, they don't recieve terrain bonuses.
I have played gotm 32 and win (in the replay) because i was able to brake 3 deity AIs with them - Sal, Alex and Luis. IMO they are so unbalanced that i can't loose even on Immortal if i got iron. Ofcouse in multi a human can find a way to deal with them successfully but this will be unfair adv. for the "roman" player.

 

[da_Vinci]

been off sailing, one marina did not allow me to access net yesterday ... but I am back in touch now

 

[Ronnie1]

Won't always war kind of obsolete some of the VC's? I'm OK either way I guess, but it seems like it will have to be either Conquest or Domination for Victory.

 

[Conquistador 63]

Hi all! I'm back and just set up my 3.17 install, also successfully loaded and played a turn of the test game.

 

[adrianj]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting psyched for this game

I'm happy with everything suggested so far. No Romans, no tech trading, NOT AW, emperor difficulty. A couple of questions for me though: No Tribal Villages? Random events enabled? IMO both of these make the game more fun, but if we're worried about tribal villages making things unbalanced, then random events should also be turned off.

Everyone come up with what leaders you want, and we can get this game going!

 

[Munro]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting psyched for this game

I'm happy with everything suggested so far. No Romans, no tech trading, NOT AW, emperor difficulty. A couple of questions for me though: No Tribal Villages? Random events enabled? IMO both of these make the game more fun, but if we're worried about tribal villages making things unbalanced, then random events should also be turned off.

Everyone come up with what leaders you want, and we can get this game going!

Yes, I do think the random events add some interesting flavour (and help to balance out the overly-powerful slavery civic somewhat) and add some interesting choices (e.g. keeping cash contingency / workers nearby v. playing lean for maximum efficieny but with some increased exposure). Since we are playing for fun, I would prefer to keep them (they are also a fundamental part of the 'flavour' of BtS IMHO).

I'd be happy keeping huts for the same reason, but feel less strongly about those (because there are fewer interesting decisions to make with them - although I suppose they are still a fundamental part of the game and help to balance out the game a little for civs starting with scouts v. warriors - and not unbalancing the way tech trading could be, for example).

Anyone have preferences either way?

 

[Ronnie1]

No real preferences. Kind of feel like Huts are not so good, and RE not so bad. More than willing to go with consensus on this.

About the leaders. What if a leader is requested more than once, does that matter? I suppose with all human players, we could all conceivably play the same leader. Not sure about this idea.

 

[oyzar]

No real preferences. Kind of feel like Huts are not so good, and RE not so bad. More than willing to go with consensus on this.

About the leaders. What if a leader is requested more than once, does that matter? I suppose with all human players, we could all conceivably play the same leader. Not sure about this idea.

I would like no huts but random events. I would also like no barbs though so you don't have to listen to me . Ron talk to me on msn whenever you catch me on so we can iron out civchoices and the like.. duplicates are allowed but not too good idea inside the team...

 

[hellwitch]

dV do you recieve my PM for the leader choice?

 

[da_Vinci]

dV do you recieve my PM for the leader choice?

Yes, saw that ...

We had some discussion on MSN as to whether teaming C63 with me and you with tp might work out better from a time zone perspective (well, at least for C63 and I who are only one hour apart) ... what are your thoughts on that?

dV

 

[hellwitch]

Yes, saw that ...

We had some discussion on MSN as to whether teaming C63 with me and you with tp might work out better from a time zone perspective (well, at least for C63 and I who are only one hour apart) ... what are your thoughts on that?

dV

I am ok. Don't know TP opinion.

 

[Munro]

hellwitch - I spoke to tp about teams on IM a couple of days back and was happy teaming up with you, so unless he's having last minute doubts (!) I think we should be set with the following teams:

1) Munro / adrianj
2) oyzar / Ronnie1
3) Conquistador 63 / da_Vinci
4) hellwitch / toller pretzl

As for settings, looks like general agreement / acceptance of the following?

• emperor difficulty
• barbs ON
• huts OFF
• random events ON
• romans DISALLOWED
• duplicate leaders ALLOWED

Also - I'm assuming no handicaps (i.e. everyone plays at emperor) but if anyone feels like they need a boost (or a handicap!) to help keep things as well matched as possible, just say - we could always have one team playing at monarch (or immortal) while everyone else plays at emperor, for a small handicap if needed.

Assuming no further objections to any of the above by the end of today - get with your teammate and start thinking about leader choices! PM me your choices once you've decided, and I'll publish the full list once everyone has chosen (and before the game starts). aj and I have already made our final choice.

Assuming we can have this done by wed / thurs, how do people feel about a late thurs pm start? (US eastern time)

 

[Munro]

About the leaders. What if a leader is requested more than once, does that matter? I suppose with all human players, we could all conceivably play the same leader. Not sure about this idea.

Duplicate leaders are allowed (no real reason to disallow them) although I expect there'll still be an interesting amount of variation! Since we're picking our leaders in private, we won't know until the game is about to start whom everyone has chosen, but I imagine there'll still be a healthy amount of variation (esp. since the romans have been disallowed - no more JC & Augusts combos for everyone... )

 

[Ronnie1]

Assuming we can have this done by wed / thurs, how do people feel about a late thurs pm start? (US eastern time)

If we get details worked out, Thursday sounds good!

 

[Conquistador 63]

I might get flamed for this wild thought, but... could a "random leaders/ unrestricted civs - but no duplicates allowed" be an acceptable option? At least to me, it sounds like fun - and even reduce the need for boosts/handicaps as it could reduce the influence of the better leader selection from the stronger players.

 

[adrianj]

I might get flamed for this wild thought, but... could a "random leaders/ unrestricted civs - but no duplicates allowed" be an acceptable option? At least to me, it sounds like fun - and even reduce the need for boosts/handicaps as it could reduce the influence of the better leader selection from the stronger players.

Considering how this game will likely be played over a year or so, it's strange how keen I am for it to get up and running At least if everyone was given a random leader the game could start earlier - assuming we make a decision on that sooner than people decide on their leader choice.

This being my first multiplayer game, I have no real preference for my leader choice - since what I might think is very strong might in fact be quite poor, and vice versa. Not to mention figuring out synergy with my teammate . So I'll just go with the concensus on this one. In fact, consider me going with the concensus on everything

 

[Munro]

I'd prefer to stick with the leaders that aj and I have chosen, as it's added an interesting extra dimension to the game, and I'm interested to see how our choices work out now.

Also, it means that people can choose leaders that sound most fun to them (and suit their style of play).

Obviously you could always elect to take a random leader if you want (with or without a monarch bonus to compensate) and I could just regenerate it if you get romans (or maybe romans would be allowed in this case? ) Or if everyone wants all random leaders, I'm happy to go with that, but would prefer to pick our own.

Like aj - I am happy to go with the consensus though if everyone wants random leaders for everyone!

 

[oyzar]

If i ever could talk to ron we could figure out what leaders we wanted out of this game. I have some ideas, but not sure if they are the best...

 

[da_Vinci]

Problem with random is some teams will start with 3 techs (or even two? ) and some with 4 techs, which could be problematic ...

dV