[Immersioneers] 'A New Frontier': sign-up thread for the second Immersioneer game!

[stiiknafuulia]

EDIT (09.11.): We'll play on 12th November (Saturday). We have 8 players so far, but if you want to join, it is still possible (we'll divide into multiple games if necessary, so there is no real upper limit).

EDIT: Here is the countdown clock until game start (5:20 PM / 17:20 GMT (London time))! NOTE: The game's been moved up by three hours and 20 minutes!

EDIT2 (12.11.): A NEW RULE has been added to the rule-sheet (rule #13); please read it, as it is highly relevant when it comes to warfare!

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Hello and welcome to the planning / sign-up thread for our second 'official' Immersioneers game!

This time, the settings will be a bit different, as we learned a few important things from our previous game.


First of all, here is the required stuff for every NEW player who's not yet part of the group:

1. General Description (only apply to join the group if you agree with it)

2. Steam group (You need to join it in order to play, so please do it! Send a friend/join request to Vesir85 (me) or Stroganov to join. Also, if you want to host games, you'll have to have every player on your friend list, so be sure to invite them all well in advance.)


And here are two links for EVERYONE who'll participate in this game, old and new:

1. Rulesheet v.0.2. (I will update it as we go along, then lock it in for this game come weekend. NOTE: There are already some significant changes, so please review the rules, everyone!)

2. Every member's Steam/CFC names (It's best for everyone to befriend everyone in the group, as that way games can be quickly arranged. You can also add a custom nick to players on Steam; if you plan on hosting any games here at CFC, I highly suggest that you do this for every player!)

[While I did my best, there are still some Steam / CFC nicks that I haven't been able to link together. As there are more CFC nicks, it seems that some of the players who've expressed interest in joining haven't joined the Steam group after all. If you're on either of the following lists, or both, please state your Steam nick asap, so that I can note down your CFC name / invite you to the Steam group!

* Njamos ( [no CFC name, apparently ] )
* R. Daneel Olivaw (???)
* luckybutjinxed (???)

* ??? (@Denvar)
* ??? (@inthesomeday)
* ??? (@RebelScum88)
* ??? (@Skysword455)
* ??? (@Metecury)

* Kralin (@Giorgio Rossi (Kralin) ) (Iirc, I sent you an invite to the Steam group, but you haven't joined it. If you still want to join, please make a post in this thread and I'll re-invite you.)]


On to the settings for our new game:


SCHEDULE: 12th of this month (Saturday). (A countdown clock is now running, showing the exact time until the start of the game!).) NOTE: 13th is Father's Day, so take that into account when deciding whether to join up or not!

As you join the game, please state the following:

(0. 'I'm a new player' (if you are one))
1. Steam nick (if you're a new player or you're not on the list that I linked above)
2. Preferred Civ (no Aztecs, Scythia, Sumeria or Germany allowed; duplicates discouraged) (Note: If we adopt the new scoring system (read further), Germany may be allowed)
3. Your opinion on the custom victory score system (again, read the spoiler at the very end of this post)

Roster:

1. stiiknafuulia (Vesir85): Russia (I can switch if someone else wants it)
2. MaximusPlatypus (MaximusPlatypus): Arabia
3. TeraHammer (2meterErik): England
4. Chrizzly Bear (Chrizzly Bear): Brazil
5. Uppercut83 (Uppercut): Greece (Gorgo)
6. Zabuza (Zabuza): Japan
7. krasny (Krasny):Any Civ will do
8. DonMarty (DonMarty): Egypt / France


Here are the proposed game settings:

Spoiler :

• Number of players: to be decided (we'll let everyone sign up at first, and then figure out how many games we need; it's much clearer that way)

• Turn Timer: Standard (300 seconds) (5 minutes seemed to work well for our last game; in practice most turns will be much shorter)

• Turn Mode: Dynamic Turns (i.e., sequential war turns. I'm still not sure how exactly this works, but we'll never find out unless we bite the bullet (pun intended!) and try it with a larger group )

• Start Era: Ancient

• Game Speed: Quick (if enough people want Online, I'll agree to it, but I'd prefer to use Quick. See also the spoiler at the end of this post about the new proposed custom scoring, as it's highly relevant)

• Map: Pangaea (water is a mere nuisance in this game, lonely 'wonder-whore Civs' are unbalanced, and besides, we could use the added conflict as well!)

• Map Size: Standard (Small is simply too small. Hopefully this is a good balance between natural expansion and eventual conflict as the space runs out)

• World Age: New (more mountains can only be a good thing)

• Sea Level: Standard

• Resources: Abundant (I figure, why not? Presumably everyone will have a better chance of getting some goodies with this setting)

• Start Positions: Balanced

• No Barbarians (lest they wreck some poor soul's cities! Feel free to disagree, but I think we're better off without them as a distraction, allowing us to focus on the *human* threats )

• No Tribal Villages (they add randomness and luck to the game -- things we can surely do without in a multi-player strategy game)

Lastly, here is something a bit more controversial -- a proposition for a new form of scoring, so we won't have to choose between playing on the blazing-quick Online speed or saving/reloading the game. Both of these options come with severe problems attached; with a custom form of scoring, however, we can continue to play on Quick and simply end the game whenever we feel like it (or at some pre-agreed time). I think such a score-system would add to the immersion a bit as well, as even if you're not jotting them down on paper, every new city you found and every wonder you build will add to the score, making them feel more like genuine accomplishments.

Feel free to disagree, point out weaknesses / improvements, etc; now is the time to brainstorm, well in advance of the game!

Spoiler :

EDIT (11.11.): I decided that the system I describe below is too elaborate for our purposes. This is just a casual group and the game is not really about determining the 'winner', but having a good time, after all. So, we'll go with a more relaxed version of my proposed score system: At the end of the game, we'll vote for the winner from among the top 3 players, according to the in-game score. You may not abstain from voting, nor may you vote for yourself (duh). The winner will simply be the player with the most votes. This system is much less cumbersome and leads to an almost identical outcome (i.e. the most powerful player will be the likely winner). As an added bonus, being diplomatic will help with the win as well, as if there are two powerful options for voting, the one who's behaved the best is likely to get the most votes.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

You may disregard what I've written below; only read it for curiosity's sake (if you haven't already):

Concept: A custom form of victory, based on points gathered until the end of the game:

• You're awarded 1 point for each city that you've founded and hold at the end of the game

• You're awarded 1 point for each 10 population in a city (so a size 10 city will count as 2 points, under rules #1 and #2; size 20 is 3 points, etc)

• You're awarded 2 points for each conquered city (re-conquests do not count) (so a conquered size 10-19 city is 3 points, just to make it clear how the rules work together)

• You're awarded 1 point for each Wonder that you've built (captured wonders do not count)

• You're awarded 1 point for every 4 techs or civics that you're discovered (everything added together and the final number rounded down) (this makes science a bit more significant than civics, but it's easier to just count the total number. I discovered about 80 techs + civics in our first game, so for that amount, I'd have received ~20 points, which seems like a balanced amount compared to the points from number of cities and wonders)

• The player with the most points at the end of the game will be declared 'winner' (In the event of a tie, both players are declared winner. )

I can't think of a good way to count cultural achievements, as I've almost totally neglected that side of the game in my own sp games so far. If the game keeps track of the number of great people that you've spawned, that could be a good metric; otherwise it's too distracting to count them as they spawn.

Similarly, gold or faith seem hard to account for. It could be argued that you should spend your gold to progress in the other categories (buy Settlers or military units, etc), and that Faith is almost irrelevant even with the default rules, as a religious victory is practically impossible in a multiplayer game (you can simply go to war and kill the missionaries).

As production is the main engine driving settlement and conquest, it seems a bit unfair to reward it as a separate metric. Otoh, in order to 'buff' science and culture with regards to the score system, we could award points for the city and/or Civ with the highest science or culture output. Thus, even if you're not the current leader in the number of discovered civics or techs, you could gather some points for having recently taken the lead. I'd support rewarding the cities with the highest science and culture output, as it seems interesting to hunt for a good city site for specifically this purpose. Perhaps even to take it from your neighbor, if it so happens that they snatched it from under your nose. As to the amount of points, maybe 3 points would be alright? That way it's not overwhelming, but not insignificant either.

If we do agree to adopt this system, we could continue to play on Quick speed, as the actual victory conditions would cease to matter (in case one were achieved, the one who did it could still be declared the victor, regardless of points, simply because it would be a phenomenal feat to do it in ~7 hours). As I *hate* online speed, naturally I'm in favor of this choice.

One thing to keep in mind is that while the system may seem like it's too complex, too much of a burden, etc, in practice you'd simply keep playing exactly as you've done so far (as number of cities, population, techs, etc are important for the regular victory conditions as well), and the only 'hassle' would come at the very end of the game, when we'd stop and count the points. Think of it as enabling a 'Mastery Victory', in addition to the regular victory conditions (I believe that someone made a mod for Civ V that worked a bit similarly). While we could (and should) adjust the numbers and improve the balance of the different ways of point calculation, in the end this is simply a way to 'end' the game whenever it's convenient. While we *could* still do it, there would no longer be a need to save the game and continue it later, or to play on a speed that will leave your head spinning and your units obsolete before you can say 'Xerxes'.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

No one's signed up so far? o_O People! Last game filled up real quick; are you suffering from war weariness?

I'm playing a test game atm, and it seems that a small map is *really* small (at least with 8 civs)! Or perhaps the game has just thrown me the usual curve-ball and left half the map empty, while spawning all the civs in one little corner... Anyway, in either case, we should probably go with a Standard sized map to avoid cramming as best we can.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

Sign me up for Arabia


<--------- Steam name

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Sign me up for Arabia


<--------- Steam name

Done. Could you please also state your preferred day for playing (12th or 13th), and your opinion on the custom score system? Even if you're fine with either date, and/or have no opinion on the scoring, it's good to mention these things in your post.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

I'm fine with the scoring, i'll elaborate more when i'm not typing on a phone. I'm also fine with either day

Edit*

About the scoring, it is fine, I didn't play in the first games so I have no idea how the dynamics are going to work. I assume the host or someone will have to spend some time at the end of the session to analyze the number of cities an populations etc. Unless we are relying on individual players to report/tabulate their own civs. I think the more complicated we make it away from the in-game scoring system is going to be a bigger headache than not. If you want to weight different things (for example military strength vs. number of cities following a religion, for example; can be added after from the in-game totals) this can be calculated and posted later on the forums. I'm not really concerned about score, just the code of conduct we are playing under. My 2 cents
I say just any system we use is going to be an experiment for everyone anyway... personally I'm not playing to "win" just to have fun and not stress out about "kids" and trash-talking etc. (although light-hearted ribbing in the forums later is to be expected).

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Thank you for your input.

While it may seem quite elaborate at first glance, the new score system is, in the end, simply a way to end the game without saving it to be continued later (which almost never works because of conflicting schedules). The other way to end games within the allotted 7 hours (or thereabouts) is to play on Online speed, but it's simply too fast for my taste (+100 %, compared to +33 % for Quick). If enough players want to just use default rules and go with Online speed, I'm fine with it though; after all, we'll have all the time in the world for experiments later on. The sequential war turns I would like to try out this time, though, as if it works well enough, it's a much better system for warfare than the simultaneous 'click fest' that we used last time (although there weren't any real wars, so it wasn't really illustrated how terrible this system is for a supposedly turn-based strategy game). If if doesn't work, we'll just have to limit warfare somehow (to avoid it bogging down this game), and not use it in the future. It's a risk worth taking, imo.

As to the calculations, each player must count his founded and conquered cities, their populations (in 10s), wonders, techs and civics, and any other scoring factor we might think of. It will only have to be done once at the end of the game, so I don't think it's too much of a chore. It'd be optimal if the host could do it, but afaik, there is no way to allow the host to view the cities of other players (too open to abuse in public multiplayer). Ofc, with everyone doing their own calculations, the possibility of cheating always lingers; but if you (*general 'you' ofc) joined this group for this kind of lame cheating, then I really don't know what to tell you. Be my guest, I guess.

 

[Folza]

I just had to sign up for a CivFanatics account to sign up for the next playtest of Immersioneers! I have played Civ 4 and 5, and I am loving Civ 6 modded and un-modded.

I'm a new player for Immersioneers
Steam name: Folza
Preferred Play Date: November 12th (Saturday)
Preferred Civ: Rome

Overall the point system looks nice (and no arguments about how many points are assigned), but I will admit I am pretty much a complete newbie when it comes to playing Multiplayer Civ. I will do my best to keep in the spirit of the game!

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

Anyway, I don't think the Aztecs are as good as the other two. The Eagle Warriors obsolete fairly quickly, and even with the higher base strength than warrior, it's not that easy to use melee units to get the last hit (with only "a chance" at a builder). What happens more often than not, the counterattack kills the eagle warrior, and just captures the builder. So basically, the Aztec player just lost a unique unit and gave them a free builder which was created "from nothing".

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I just had to sign up for a CivFanatics account to sign up for the next playtest of Immersioneers! I have played Civ 4 and 5, and I am loving Civ 6 modded and un-modded.

I'm a new player for Immersioneers
Steam name: Folza
Preferred Play Date: November 12th (Saturday)
Preferred Civ: Rome

Overall the point system looks nice (and no arguments about how many points are assigned), but I will admit I am pretty much a complete newbie when it comes to playing Multiplayer Civ. I will do my best to keep in the spirit of the game!

Welcome! Sent you an invite to the group on Steam; I'll update the op with your infos.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

The Aztecs are banned mostly because not everyone pre-ordered (although I'm not sure if they can still play in games where someone else has them). Their Warriors do seem a tad op to me, but I guess vs. humans it's somewhat harder to make good use of their 'slaving' ability. We might allow them once the 3 months are over and everyone has them available.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

Ah that makes more sense. I've watched a lot of mp games and streams, the Aztecs in practice just aren't as good against human players.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Ah that makes more sense. I've watched a lot of mp games and streams, the Aztecs in practice just aren't as good against human players.

Could you state your preferred play-time as well? I assume you're ok with either day, since you haven't mentioned it, but it never hurts to be certain.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

If it's Saturday/Sunday, anytime is fine. I'm a US based player (Central Time Zone) so if it was going to be in the middle of the night here, I could do it Saturday night. Other than that, given a couple days notice I could play anytime. I'm willing to play anytime just to get started with this group, I suspect most people have more time limitations than I do. I'm mostly self employed and can move my schedule around. No kids or wife helps too, lol. Short answer is i'm flexible.

I need to look at a GMT time converter or something, I don't know what standard you guys use to limit confusion.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Thank you for the info. Last time, there was confusion a-plenty (including on the part of yours truly)! This time around, once we get the time settled, I'll make a countdown clock and link it in the op, to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Last time, we started at 3 PM Finnish time iirc (1 PM GMT). One of our players was from India, so I tried to accommodate for that, but he still had to leave a bit early (from a European and US perspective). Although to be fair, no one expected the game to last for such a long time (we played for 7 hours and had finished barely half the tech tree ). This time around, I'm not sure of the starting time, as of yet. You're 8 hours behind Finnish time, it seems... If we play on Saturday, then I can stay up practically all night, so we can start a little later (from my perspective). On Sunday though, I'd rather not stay up too late as I have some important classes on Mondays. We'll just have to see how it goes, as more people report in during the next few days.

 

[TeraHammer]

Not entirely sure about weekend plans yet, but I definitely want to play again :-D
So, sign me up as tentative. Would like to play a Spain game if possible.

I am actually strongly anti-scoring - I uphold the immersion feeling high in the sense that you should get satisfaction on the way you play your civilization and play the world, not on some silly statistic. Defining a score goal may interfere in making cool original rpg/immersion plans.

I'm not sure about abundant resources, I'd rather keep it standard. 'Chopping' resources may be op.
I'm also against the removal of barbarians and tribal villages, I don't see the need. They add some flavor. And, I believe randomness is good in making your history.
Also, I prefer map size to be conform player size; don't force us to go warmonger.

But, my obligations are minor. I'd love another game.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

We might want to look into the Fruity mod for multi, it disallows all chopping outside one's borders, and I think it disallows selling of units.

I'll have to read the reddit group more closely. Problem with mods, of course-- everyone has to have it in the same game.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

We might want to look into the Fruity mod for multi, it disallows all chopping outside one's borders, and I think it disallows selling of units.

I'll have to read the reddit group more closely. Problem with mods, of course-- everyone has to have it in the same game.

Iirc, in Civ VI it's supposed to be enough if the host has a mod enabled -- the rest will have it activated automatically. Now whether it works as advertized is a whole other kettle of fish, but assuming it does, this is great news for all mp players ofc.

I looked at the fruitymod a while back (on Reddit), but it didn't seem to have a lot of features yet, and gave the impression of being 'in flux' as of yet; not enough games have been played to determine optimal balance in mp, I guess. Still, we could try to use it, as it will do no harm, in any event.

@TeraHammer: Ok, I'll add you to the list. I don't really think the scoring will get in the way of role-playing, unless you let it. It's just an extra victory condition among the rest (which were all on in the last game). You may opt to ignore it and simply build up your Civ; chances are you'll still get almost the same amount of points as you would otherwise, as the points are awarded for 'natural' game actions.

I'll edit the map to be Standard sized with regular sea level (Small is simply too crowded). Pangaea is preferable to continents, though, due to logistics alone (I had to do a *lot* of scrolling to move my ships in the last game!). As well, I'd like that everyone has a similar chance at wonders; if you're spawned alone on a distant continent, you know you can risk building no military, and hence can go whole-hog on them (as happened in our last game). If you have neighbors, you can't afford such luxury (especially now that it's allowed to betray alliances -- albeit with potentially disastrous consequences).

 

[Folza]

I am located EST (Eastern USA) so I'm 7 hours behind I believe. Would make it a little more difficult for me to dedicate an entire day to playing, as I do have certain things to do on weekends. I would prefer if we could start at a little later in European time to give my schedule some more flexibility.

To clarify: 1 PM GMT would mean I would have to be up 8 AM on the day we play, and play all throughout the morning and afternoon.

 

[ManojTheKing]

sign me up for the second game, I choose France as my Civ.

Either day is fine for me. I am from IST zone.. but I am good to play anytime till GMT 9:00PM (since we started last game by GMT1 PM, this time it will be good if we can start a bit early, like say GMT 11AM or so,, just a suggestion from my end, lets try and workout what suits best for the majority)

I like this new scoring mechanism and it will help us to decide a winner even when we r playing in Quick speed. But a couple of points, I like the world Age to be standard, let the terrain be as it is there is no need to change it. I also feel that Barbs and tribal villages add some good twist to the early game and would like to have them enabled. Anyways, am good with what other people decide.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

IMO barbs and huts make for a more random start. I like them, but if it's better for immersion, we can go with it. It probably means the early game allows everyone to get up and running reasonably. I don't see a lot or any warring until the midgame, which will favor civs without early UUs and aggressive agendas.

As for the time, maybe shoot for an afternoon start in Europe. Manoj will be be playing in the evening, and us Americans can get up for a morning start.

I'm guessing Saturday 12th will be better for most.