Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
I am suggesting to not modifying the scenario, i.e. Britain is only Britain, India and other colonies as defined by the scenario, but not including Australia, Canada or South Africa.
New PBEM - 8 players!
- Thread starter Genghis_Kai
- Start date
Urghs. Thats hard. I'd still prefer the unification of all "teams" to supernations. This is also done in all boardgames concerning WW2 (e.g. Axis & allies ). This is
- more clear
- more easy to handle (especially air transport inside you own countries)
...all in all better to play.
I know you do not like your very well designed szenario to split into two versions. But the gap between historically correctness and civ4 gameplay in MP is to big.
- more clear
- more easy to handle (especially air transport inside you own countries)
...all in all better to play.
I know you do not like your very well designed szenario to split into two versions. But the gap between historically correctness and civ4 gameplay in MP is to big.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
If the majority prefers supernations, I am fine with it. But there are certainly good reasons for no modifications:
1) No need to argue how to combine nations. I am sure there will be different opinions what ever we suggest. Therefore, the safest way is to play the default setting.
2) Control less units and cities, which can speed up the game. The most important reason why we are restarting.
3) More realistic with the 36 nations existing.
1) No need to argue how to combine nations. I am sure there will be different opinions what ever we suggest. Therefore, the safest way is to play the default setting.
2) Control less units and cities, which can speed up the game. The most important reason why we are restarting.
3) More realistic with the 36 nations existing.
Bastian-Bux
King
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 788
There is one good reason against not modifying: without modifications there are just four sensible nations to play: USA, SU, Germany and Japan. The 4 other nations would be just sword fodder for the 4 majors.
Adhesive86
Warlord
Not necessarily. That is a bit simplistic. What about diplomacy?
Sure, Germany can crush France, or Italy, or maybe UK mainland. But it'd be pretty difficult all at once against all 3 if they ally. We've also got more possibilities as there are more 'Teams', even though AI, to leverage.
The player that takes for instance France or Italy will just have to put some effort in, working on the diplomacy.
Personally, though, I'm quite happy to wait for another player. I've posted an advert in the multiplayer forum.
to 1) i would even hand this completely to you. Everyone can do a suggestion (BEFORE we apply to any nation). After this YOU do whatever you want with that. No further discussion than...
to 2) as long i only need to load once this is even much better than before. so much units are not to move. After first turn with initial production is done it can run quickly. Also management of ressources is easier than. No more need to split the little oil ressources to several nations. No need to think in british turn to offer some to australia. Without explicit knowledge what japanese has done its even more hard for GB to plan the help for down under e.g. ...no i dont think number of units this was a problem.
to 3) Realism is spoiled by stupid AI anyways. All games of WW2 are only a approximation. Simplyfication can be done in following terms:
-reduce eco complexity
-reduce number of units
-reduce complexity of battlesystem
-reduce number of players (=nations)
we only touch one of this now. I again refer to the boardgame Axis & Allies. There all 4 points remarkably have been touched. And still it's fun to play. So.... Dont bother my friend
to 2) as long i only need to load once this is even much better than before. so much units are not to move. After first turn with initial production is done it can run quickly. Also management of ressources is easier than. No more need to split the little oil ressources to several nations. No need to think in british turn to offer some to australia. Without explicit knowledge what japanese has done its even more hard for GB to plan the help for down under e.g. ...no i dont think number of units this was a problem.
to 3) Realism is spoiled by stupid AI anyways. All games of WW2 are only a approximation. Simplyfication can be done in following terms:
-reduce eco complexity
-reduce number of units
-reduce complexity of battlesystem
-reduce number of players (=nations)
we only touch one of this now. I again refer to the boardgame Axis & Allies. There all 4 points remarkably have been touched. And still it's fun to play. So.... Dont bother my friend
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
Re 1) Thanks for your trust But that's exactly how we managed the last game. Obviously, not everyone are comfortable with that arrangement. If we are not playing the default, I would prefer to wait for someone else to suggest the setting, and then I can be the back seat driver this time 
Re 2) You reminded me another problem - Resource. That's another reason why we shouldn't combine nations. GEM is designed play with at least 24+ nations. If we are talking about combining it to 8 supernations, there will be too many resources on the map. For example, oil supply will no longer be a problem to the Axis. Science research will also be too much faster than it should if nations are combined.
Re 3) True. But AI are playing the minor civs only. Human are still controlling the major opponents. And if we increase our handicap setting, that would make AI harder to conquer.
But that's exactly how we managed the last game. Obviously, not everyone are comfortable with that arrangement. If we are not playing the default, I would prefer to wait for someone else to suggest the setting, and then I can be the back seat driver this time Re 2) You reminded me another problem - Resource. That's another reason why we shouldn't combine nations. GEM is designed play with at least 24+ nations. If we are talking about combining it to 8 supernations, there will be too many resources on the map. For example, oil supply will no longer be a problem to the Axis. Science research will also be too much faster than it should if nations are combined.
Re 3) True. But AI are playing the minor civs only. Human are still controlling the major opponents. And if we increase our handicap setting, that would make AI harder to conquer.
re 1) I would simply do following:
Team1 : germany/hungary/italy
Team2 : France / holland
Team3 : GB / Canada / India (Forbidden palace here) / Australia / NZ / Southafrica /egypt
Team4 : Russia / mongolia
Team5 : Japan, Mandschuria
Team6 : Southamerica
Team7 : USA
All others to KI's grouped on continents.
e.g. one nation for sweden / finland / norway / denmark / greece/ switzerland / spain / portugal.
One nations for middle east.
re 2) Well, the ressource stuff is buggy anyways from my point of view. Just remember rommels army in africa. Rommel was damn lack of fuel. He could not move anything without transports from italy. What we have here in civ?
Once the axis army crossed the mediterranean it can traven until kapstadt without any refuel. I would not mind, if this "problem" is just simplificated to: Everybody has enough fuel. ;-)
re 3) As long the AI is only passive (as all people who played the scenario vs KI observed) its all the same. All major powers has enough Offensive equipment to conquer each KI easily
Team1 : germany/hungary/italy
Team2 : France / holland
Team3 : GB / Canada / India (Forbidden palace here) / Australia / NZ / Southafrica /egypt
Team4 : Russia / mongolia
Team5 : Japan, Mandschuria
Team6 : Southamerica
Team7 : USA
All others to KI's grouped on continents.
e.g. one nation for sweden / finland / norway / denmark / greece/ switzerland / spain / portugal.
One nations for middle east.
re 2) Well, the ressource stuff is buggy anyways from my point of view. Just remember rommels army in africa. Rommel was damn lack of fuel. He could not move anything without transports from italy. What we have here in civ?
Once the axis army crossed the mediterranean it can traven until kapstadt without any refuel. I would not mind, if this "problem" is just simplificated to: Everybody has enough fuel. ;-)
re 3) As long the AI is only passive (as all people who played the scenario vs KI observed) its all the same. All major powers has enough Offensive equipment to conquer each KI easily
Ace of Spades
GEM Fanboy
My position on the issue: I would be willing to restart, but would not like to control more than one civilization, simply for convenience.
If this is achieved by combining the existing civs into supernations (the exact composition of those, of course, I would leave totally up to you, Kai), by each of us playing single nations or simply by me getting to play a larger nation like Russia or the USA which does not require me to have vassals/team members while the other civilizations may be grouped into teams, I do not care much.
I see the ressource thing the same way as Borgg, I do not care if there are shortages or not. As far as I am concerned, I would be fine with no team having ressource problems unless things get desperate for them anyway...
Best regards,
Martin
If this is achieved by combining the existing civs into supernations (the exact composition of those, of course, I would leave totally up to you, Kai), by each of us playing single nations or simply by me getting to play a larger nation like Russia or the USA which does not require me to have vassals/team members while the other civilizations may be grouped into teams, I do not care much.
I see the ressource thing the same way as Borgg, I do not care if there are shortages or not. As far as I am concerned, I would be fine with no team having ressource problems unless things get desperate for them anyway...
Best regards,
Martin
Adhesive86
Warlord
I pretty much agree with all of this. I believe that controlling one civ (supra or otherwise) far outweighs the resource issues, especially since it means that the game will hopefully circulate alot quicker.
It also means that once we agree on the civs (if supra) there can be no complaining about city trading etc.
But i'd also be happy to continue.
Dazz_G
Emperor
I too would be happy to continue but with us already a player missing and the current system a bit cumbersome then restarting is probably the best option.
If we do restart then I agree largely with Borgg and Martin.
If we do restart then I agree largely with Borgg and Martin.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
OK. I think we all agree to restart the game with each of us only playing one civ (single or combined). The issue is to discuss whether or not to modify the scenario to create supernations. And if so, how to combine them.
I still concern about resources. Resource was the only way for Britain/France to beat Germany. Eliminating that route means Germany will certainly win the war in Europe. Not only that, if Germany combine the resources from Italy and Hungary to start off with, the mining corporation can give more production bonus to Germany. The outcome of the combination is unpredictable.
I still concern about resources. Resource was the only way for Britain/France to beat Germany. Eliminating that route means Germany will certainly win the war in Europe. Not only that, if Germany combine the resources from Italy and Hungary to start off with, the mining corporation can give more production bonus to Germany. The outcome of the combination is unpredictable.
Ace of Spades
GEM Fanboy
It might be that this would shift the balance of power in one direction, but supposing that this will become obvious as the game progresses I assume alliances will shift accordingly.
In a FFA game, to my mind, having players whose controlled civilizations vary in power is not as problematic as in team games with two teams only. If one civilization gains an edge, the others would probably be inclined to work together to stop them.
Of course this only holds true as far as winning the game is concerned... weaker civilizations might still be kicked out of the game more easily, especially given that it will take all of us a few turns to get an intuition for the respective strength of all the civilizations in the game.
However, I guess that we have to expect some players be eliminated from the game in the process if we play for 240 turns, sooner or later. I doubt that we will see a time victory with all of the players still alive.
Best Regards,
Martin
In a FFA game, to my mind, having players whose controlled civilizations vary in power is not as problematic as in team games with two teams only. If one civilization gains an edge, the others would probably be inclined to work together to stop them.
Of course this only holds true as far as winning the game is concerned... weaker civilizations might still be kicked out of the game more easily, especially given that it will take all of us a few turns to get an intuition for the respective strength of all the civilizations in the game.
However, I guess that we have to expect some players be eliminated from the game in the process if we play for 240 turns, sooner or later. I doubt that we will see a time victory with all of the players still alive.
Best Regards,
Martin
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
Well ok. Most of you seems to like the idea of combining. Let's do so then.
The next question is how?
Let's start working from borgg's suggestion.
My first question to borgg is, where is China?
The next question is how?
Let's start working from borgg's suggestion.
My first question to borgg is, where is China?
Dazz_G
Emperor
What about turning Corporations off ?
Dazz_G
Emperor
My first question to borgg is, where is China?
I would have thought Communist China should be part of the Russian position.
to china: put comunist china to russia (since it was its political influence). rest national china as one KI together with nepal.
corporations:
Forbidding is one way. Might be this is the best solution.
On the other hand we can spoil german production with deleting some plants, industrial centers or factories...whatever.
corporations:
Forbidding is one way. Might be this is the best solution.
On the other hand we can spoil german production with deleting some plants, industrial centers or factories...whatever.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
I would of thought China can be a human player by itself (Nationalist + Communist + Nepal). You have only 7 players in your human player list. If China is AI controlled, Japan is way too advantaged, as compared to Germany vs France.
I don't think this is good. Corporation is part of the balancing factor in the game. Taking out corporation is going to affect game balance alot. For example, those civ with corporation HQ will have no corporation bonus any more.
But that's more or less suggesting to remake the scenario. It's going to take me days to make changes, test, then change again etc. This is another important reason why I suggest to play the default.
I admit i'm not very familar with the china situation.... But i guess its similar to the situation of greece or scandinavia. You just can wait to get slaughtered. This can be done also by a high level KI (we can simply rise the KI level). Further Japan will get faced with russia immediately. Also GB will appear much stronger after unification of all its vasalls. So japan has enough problems.
I dont mind to have only 7 players. Any need to have 8?
Playing the default will be very easy for germany in europe. Also japan is easy going in pacific. This situation is much worse than just leaving National China to KI in like in my suggestion.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
I think this is very wrong, both historically and in the scenario. China was an important player in WW2, ranking 4th to 5th in the Allies. That's not my ranking but the public ranking at the end of the war. That's why China was given one of the five permanent seats in the Security Council in the united nations (the other 4 are USA, USSR, UK and France). As compared to Poland, France, Denmark, Netherlands or Greece, who surrendered or lost entirely to Germany within a month after being invaded, China was at full scale war with Japan since July 1937 up until Japan surrendered on Aug 1945. China never has surrendered within the 8 years. On July 1937, Japan claimed that they are able to take over entire China in three months, it turn out that they are only able to take Shanghai in three months. They then thought after taking Nanking, China will surrender. But China moved the capital to Wuhan and continue to fight. Japanese then thought taking Wuhan the Chinese will fall. But China once again moved the capital to Chongqing. The resistance was actually stiffer and stiffer on Japanese. By 1940, Japanese has reached a stalemate with Chinese. I can't remember the exact number, but roughly, Japan suffered 2/3 to 3/4 of its military casualties from China in the entire world war 2. Given all these facts, how can you claim China was only Greece or Scandanivia and was just waiting for slaughtered?
But we have 8 people here who are all commited to play. I think it is not right to throw out anyone.
I don't think it is any easier for the Axis for the default, if we are comparing it with combining Germany and Italy and giving it to one player.
