Muliplayer in c2c - welcome

Sadly, as his post above suggests, Sgt Slick is out, so I think we are back to 5

 

Ah, I see.

As per my request of no Tribal Villages, what does everyone else think of this? It's not on the excel sheet and personally, I really prefer to not play with them as they can unbalance the game VERY quickly.

 

In precolumbian GEM there are like 6 huts over the americas and we are 6 tribes once we start. Some will have a map, some will have gold and some barbs. One of us MAYBE might get lucky and receive a tech but it's not that big of a deal. I really would like to see the situation that someone tries to pop his hut with a scout because of the better results and gets it snapped away from someone else 1 turn before only to laugh and see the opponent be beaten by spawning barb warriors^^

So dont be afraid, the few huts won't change that much, but give an early element of fun.



For the people who havent't read my anouncement on the last page I repeat it here again:

--->

Koshling just released some very nice bugfixes. The current SVN is 5312 now and I suggest we use this.

Everyone taking part now please upgrade to this revision and post what civ you like.

Also post your secound wish.

[TUPI/INCAN/AZTEC/SIOUX/APACHE/IROQUOIS]

If two like the same civ I will throw a coin.

As I told you, I am gonna take the remaining civ so I will post no favourite.

Once we distributed the civs, one of us (majaczec) has to open the game, how the password thingie works we will have to read in the ongoing multiplayer games threads, I guess.

We can then post our save in forum as attachment and the next one picks them up and loads it or we can send the saves to the next player by PM I guess or however the people already playing multi do it (my first multi C2C game)


btw

ONE PLACE STILL OPEN, LURKERS PLEASE JOIN

 

Yeah one place left for (many) lurkers. For example we have 7 interested and shortly before or after the game starts 1 drops out, so all is fine.

 

His post was merely asking if you were going to do a play by email game or an IP game and it sounds as if y'all may be willing to try an IP game despite the difficulties that may ensue.

If y'all are patient, AIAndy (and myself in at least one case) can probably address your OOS errors as you get them. May not be much faster than going PBEM that way but it would help us all out tremendously!

 

Not that I'm involved, but just wanted to mention that this bit seems incorrect. You seem to have the impression that the game is PBEM, which is what the above describes. The OP specifically said that the game would be direct connect via IP (which means that all have to be online and connected at the same time) and not PBEM, unless this has changed and I didn't notice. Also, SgtSlick specifically said that he's not interested in PBEM.

 

Ok I see. Cool with me. I was under the impression that someone said Direct IP doesn't work yet but sure lets try a session.
With Sgt Slick back in this again, we now are 6 and will have to time the session.

Most people are from Europe but there is also one American and one Australian so what window of time is open then?

Btw, everybody please send your first and secound Tribe choice so the administrative questions can be solved, right?

 

I never playe on GEM, so for me it's not a problem picking a civ or another

BTW, if I have to choose I'd like to use Iroquois or Sioux

 

we would have saves, so we may move time window, but mostly it would be 11AM-9PM of GMT time.
I agreed on gem but I insist on no preset version. if we play SVN everybody have to update before game starts to the latest one. About voting options - I send mine, and would play mine until somebody veto some option - then I will consider changing it if nobody else have a problem with changing it (not all options are crucial for me, but some is). If there be changes in SVN i may repost my options 7z (after preparing it again).

aha and I publish my IM:
skype: majaczek89
google talk: majaczek

 

and yeah we would set late join option, and AI for any players left - so after one day or two somebody may join and takeover some ai player.

with no preset, we have no limits on choosing leader (and we won't play with no positive traits - I'm sure), so I reserve Songsten Gampo (philosphical/religious) because he has my most favourite set of traits when pure traits are on (-3 happiness for non state religion is deadly ). well I wish we have two pure traits options (one for positive ones and one for negative ones) but i think with pure traits we should choose no negative traits. Developing leaders sounds fun and I hope nobody veto. also I'm newbie in c2c so I insist on having no timer or long timer. I would send my IP over IM.

 

free software i have in mind is google hangouts (it can be streamed into youtube stream), however there may be problem with setting delay. I have no problem with playing delayless stream (if everybody agree) because I'm used to play hotseat without fleeing from screen . but i know having to get intel via game feature espionage seems more fun .

could we try playing simultaneus turns or we should play turn after turn? - also with no preset it seems we can have up to 15 humans . I wish we start on saturday - anybody think is it bad idea?

 

Fine with me.

Why is that? have you ever played GEM in single player? Take a look at the map in worldbuilder! It sucks when due to no preset it happens that for example two players start in the Americas, one in Australia and the rest shattered over Eurasia and Africa.
Then one of the American palyers drops out and the other has to wait for Astronomy to have interactions?
It sucks!

Listen, we should really start all in one part of the world, like only Asia, or only Africa + Middle Eastern, or as I suggested only the Americas (best solution, still, IMHO)

Yes thats good so all sessions would always begin with the newest SVN, agreed.

I suggest we have a look what the result of the voting says, so you would have to adjust your options to the majorities wishes.

That's a good idea.

Veto! Look, if you want religious and philosophical, you can have it, in fact other people can have it as well if we start with developing leaders and no starting traits (aka no positive traits). I think it is most fair way because we could all have what we wish. So if lets say you started as the Tupi on GEM you wouldn't really have the Tupi traits but the traits you want them to have!
If you want to focus on religion, do so and pick the traits that are best for that along the way.

No preset leaders is not needed when you can pick all traits yourself. And, again, for negative traits: don't pick those that would mess up your strategy there are others that can play along (there is even a negative trait granting +5% culture and +5% GP points I think.)

long timer is cool, we could even play without timer - altough in later parts of the game you guys would hate me as I tend to micromanage a lot. But no timer would allow longer diplomatic negotiations between the players^^

 

DRJ what about having developing leaders and starting traits both?
then we have 2 starting traits and get third trait when you would play normally get 1st?

I agree that we should have devloping leaders but starting without positive traits is big no/no for me. you may study leaderlist a bit more, because dummy leaders is not fine for me. Why the hell you veto having both developing leaders and starting positive traits - ideal solution for all the problems?

if you want some preset let limit to three old continents for human players, and no limit for AI, and choose option "culturally linked start". also it were you who suggested GEM, on random archipelago with low sealevel your problem wouldn't be a problem. also I prefer a bit of randomness so I don't like culturally linked start. I think best would be no preset but restart first turn until we located all on old world.

Also i get songsten gampo not only for his traits but also for asian culture.
So DRJ suggest some compromise or leave - i suggested some compromises for the problem and what I insist to still have. still it would be sad to play without you

 

I'm going to have to agree with DRJ. Having a clean slate on all the leaders would be a great boon. That way, you get what you want and everybody else can get what they want. Personally, I don't know the traits for the American civs and would thusly ruin my strategy as I know for a fact that none of them have a scientific trait.

I'm voting for culturally linked starts when we all start on the same continent. Sounds fun.


I'm also voting for Developing Leaders, No Starting Traits, and Pure Traits.

EDIT: @majaczek
Why not try something new? If you usually go for Songsten Gampo, why not go for something else this time? Hell, I usually go for Mansa Musa for his traits or Bismark for German units. But I've been finding that these blank leaders of C2C is actually really fun and adds a LOT of new strategies to the game.

 

yeah so maybe we just play on old world? (there are connected the 3 continents I suppose)

I don't wish to play on america even if we have other options another way. Yeah I want try something new, so I'll get developing leaders - sounds fun. If more people insist we may try with no positive traits perhaps, but what is the fun choosing leader when they are indifferent (on same continent at least).

If old world is too big - let start in asia or eurasia.

having be able to get any human on foot sounds fun - but i realy prefer old world than americas

EDIT: bismarck lives in eurasia so cool - you could choose bismarck and we could play in eurasia or old world (eurasia + africa)

 

Because I want to be able to select all traits and not to have 2 starting traits I don't like before I can specialize on my strategy.

Dummy leaders? Where should their traits come from in the beginning when they even don't know language or culture/religions? It's more realistic to start without traits and achieve them over time.

Then we would all have to be european/asian/african/middle eastern leaders to start close. But starting places are not balanced then.

The problem would be that we would all have small island kingdoms and no real interaction before we can amass bigger invasion armies. I could also play single player for that; AI on deity would probably be harder challenge for me there anyway.

I don't like that idea. I still don't understand why you don't like to start in Americas? You could pick a relatively isolated civ like Incans or Tupi if you fear early contact.

Well as I said most early cultures are for American civs so it pushes the early game to have all players pick American Tribes on GEM. Maybe set all AI to deity start as well so they would really be a huge challenge and humans had to cooperate a bit to catch up to them.

Your "compromise" is not very practicable I think. It is just "ok we play GEM but I pick all the other options". I see that my approach is not untotalitarian as well (although I based my suggestions for a map/ruleset on reason, not just preferences like you) so I think I will have to open a thread on my own - sorry for trying to convince you, it's your thread after all.
Ah btw. the compromise I can agree on would be developing leaders, no starting traits, pure traits (as Civ Fuehrer suggested - personally I wouldn't take "pure traits" as I think negative traits with a bit of positive boni and positive traits with a bit of negative grant more strategic depth)

? Can't be so sad then

 

sorry DRJ for beeing so harsh
Well I can think on no starting traits - if everybody other agree. I'm not used to such voting since I practiced mostly the approach that server chooses. But yeah GEM could be fine, starting on one landmas could be fine (but oldworld/eurasia then). developing leaders should be funny, pure traits is a must if I have to choose religious, I just have problems with no positive traits you suggested ;(

thereare plenty of leaders in old world so we may play our favorite traits in with starting with 2 positive traits. but let other ones speak - if there are crushing majority on starting without positive traits - I have to agree on these terms

what about game speed? I prefer Normal because blitz is too fast but I like fast games anyway (snail is no/no for me) but if normal is still too fast we may be a bit slower. what you suggest? and nobody is against starting in prehistoric era?

 

@majaczek
I'm actually looking forward to playing multiplayer on the Americas. If the AI is going to be a real challenge, then it would be fun to try and team up the human players to fight the AI when caravels are made and all hell is unleashed.

@DRJ
I think you should post the votes on the options then see what we can do about it all from there.

 

about the traits, I like the idea of no starting traits, so that everyone is at the same level; also no pure traits, it's better if you have both positive and negative effects on the same trait

for the map, isn't Europe crowded? I ask it because I never played there on GEM. Again, I think that if we start in Eurasia it's still too big to manage (if we don't get a way to start all close to each other, otherwise even Eurasia is good for me)

For the gamespeed I usually play on marathon but it is too slow for a MP; it should be at least epic, or maybe normal (not faster because otherwise buildings and tech are overwhelming, if I remember right)