Armor (Veteran)
Warlord
I'm planning on setting up/hosting a K-Mod Pitboss game, and am looking to recruit two more players (planning for 4 human and 4 AI). Before I head over to the regular MP section, I wanted to check among the K-Mod enthusiasts first 
Before coming aboard, be sure to read this post to make sure this game is something you're interested in. It will be using my preferred (more role-playing/builder) settings, along with some various house rules. For game settings, I was thinking of this:
The following game options would also be enabled:
I'd leave all victory conditions on except for Time, but would prefer human players that generally don't go for domination or conquest as their first choice. There would be no strict enforcement of this, as game circumstances (such as a runaway civ) might dictate going down a pure a military path. But in general I'd be looking for players who "war to build" rather than those who "build to war". I have been known to engage in limited warfare to gain territory or slow a rival, though all else being equal I'd rather build up my own civ or target an AI first.
The human players in the game would be trusted to adhere to a gentlemen's agreement regarding certain game mechanics (that are often turned off in MP but add flavor to the game):
Speaking of vassals, players will be trusted not to abuse the vassal mechanics and adhere to the several additional guidelines/rules:
The idea behind these would be to give masters reasons to accept vassals, and vassals having some ability to play kingmaker (particularly the peacevassals). It could have the side effect of discouraging offensive wars in general vs the human players. i.e., opportunistically invading a weaker neighbor may result in his forming a de facto alliance with another player, particularly if the aggressor refuses to allow capitulation.
I went into way more detail than planned on the vassals, though it's probably a good litmus test for whether you'd enjoy this particular game. While K-Mod has improved the AI to make it play a bit more like a human, I'm also interested in mixing in some humans that will agree to play like AIs in some aspects. If you're winning, would you enjoy letting your opponents live on as satellite states? And if you're losing, would you enjoy staying on as a humbled power just to watch the world unfold, and try and find creative ways to influence it until the ultimate winner is determined?
I'm fairly new to Pitboss games, so I know there are some other details that would need to be defined before the game gets underway. Such as exact turn timer length, and how to handle turn order during human vs human wars. But I'll wait to hash those out once I have a full set of players.
Before coming aboard, be sure to read this post to make sure this game is something you're interested in. It will be using my preferred (more role-playing/builder) settings, along with some various house rules. For game settings, I was thinking of this:
- Number of players - 8 (4 human and 4 AI)
- Map Size - Standard
- Map Type - Fractal (love the variety/unpredictability - map will not be reviewed so there is a chance of isolated civs)
- Speed - Normal
- Sea Level - Medium
- Era - Ancient
- Worldwrap - Cylindrical
- Resources - Standard
- Difficulty - Prince
- Barbs - Raging
- Leaders/Civ - Normal restricted leaders. First, I'll ask everyone submit up to three leaders they'd like to prohibit any human player from choosing. Next, I'll send out a list of the leaders that that remain and ask for a ranked choice of the top 3 they'd want to use. If anyone has the same #1 choice as another I'll come up with some type of draft order/tiebreaker. I'll even volunteer to have last choice.
The following game options would also be enabled:
- No Technology Brokering (don't want AI trade partners or colonies giving away techs)
- No Random Events
I'd leave all victory conditions on except for Time, but would prefer human players that generally don't go for domination or conquest as their first choice. There would be no strict enforcement of this, as game circumstances (such as a runaway civ) might dictate going down a pure a military path. But in general I'd be looking for players who "war to build" rather than those who "build to war". I have been known to engage in limited warfare to gain territory or slow a rival, though all else being equal I'd rather build up my own civ or target an AI first.
The human players in the game would be trusted to adhere to a gentlemen's agreement regarding certain game mechanics (that are often turned off in MP but add flavor to the game):
- Passive espionage only. Can use EP to gain visibility into demographics, research, and cities. Spies can be used to scout. But no tech stealing, revolt-inducing, civics-changing, improvement-destroying, water-poisoning, etc. Of course the AI will not follow this rule, so if you are a victim and can conclusively identify the rogue state behind it, you are allowed to retaliate in whatever manner you see fit, including all the things I listed above.
- Apostolic Palace will be left in the game for GP and bonus hammers, but whoever controls it shall never propose resolutions, with the exception of stopping wars vs themselves.
- Every player would be expected to play only for themselves in regards to tech trading. No teaming up and explicitly coordinating research with another human to plan tech trades in advance. Finding out via passive espionage and planning your own research accordingly is fine. Trades should be equitable, though gifting to a backward civ, war bribes, and peace treaty extortion would be OK as well.
- Exception to above: If a human player becomes a vassal to another, the master can direct the research just he/she could with an AI. However, they would only do so when it would directly benefit them. e.g., they are planning to trade for it, or they are about to start a war and want their vassal to research a key military tech. No forcing them down useless paths or repeatedly switching.
Speaking of vassals, players will be trusted not to abuse the vassal mechanics and adhere to the several additional guidelines/rules:
- Players should only capitulate if they genuinely tried and failed to defend themselves (vs another human), and don't see any other way of surviving. After which point, they must vote for their master in the U.N. Diplomatic Victory vote (unless by some miracle they manage to build it themselves), but are otherwise free to play on as a minor power.
- Peacevassaling would only be allowed when a player is in a war they are certain to lose (to either another human or an AI), and want to throw their lot in with a 3rd (human) civ willing to join the war and defend them (for a steep price). A human player could want to peacevassal due to their opponent not allowing them to capitulate, or just not wanting their aggressor to gain the spoils of war. Peacevassals established in this manner would never be allowed to break away without mutual agreement by both master and vassal, excepting of course if the master is completely eliminated. AI peacevassals would not be bound by this restriction of course, so accepting them would generally be as inadvisable as it normally is.
- Ideally, the master would gift their vassals surplus resources and older techs to keep them from falling too far behind, and in turn vassals would agree to all *equitable* tech and resource trades proposed by the master.
- Vassals would make an honest effort in wars they are brought into, even if they have a hidden agenda of trying to gain territory. Masters in turn would actively defend their vassal from attacks unless they were busy fending off attacks in their own homeland.
The idea behind these would be to give masters reasons to accept vassals, and vassals having some ability to play kingmaker (particularly the peacevassals). It could have the side effect of discouraging offensive wars in general vs the human players. i.e., opportunistically invading a weaker neighbor may result in his forming a de facto alliance with another player, particularly if the aggressor refuses to allow capitulation.
I went into way more detail than planned on the vassals, though it's probably a good litmus test for whether you'd enjoy this particular game. While K-Mod has improved the AI to make it play a bit more like a human, I'm also interested in mixing in some humans that will agree to play like AIs in some aspects. If you're winning, would you enjoy letting your opponents live on as satellite states? And if you're losing, would you enjoy staying on as a humbled power just to watch the world unfold, and try and find creative ways to influence it until the ultimate winner is determined?
I'm fairly new to Pitboss games, so I know there are some other details that would need to be defined before the game gets underway. Such as exact turn timer length, and how to handle turn order during human vs human wars. But I'll wait to hash those out once I have a full set of players.
