Discussion in 'Civ4 - PitBoss Games' started by 2metraninja, May 16, 2014.
Vote: Unrestricted Snake Pick
Just as I can play with any settings and still enjoy the game.
Just out of curiosity - when I was younger, I've been told that when I go to Rome, I do like the Romans. If someone is first-timer and want to try pitboss, isnt it more logical he to try to learn from the ones used to the business?
And I will allow myself to correct you on the statement that no one said anything about unrestricted leaders:
All in all, I cant, neither I want to force anyone on anything, but we voting on each and every small detail will be chore for me. I said in the first post I am organizing a game and hope to have relaxed game with newcommers. But it is good that discord starts to show off here and now before the game is at all started, so we can try to resolve any problems we might have.
Normally, games have admin which is chosen amongst the respected non- playing in this particular game community members. I can ask SevenSpirits if he is willing to take this post, as he already committed with this game by generating the snake pick and then making the map for us. But being admin is thankless job as you can imagine, so he might just refuse. If there is no admin to a given game, then the host acts as a disputes setting power through the game. In rare occasions (like game settings, or unforeseen circumstances during the game) the organizer of the game also can act as disputes setting authority.
Which "house rules" you want to know? Do you want me to make a written rule for everything? Or simply post all in-game settings? I am not sure I will not miss something to state as rule, as I might consider it (just like unrestricted btw) natural and commonly accepted. I cant think of much house rules besides the war-double-move rule. Is anyone sure he understands how it work?
I've played in no less than 8 MP communities/sites and I myself been in stark disputes about rules and such especially in RB, so it is quite funny indeed that I ended up being viewed as pro-RB rules enforcer I wont go in details, but I will just say I was threatened with ban at RB if I keep dispute in a thread about game rules. Oh, the irony.
Not when you are trying to resurrect something from the dead. I thought this was supposed to be a fresh start for the Pitboss community, hence you need to appeal to the newcomers.
All of them, duh. And yes, all options that are enabled (even if it is commonly accepted in the metagame like no tech trading or no goodie huts) I would like to know of now.
I will think what is to be said more about rules. When we speak about options, I was thinking to have normal barbs on, but huts off. Is this OK by all? I know someone suggested huts on to balance those with hunting starts, but in my opinion, the chance to get even a single technology or 40 gold from a hut way overweight the 15 hammers anyone have to invest to build a warrior eventually. And still, they will have the scout for fog-busting, early alarming or map discover/other nations meeting. So yeah, in my opinion scout start will be overpowered with huts on.
It would be nice to know your standard settings... I would assume that huts were off but I'm unsure. Would barbs be off too? Would your guy checking the map over replace scouts with warriors to lessen the rubbishness of that as a starting tech.
I have read a few pitboss reports by the almighty Sulla and am really interested in it as a gaming style. As there are a fair few newbies here to pitboss it just would be nice to understand exactly what the base assumptions of people like yourself are. I am quite happy to roll with a snake pick for example but if I had never read those reports then I would have been a little confused by it being used without much discussion.
Finally, I think a big question is city gifting, specifically cheese city gifting. Will this be allowed? The gifting of cities away to a third party whilst at war with someone?
Ah cross post. Could your chap change scouts to warriors perhaps? That would not be too much to ask would it?
Yes, I can understand the confusion someone new could feel about things and I am trying to explain things as much as I can.
City gifting is good question. In the InterSiteDemoGame it was forbidden. But someone could argue that gifting cities can be a part of normal diplomacy or game tactics. TBH, I am happy about cities not being able to be gifted at all in the ISDG. Another very disputed thing is the use of those Civic switch and religion switch missions. We might well forbid those too. But based on my 20+ pitbosses experience, neither gifting cities, nor CSM are that unpassable obstacle. This more comes in the sphere of shenanigans. Such shenanigans can be units moving and gifting to someone in war, so he can use them when his turn comes, or attacking with units in someone else's territory and then gifting them to this nation who is not in war or closing borders with them so the wounded units are teleported or 100 other things which are to say mildest "shady", or outright exploit, but I guess we cant really regulate everything. My personal opinion is that we regulate the most important thing, which is the double- move (guarantee of reload if such happens) and then we let the other things unregulated. Because first there cant be a way to be seen or known all that everyone is doing, and then, there is no way to be enforced not to be used.
About warriors, yeah, SevenSpirit (just to introduce him and his credentials - he is viewed at RB as better player than the "Almighty Sullla" and way better sportsman and respected player than him either) can make all starting units warriors, but he can make them the same way all scouts (which is btw the default way at RB, so here you can put the pro-RB card confidently )
Yeah all scouts would be nice actually. And I agree you cannot regulate everything, and indeed I rather see it as ingenuity using game mechanics to your advantage, but others may view them as cheesy. I am happy to roll with anything people can legally do within the game, but to stop arguments later a ruling now is probably best is all I thought.
Haha I jest with calling Sulla almighty, and I agree he does get a lot of rage in games. However the write ups he puts a fair bit of time into are a good read.
I vote for no city gifting and no war double move. I vote yes to all spy missions.
About pick, i preffer unrestricted, but oh, 13th pick is very bad perhaps i'll preffer restricted leader
Back on RB I have been a big advocate for starting everyone with a scout, so that is my personal preference for this map.
(The reason is that if someone's warrior finds someone else's capital in the first 20t or so, the latter player will be in a ton of trouble through essentially just random chance. In a 10+ player game this is very likely to happen to one of the players and just ruin their game before it even begins. You might say, that player should have just built a warrior for defense and/or kept their starting warrior at home. But such choices leave you far behind everyone who goes for the more efficient strategy of building a worker and scouting... and probably only 0-2 of the efficient players would get unlucky. So then you are in second-to-last place already, and it's not even foolproof defense against the enemy warrior.)
For my part, I would assume the following game settings as default for you guys, barring a vote against them:
* Barbs on
* Huts off
* Random events off
* Vassal states off
* No technology trading
* Unrestricted leaders
The reason you play unrestricted leaders is twofold. The first reason is balance. With restricted leader pairings, some are just way better than others, and the difference in quality between the best and the 14th best is tremendous. With unrestricted leaders + snake pick, it's still not perfect but you'll get a much better distribution of quality. To the person who suggested the unfairness of AGG romans or PRO mali btw, I will say: those are not good choices. You would be much better off not picking AGG or PRO, even if the trait seems to fit well with your UU.
The second reason to play unrestricted leaders is variety and novelty. Simply put, there are many more possibilities for what to play when you can play each leader with any civ instead of only each leader with their own civ. For your first multiplayer game, this is probably not important. It's only important if you play a lot. But balance? Balance is pretty important.
I don't see the problem with city gifting tbh, and I'm not sure how exactly you want to enforce the no double moves rule.
I'm in favor of not adding too many arbitrary restrictions and houserules.
How about giving each player a scout and a Warrior?
For the first vote in settings I'll abstain since I am new to this whole pitboss thing. I will however, vote for Unrestricted and Snake pit since it seems the most fair.
I am definitely for unrestricted leaders, since it allows more freedom for the player to strategise. Thus with a snake pick it means that do you want to get your favourite civ first or leader?
Yes, you have to choose which one you like most and maybe consider how likely is someone else to take it until it is your turn to choose again.
I think no city gifting is good except for peace treaties, I think a defender should be allowed to buy him peace with land. Scouts at start sound nice and Sevens proposed settings are ok with me.
Agreed with Sinimustra. And thanks Sevens by your help
I vote unrestricted and snakepit for balance.
I like the idea of giving every player a scout and a warrior. That would seem a more natural balance than just a scout only for everyone.
With Scout + Warrior you still have the issue that if two or more players want to explore with both units (which is a reasonable decision), you can still end up with one player being eliminated or severely set back early on. I'd recommend everyone starting with Scouts, but it's up to you.
For the record, the "standard settings" at Realms Beyond are not some arbitrary choices made for no reason. I can understand that they may seem unusual to folks not familiar with multiplayer games, but they have developed over the years to become "standard settings" because players have found them to make for generally good games. Most people who've played multiplayer for a while will have experienced one or two games that didn't work as well as others, and many times it was because a certain setting (or lack of a setting) allowed for an unbalanced game from the start.
In case it's of use to you, here are the "standard guidelines for fair play" from the most recent proposed Pitboss at RB. Number 2 and maybe 3 won't be relevant to you, but the general ideas should apply across most Pitboss games.
I still don't get why we shouldn't allow city trading as long as it's not used in some kind of unit gifting chain.
Separate names with a comma.