Imperialism II PBEM
- Thread starter McMonkey
- Start date
voltar
Drunken Russian
USA
Mexico City captured by American troops, bringing peace and security to all!
Mexico City captured by American troops, bringing peace and security to all!
voltar
Drunken Russian
Northerner
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 264
I cannot handle the micromanagement required for a civilization as massive as the British Empire in this scenario. I played the first part of my turn days ago, then had to prepare for my teaching, so the day after I had forgotten which cities I had besieged and captured. That evening I did manage to micromanage my cities quite a bit, but my freetime was too limited to finish and upload. The day after that I finished moving ships and conducting trade.
Today I sat down to finalize, only to find the last the day has wiped my mind quite cleanly of what I've been up to.
I do remember some conquests in Egypt and Afghanistan. Perhaps that was all. I don't know.
In the end I suppose the leaders of the British Empire at its zenith didn't much feel accountable to anything or anyone as to what conquests they made. If anyone feels I've encroached on their territory, and feel some kind of apology is in order, said apology will be delivered by the Royal Navy at the earliest possible opportunity.
Micromanaging this monstrosity is impossible. I won't stall this game further, even if that means I won't be playing very efficiently.
Today I sat down to finalize, only to find the last the day has wiped my mind quite cleanly of what I've been up to.
I do remember some conquests in Egypt and Afghanistan. Perhaps that was all. I don't know.
In the end I suppose the leaders of the British Empire at its zenith didn't much feel accountable to anything or anyone as to what conquests they made. If anyone feels I've encroached on their territory, and feel some kind of apology is in order, said apology will be delivered by the Royal Navy at the earliest possible opportunity.
Micromanaging this monstrosity is impossible. I won't stall this game further, even if that means I won't be playing very efficiently.
Napoleon III proclaimed President of new French Democracy!
No other news from France.
No other news from France.
Northerner
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 264
This game is going at a glacial pace. I'm not pointing fingers, I know well I'm very complicit in how slowly it goes.
Is there interest in starting a scenario with somewhat more manageable scope? The difference between knowing the turn only take three to six minutes versus up to an hour could greatly seed things up. I'm not sure which scenario would be a good choice. Sengoku Jidai comes to mind, the turns are rather short, and war will come early, which should keep things exciting.
Is there interest in starting a scenario with somewhat more manageable scope? The difference between knowing the turn only take three to six minutes versus up to an hour could greatly seed things up. I'm not sure which scenario would be a good choice. Sengoku Jidai comes to mind, the turns are rather short, and war will come early, which should keep things exciting.
voltar
Drunken Russian
I'm really enjoying this game. It is a shame we seem to have such trouble with this game. I enjoy grand, epic games.
I'm open to changing games and the reasons for doing so certainly make sense to me, but there is a certain appeal to Imperialism.
I think PBEMs have a certain momentum to them. If the pace is quick, then everyone feels some motivation to keep up the pace. If the pace is slow, it is easier for everyone to take the extra day or two to play their turn. At least, I feel this way.
How about this: We use the in game hot seat timer and set a time limit of how long a turn can take. From the time you open the last player's saved game until you make your own saved game can be at most, say, 30 minutes. After that, you can look at the game as much as you want to make plans for your next turn or conduct diplomacy, but the time it takes to pass the game on to the next player is limited.
This means that small nations can do more micromanaging and so have an advantage. On the other hand, this might simply counteract the advantage that the big nations have and actually make the game more balanced. I would be happy to trade civs if anyone thinks that small civs are too favoured in this approach.
Personally, I think introducing the real time element detracts from civ somewhat, but, on the other hand, this game will take years to complete without it. I would rather play an "imperfect" game of Imperialism that actually goes somewhere than a "best practices" game of Imperialism that never makes it to 1872.
I think PBEMs have a certain momentum to them. If the pace is quick, then everyone feels some motivation to keep up the pace. If the pace is slow, it is easier for everyone to take the extra day or two to play their turn. At least, I feel this way.
How about this: We use the in game hot seat timer and set a time limit of how long a turn can take. From the time you open the last player's saved game until you make your own saved game can be at most, say, 30 minutes. After that, you can look at the game as much as you want to make plans for your next turn or conduct diplomacy, but the time it takes to pass the game on to the next player is limited.
This means that small nations can do more micromanaging and so have an advantage. On the other hand, this might simply counteract the advantage that the big nations have and actually make the game more balanced. I would be happy to trade civs if anyone thinks that small civs are too favoured in this approach.
Personally, I think introducing the real time element detracts from civ somewhat, but, on the other hand, this game will take years to complete without it. I would rather play an "imperfect" game of Imperialism that actually goes somewhere than a "best practices" game of Imperialism that never makes it to 1872.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,041
Although I can understand your reasoning and rationale, I've never personally liked the idea of timed turns. I completely passed entirely on even buying MOO3, for instance, upon learning it had mandatory timed turns, among other unchangeable and hard-coded limits on the player's power to micromanage, and that the designers considered that a signature of pride.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,901
Approximately how many people play Civ2 multiplayer scenarios these days somewhat regularly? Once Over the Reich is complete I have what I think is a good idea for a WW2 multiplayer scenario that covers the European conflict from May/June 1940 onwards, but I'm almost thinking I'm better off if I make sure it plays fine as a two player game given the shrinking player base?
Northerner
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 264
I'm not proposing we drop this game, I just wanted to see if there was interest in starting another one! Perhaps I'll go ahead and start a thread. I just haven't been sure which scenario to propose!
RUSSIAN EMPIRE - JULY 1870
Baghdad & Karamay captured
I just timed my turn and it took 28 minutes to play (though it felt more like ten!). I'm not doing much in the way of micromanagement, just letting the game flow.
Baghdad & Karamay captured
I just timed my turn and it took 28 minutes to play (though it felt more like ten!). I'm not doing much in the way of micromanagement, just letting the game flow.
voltar
Drunken Russian
I want to continue and I'm in for the long haul.
If we can pick up the pace somewhat, then I would like to keep playing. If it's going to take weeks to play a single turn, then I would rather stop sooner than later.
I'm happy to keep playing while we discuss possibilities for speeding up the game, but I don't want to spend months trying to find out if the game can be sped up.
If I don't play the turn for December 1870 by November 1, then I think I will be justified in concluding that the game will progress too slowly to be very fun.
I'm willing to switch civs if someone wants to play a smaller power.
I'm happy to keep playing while we discuss possibilities for speeding up the game, but I don't want to spend months trying to find out if the game can be sped up.
If I don't play the turn for December 1870 by November 1, then I think I will be justified in concluding that the game will progress too slowly to be very fun.
I'm willing to switch civs if someone wants to play a smaller power.
I'm happy to go on. Perhaps the key is not to overthink things. If you're busy just play it quick and dirty and micromanage when you have more time. The larger nations take the longest to play, but they are also in the strongest position so making a few duff moves won't impact them too badly. PBEMs can be like going to the gym. The thought of it might not seem appealing, but once you're there its fun. Sometimes you have to just play, even when you're not enjoying it, for the benefit of the group. I have had a few games I didn't enjoy much, but I carried on as I realised others were enjoying it. I hope the same would apply to games I was enjoying that others had gone off of. Of course, real life priorities will sometimes mean we cannot play and I think we all understand that.
Similar threads
