[MULT] Pitboss Worldbuilding Challenge REBOOT: Discussion Thread

[dot80]

WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SUBSTITUTES!! PLEASE RESPOND TO SIGN UP!

STORY THREAD

Agreed Upon Rules:

1. Inactivity: if you are losing interest just say so and let everyone know so we can get a sub!
2. War: No wars of annihilation! Valid Casus Bellis! 1-2 City Conquest Max!
3. Running Cannon: No contradicting what has been previously written by others. First come, first served geographic naming.
4. No God-Modding: No controlling other people's characters, no using knowledge gained on other civs through stories for tactical in-game advantage.
5. Majority Rules: in the event of a dispute, all other objective players vote on the acceptable solution.

Players:
Dot80
Silverman6083
cpm4001
Heerlo
MrCasperTom
sh3baproject

Substitutes:
none

 

[Silverman6083]

Hey Heerlo did see if I want to join and granted it did sounds fun If this works out count me in! Btw about wars I posted this in the original thread:

Spoiler :

I recommend, in wars, not building siege weapons or letting cities use range attacks, and having just armies fighting armies, and if an army in a city area is no longer there, or runs away, that area is "occupied". In peace deals, you can then bargain over occupied territory. Even if you build siege weapons, the occupation rule always makes the games fun, in my experience

Also we should probably be doing this maybe 1-2 turns aday maybe more depending on how this goes. Oh and thanks for dedicating your PC for us

 

[dot80]

I've added a list of players who are participating in the first post.

On wars, my thoughts are that wars can be fun, and are a necessary part of a game about history. In a game similar to this I have played the rule stood that there were no "wars of annihilation." In our context this means that (1) to declare war you need a valid Casus Belli recognized by all payers, (2) no all-out conquests, and rather each war should be limited to 1-2 cities, (3) no devastation to opposing player's economy. These rules are set out mainly to allow for war, but to make sure that nobody's entire game is ruined by a war. I suppose a fourth rule could be to be a good sport about losses in war. It can be just as fun to play a small and weak nation as it can to play a superpower; the game is about the story not 'winning.'

I suppose it will also be important for everyone to say what expansions/DLC they have. I have all of them so it won't be a problem to include anything.

 

[cpm4001]

Yes, I'm in. Overall I like your suggestions (playing a Terra map would be really fun, and I like your suggestion for how to work wars), though I do have a couple thoughts on why the original kinda blew up:

1) We got too many people - 12 would have been fun when we got to the story-writing part, but the logistics of getting everyone to play their turns on time were just too complex.

2) The lack of anything to keep our interest up before we started writing really doomed this; though I was having fun playing I know a couple of the other players lost interest.

3) Too many rules; a worldbuilding exercise needs to be a bit more "relaxed" even if we're trying to create a realistic world.

But yeah, I'll join this. I'll get in touch with a couple other people from the original too and try to get them back.

EDIT: Also, I have all the DLC, but I know Heerlo only has the two major expansions (and I think a couple other of the original people only have G+K and BNW, too), so we may want to limit it to just those Civs.

 

[dot80]

12 is definitely a lot! While I always say more the merrier, perhaps 6-7 at most? I think my idea (I said it in the other thread iirc) would help give an incentive, where every month each person gets 2 votes to cast on who has the best stories over that month: cast anonymously, can't vote for self. As for the rules it is indeed a delicate balance between too many and not enough. I think there are 5 main rules we need establish:

1) Inactivity: if you are losing interest just say so and let everyone know so we can get a sub!
2)War: No wars of annihilation! Valid Casus Bellis! 1-2 City Conquest Max! If you're not going to try and take the nearby city, no improvement pillaging! No great person improvement pillaging!
3)Running Cannon: No contradicting what has been previously written by others. First come, first served geographic naming.
4)No God-Modding: No controlling other people's characters, no using knowledge gained on other civs through stories for tactical in-game advantage.
5)Majority Rules: in the event of a dispute, all other objective players vote on the acceptable solution.

The last sort of encompasses anything outside of what I laid out before it. What do y'all think?

 

[Silverman6083]

Well in general I agree accept with the rule about "no pillaging improvements". Because that's a huge part of any war to defeat the enemy. I mean look at any major conflict. The Civil War, WW2 in the European & Pacific Theatres, Vietnam, pretty much any naval war, Gual Campaign, I could go on but I think ya get the point. Also it's not game breaking because it takes only 2 turns to re-make a pillaged tile, only 1 if you adopt citizenship. But otherwise totally agree wit the other rules

 

[dot80]

Ok, but what about no pillaging great person improvements? (Can those be fixed?). Do you still support no siege and city bombardment? I think with the greater rules about no wars of annihilation, we could allow these as viable parts of war.

 

[Heerlo]

All these rules would be fine with me, but do you have permission from sillsworth to do this? He's the one that originally started this game.

 

[Silverman6083]

Ok, but what about no pillaging great person improvements? (Can those be fixed?). Do you still support no siege and city bombardment? I think with the greater rules about no wars of annihilation, we could allow these as viable parts of war.

We can have siege and city attack, that was just an idea. Although I really think pillaging anything should be allowed but if everybody else wants to outlaw it, I'll abide

 

[dot80]

Sillsworth hasn't said anything to me, I will pm him about it. I think we should definitely reserve a spot for him if he would like to play.

I'm ok with all tiles being pillaged.

 

[MrCasperTom]

I'm tentatively interested; while a 24 hour turnover sounds a bit worrying realistically one turn a day shouldn't be that hard unless I'm out of town.

 

[dot80]

Yeah it definitely shouldn't be unmanageable. If you have to go out of town you can get a substitute to play for you while you're gone. One turn each day really only has to take a few minutes. You don't have to write every single day, and some turns will just be turns where you're waiting for production/tech/gold/ect.

 

[dot80]

Update: Ok, I've sent sillisworth a Private Message regarding his wishes to our starting a new game. I've also begun downloading CiV on the computer I'm going to use to host the pitboss (should be done later today). Finally, I did the port forwarding indicated in the guide up on the 2K forum. Hopefully by tonight I will be able to run a little test with the pitboss server to make sure everything is in order with the game.

In the meantime, I think we should start getting the settings worked out:

Map:
Speed:
Difficulty:
AI:
City States:
Special Settings:

I'm thinking Terra, Standard, Prince, None, 5-8, None. Pretty normal game I think. I will say, I'm in favor of no AI because they will detract form the "world build-yness" of the game. Standard speed b/c it will neither be too slow making things boring, or too fast tech-wise. As for special settings, I couldn't really think of anything that would help the game in special settings.

Also, as of now we are running with no DLC.

 

[Silverman6083]

Agree with the settings but in favor of more city-states. Also you mentioned the 2k forums, and I know literally nothing about Pitboss servers so do I need a 2k forum account or something? Sorry for my ignorance

 

[dot80]

I'd be ok with some more city states. Oh and I forgot about victories. Maybe only time victory only? We don't want anyone 'winning' while we are trying to world-build.

No you wont need a 2K forum account. They just have a guide posted there on how to post one. You'll be connecting through CiV itself.

 

[cpm4001]

I'd say Terra, Standard, King, no AI Civs, 1 CS per player, and no other special settings.
Also, I have no idea if Sillsworth will get back to you, just as a warning.

 

[dot80]

Hmm, come to think of it, with no AI will difficulty make a real difference? As for city states, aren't there usually a few more city states than civs in the game? Not a big deal to me.

Is there a particular reason why? (Not active anymore?) I know this is sort of his brainchild, but if the other game has stalled I don't think it would be wrong to try and start again. We have a new rule set made from scratch, and I was thinking we could come up with a new name anyway. I'll also be sure to give him credit in the introductory post.

 

[Silverman6083]

I'd be ok with some more city states. Oh and I forgot about victories. Maybe only time victory only? We don't want anyone 'winning' while we are trying to world-build.

No you wont need a 2K forum account. They just have a guide posted there on how to post one. You'll be connecting through CiV itself.

Ok thanks for clearing it up for me Also probably time or no victory conditions, and with what cpm said I think 2 or 3 city-states because we can conquer them and the AIs won't go berserk on us

 

[cpm4001]

Hmm, come to think of it, with no AI will difficulty make a real difference? As for city states, aren't there usually a few more city states than civs in the game? Not a big deal to me.

Is there a particular reason why? (Not active anymore?) I know this is sort of his brainchild, but if the other game has stalled I don't think it would be wrong to try and start again. We have a new rule set made from scratch, and I was thinking we could come up with a new name anyway. I'll also be sure to give him credit in the introductory post.

The difficulty affects how the City-States play, I believe. My suggestion for how many to put in was purely based on personal playstyles; I usually do a 1:1 Civ:CS ratio because it keeps things interesting in terms of fighting over them for their bonuses without crowding the map too much (though Silverman's right; we could play with a full complement of CSs and just go about killing them with impunity...)
No idea what happened to Sillsworth; just sorta dropped off the face of the Earth.

 

[dot80]

Well as long as Sillisworth won't mind, I don't want to step on anyone's toes.

On city-states. How about 1.5? Right now that would be 8, rounded. I'm worried with too many city states the game would throw them all in the new world or crowd us out in the old. I'm not a huge fan of war in civ v (never got used to the 1upt and 2 movement change from civ iv), so I'm against too too many. If not 1.5 than 2. 15 city states would be over kill I think.