Lets set up a PBEM!

[Bastian-Bux]

Actually a game without Russia would benefit the Axis enourmously. Its basically "free for taking", as the AI is to bloody stupid.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Actually a game without Russia would benefit the Axis enourmously. Its basically "free for taking", as the AI is to bloody stupid.

Quite true. But if we put Russia on the Allies side, the result is doomed like history.

May be 3 teams? Allies, Axis and Russia? But then Russia is bit lonely (Imagine Allies and Axis both decided to partition Russia first!)

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Thats why I'd go along the 4 teams way. SU and USA always played their own game for power.

Basically Germany and Italy have to work together, as do UK and France. Japan is a natural ally to the axies, as they have so much to gain from conquering SE asia, india and australia. But even they might decide to play a separate game.

But Russia and the USA are a different story alltogether. Both might decide to stay neutral, at least for some time. SU needs time to get its economy going, and USA needs time to get a decent military.

And while the USA is due to the canadian neighbour more inclined to join the allies, its no forgone conclusion. USA might decide that getting the western hemisphere all for itself might be a better choice. Especially if the axies is making a quick headstart.

Same is true about Russia. Of course, steamrolling trough europe and/or east-asia is an option, so war against the axies might sound nice ... once its economy can support such a war. But don't they have as much to gain from assimilating Finland and the central asian cities, and then prioritise economy?

Basically its:

Axies: Germany, Italy
Allies: UK, France
Pro-Axies: Japan
Neutral: USA
Comintern: Russia

Japan will probably work together with Axies, but if Russia and/or USA stay neutral long enough, anything is possible.

Isn't it possible to join a team during game? Then I'd define only 2 starting teams, and leave Japan, Russia and USA out to choose sides. Remember, we as players don't have the ideological background the real nations had. If the Axies is seeing more potential in going around Russia and the USA, so neither operation Barbarossa, nor Peral Harbor have to happen.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Honestly, I don't mind either 2, 3 or 4 teams. All I want is a game with human opponents.

The most important thing now is to get enough people committed (I think 6 is optimal). We have 5 now and so we just need 1 more!

The next thing is to work out a schedule and allocate a 4 hours time slot per day for each player to complete his turn.

And then the last thing is to work out the rules.

 

[Halt]

Guys let me out. I want to play but knowing my schedule better I will not be reliable enough to play on a timetable.

Sorries

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I've just got my laptop back. Look's like we are having 4 people now. Let's try a 2 vs 2 game shall we? Ace of Spades, would you mind take Britain instead? so:

Genghis Kai: Germany (GMT 1200 - 1800)
Ace of Spades: Britain (GMT 1800 - 2400)
Joshua67: Japan (GMT 0000 - 0600)
Bastian-Bux: America (GMT 0600 - 1200)

So each of us have a 6 hour time slot to play a turn. I think this should be flexible enough.

Let's discuss the settings.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Far be it from me to mind playing Britain. This should be an interesting game, can't wait to start.

If we play it like that, we could either have a team game (permanent alliances on, America and UK ally on first turn as well as Japan and Germany) or play it out free for all.

To my mind, a team game would be more fun.

I'm not sure about settings for multiplayer games, never played any I have to confess.

Things that come into mind are city razing (it should be off, as by default, otherwise it will be to easy to launch suicide missions against some coastal cities) and nukes (first team to have nukes will probably have a heavy advandtage, and you should get to them quite fast with the standard settings I fear).

I would propose the following victory options: Conquest, Domination, Diplomatic.

Other than that: BtS 3.17? What gamecore DLL should we bei using? Better AI v0.21 with Solver v0.19 (the one I posted?).

So much for my thoughts on the subject,
Ace

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Far be it from me to mind playing Britain. This should be an interesting game, can't wait to start.

If we play it like that, we could either have a team game (permanent alliances on, America and UK ally on first turn as well as Japan and Germany) or play it out free for all.

To my mind, a team game would be more fun.

Yes, I meant team game. If FFA, I would propose something like Germany, Britain, Russia and America.

I also think team game is a bit better, at least at this stage.

I'm not sure about settings for multiplayer games, never played any I have to confess.

Things that come into mind are city razing (it should be off, as by default, otherwise it will be to easy to launch suicide missions against some coastal cities) and nukes (first team to have nukes will probably have a heavy advandtage, and you should get to them quite fast with the standard settings I fear).

I would propose the following victory options: Conquest, Domination, Diplomatic.

No city razing is by default with the scenario.
Did you mean no nukes or you want nukes?
I suggest also to have tech trade off.

Victory options are fine by me.

Other than that: BtS 3.17? What gamecore DLL should we bei using? Better AI v0.21 with Solver v0.19 (the one I posted?).

So much for my thoughts on the subject,
Ace

Oh, this is a real issue. I still haven't updated the dll because I am quite concern about which dll should GEM be stick to. Initially, I was going to stick with Solver's unofficial patch. However, I am concern that Solver will be updating regularly since it is only v0.19. This would mean GEM will have to adhere to his update every now and then. If we stay with the official patch, there will be no such issue (I think 3.17 is the last official patch).

 

[Ace of Spades]

Well, you cannot turn nukes off by options. Personally, I don't mind them being decisive, although I have to admit that I have no experience with their impact on MP games. Human players will most certainly have few hesitations on using them... although their use will of course ruin diplomatic relations.

Tech trade off is fine by me, makes colonies less powerful and puts more emphasis on the major powers.

Best Regards,
Ace

 

[Genghis_Kai]

OK. give me one day or two to make GEM v5.1, which will be compatible with BTS 3.17 and have unofficial patch 0.19, Better AI 0.21, and many miscellenous modifications discussed over the last few weeks included.

We can then play on the same platform.

 

[Joshua67]

Ok im in with japan.Id like to play teams with the victory conditions mentioned.So Conquest, Domination, or diplomatic.Tech trade off is fine by me as well.Nukes will upset the diplomatic aspect of the game.We can agree not to use them on each other in the event the AI gets cocky!Raze cities off is good.
Now let me know if you do update because ive got version 3.13 atm with version 3.17 waiting to unpacked.We need to be sure all our versions are correct.
Now as to history,we dont HAVE to follow history as we chart our own courses with our civs.But a perma alliance of the human players will ensure that it will be us who decide the outcome.Vasselage will be allowed?I dont care personally on or off is good for me.

Joshua

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Hmm, teams, I realy dislike this idea. Because teams FORCES a premature war on the USA. My reason to choose the USA was basically that it left me with all choices open, as it was in reality. Being forced to fight Japan and Germany right from the start is not something I'd place high on my list.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Hmm, teams, I realy dislike this idea. Because teams FORCES a premature war on the USA. My reason to choose the USA was basically that it left me with all choices open, as it was in reality. Being forced to fight Japan and Germany right from the start is not something I'd place high on my list.

The reason why I suggest team game instead of FFA, is that it simplifies human-human diplomacy. Imagine how many under the table agreement will happen if we play a FFA game! It would be way too stressful and complicated as our first game.

Bastian, if you feel using USA is disadvantaged, how about we swap?

 

[Ace of Spades]

I'd be okay with playing USA as well (i.e. swapping with Bastian), in case we need some flexibility. Would work out with the time zones, too.

Anyway, I am fine with any solution.

Best Regards,
Ace

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Nah, its not that I thing USA is disadvantaged. But teamplay forces me to play a style I dislike. I think I better drop out and leave the USA to someone in the mood to go for war right from the start.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Nah, its not that I thing USA is disadvantaged. But teamplay forces me to play a style I dislike. I think I better drop out and leave the USA to someone in the mood to go for war right from the start.

OK. How about we make it FFA then? The same 4 civ, same arrangement except using the default diplomacy in game, i.e. only German is started at with Britain among the human players.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Nah, you three want to teamplay, its ok, doesn't make sense to force you to go my way. You'll surely find a 4th player.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Nah, you three want to teamplay, its ok, doesn't make sense to force you to go my way. You'll surely find a 4th player.

Well, this thread has been up for a week already and we are now down to 3. Much harder to recruit players than I was expecting.

I think we all doesn't really mind what setting it is, as long as we can get a game to go. All I was saying is better to start simple but I am more than happy to play FFA; just have to be a lot more careful

 

[Joshua67]

I really dont mind if its teams or FFA.But if it is FFA then make sure Germany has human control of Hungary and Japan has human control of Manchuria.I just want to play!
So far though in 3 games ive started all South american countries go to the US as a vassel.So its quite possible for the US player to win diplomatically without a fight.This is why i suggested teams in the first place.But we can always make it domination or conquest only.

Joshua

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Hmm, if FFA is ok with you... And yeah diplo win should be off, else it becomes to easy for the USA.

I agree with Joshua Germany and Japan need a bit help. I'd suggest eliminating Hungary outhright and giving its assets to Germany. The most important thing about Hungary is the oil anyway. Ain't sure if that works as well with Manchuria, especially if Russia is a stupid AI.

Is the 4 civ configuration working? USA is a major player, as is Germany and UK. Josh you are happy with Japan in a FFA or would you prefer Russia?

I'm viewing an AI Russia as the same as a diplo win for the USA: just to easy to grab the victory.