Psi - invite only

placeholder for options - all yet to be discussed


Map:
Size: Large
Climate: Temperate
SeaLevel: Normal
Era: Ancient
Speed: Normal
WorldWrap: Cylindrical
Resources: Standard

Advanced Start: ???

No City Razing: off/default
No City Flipping: off/default
City Flipping After Conquest: off/default
No Barbs: off/default
Raging Barbs: off/default
Aggressive AI: on

Random Leaders: ON
Random Tribes: ON
Random Personality: off/default
Choose Religion: off/default
No Tech Trading: on (= Tech Trading not allowed ....)
No Tech Brokering: on (= Tech Trading not allowed ....)


Victories: (All on/default)
----------
Time = on/default
Conquest = on/default
Domination = on/default
Cultural = on/default
Space Race = on/default
Diplomatic = on/default

No AI


Bold black is a done deal.
Red implies some level of disagreement - ie different people suggest different things
Normal print implies default, because no suggestions so far.
 
I'm in. I will reserve my options until I see what the majority of people are saying.
 
I'm in.

Disappointed it isn't called chi-squared though ;)
 
I will only compete if settings are extremely interesting ;)

So guys, you discuss, I'll decide then ..

(I have a pretty full stack of games now)
 
I also have a full slate :crazyeye: but will consider or be a backup depending on what the earlier players decide. It might be too interesting not to play :undecide:
 
I just pinged Twinkletoes again, as this is nominally in his honour but I had not heard back from him. Just in case...

Otherwise, we appear to have the 6 of us above, with 1 or 2 two possibles, depending on option interest.

So let's talk options and maps... no real debate on maps before, but a few offered options, and I kind of plumped for one of them, not having used it before...

Another thought, if the reason for having this is no ai, but the people - who did not want ai in Chi - are not participating, then little reason to not have ai again, except for a change. OTOH, no ai is probably the default...if only for feng shui.

So, opt away...

I'm unlikely to start this except at a weekend, so we have time to ponder...







ParadigmShifter said:
I'm in.

Disappointed it isn't called chi-squared though ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that would be a good fit.:p
 
gpcii said:
Well, if there are no AIs I don't see why tech trading would be an issue since that is what the concern is about, but I'm good with whatever...
Click to expand...

It is mainly for the AI, but it is for humans as well. I have seen polarizing in PBEMs where persons A and B gang up on C because they know C is a better player. Or A and B gang up on C to wipe him out quickly. Or person A is on an island and by the time he meets persons B, C, D, E, F, and G they are so far behind that they have no chance of winning. Of course all the things I mentioned happen in real life so you could say that tech trading should be allowed.

I'm not advocating for tech trading being on or off, just stating some of the reasons people like tech trading turned off.

As for options, I have a wacky idea. I played a Civ3 game like this many years ago and it was lots of fun. The rule is whenever you meet somebody that player becomes your teammate for the rest of the game. If one of you wins, then both of you win. (Of course only one of you gets the victory screen and a win in your hall of fame but who cares). If you happen to meet two or more people on the same turn, then you have to ally with the person that you met first. If you happen to meet two or more people on the same turn at the exact same time then you choose who your ally is. As soon as you meet your ally you have to post so everybody sees who your ally is, so nobody will get the same ally. This doesn't mean that you are necessarily at war with everybody else in the game, it's just that you and your ally work together to win. There are no things that you and your ally must do, and there are no restrictions for what you and your ally can't do. If you can't work together and don't want to trade techs, then don't. If one of you declares war on somebody then your ally may or may not declare war on them, your choice. If somebody declares war on you and your ally doesn't want to help you, he doesn't have to. If you want to declare war on your ally (and there are reasons you might want to do this) then declare war on your ally. One of the big drawbacks to this is if you are at one end of the world and you meet somebody who is already allied with somebody else, and you keep searching and you can't find an un-allied person, you can potentially fall behind. But it should be fun and interesting. Thoughts?
 
Its an interesting concept - but perhaps it would be better to do it as an actual teamer in that regard?

Set up teams of two and turn on 'shuffle teams' and so we only know our team mate once the game has started - then we both get to claim the win and it makes things a bit simpler. I think that that would be the best way to run a game like this.

Just to confirm what I said in email - I am currently interested in a game like this
 
While we are discussing wacky 'options' I will throw something out that I saw played as human v AI teamer which could work as a human v human teamer.

Axis v Allies? - 3 or 4 players per side (proper teams as in option checked or unofficial) who have to defeat the other team to win (and if unofficial teams, then turn on each other?)

Axis - Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Vichy France (Louis)
Allies - England, USA, Russia, China, Free France (De Gaulle)

I'm fine with a normal game or some wacky settings (as long as no AI) - just wanted to throw this out there
 
Twinkletoes89 said:
Its an interesting concept - but perhaps it would be better to do it as an actual teamer in that regard?

Set up teams of two and turn on 'shuffle teams' and so we only know our team mate once the game has started - then we both get to claim the win and it makes things a bit simpler. I think that that would be the best way to run a game like this.

Just to confirm what I said in email - I am currently interested in a game like this
Click to expand...

That's a good idea. We could do that. My vote is for this one.
 
Currently we have seven, so we need to either know
- whether this meets Calanthian's definition of interesting,
- and Chasbolt's threshold for taking on another game,
and then potentially look for a final player to make the numbers even.

I assume teams automatically share research, so tech more quickly ?

Anyone else have a problem with this idea?

Can we talk about maps once the above is accepted/rejected ?

I'm good with this suggestion, btw...
 
I can't be bothered with a team game... so count me out chaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tigranes
World War I
10 11 12
Replies
221
Views
17K
giorgako
G
Tigranes
America: End of Days PBEM
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
11K
DKVM
DKVM
Tigranes
Middle East PBEM
10 11 12
Replies
224
Views
28K
Imperator Knoedel
Imperator Knoedel
bathsheba666
Octafish
21 22 23
Replies
443
Views
42K
Echtelion
Echtelion
Imperator Knoedel
Civilization IN SPACE!
41 42 43
Replies
858
Views
91K
Tigranes
Tigranes
Top Bottom