I feel bad about falsfire (and Iteean) not getting into the 4/5 slot.
Why? SG's tend to do best with 4 or 5 players: better player involvement, fewer dropouts, faster rounds. Players understand that, as they've shown in this thread.
More games can always be started, when there are more players wanting to play. Charis's idea of a deity game outside the series sounds good because it offers a better chance to fill a third game.
I would be very happy to run this as as LotR 5 and not as an RBE, so that "non-qualified" (emphasis on quotes) players could compete.
Please leave off the politicking, Arathorn.
The RBE qualifications are fair, nonjudgemental, and wholly objective. While exclusionary, elitism is not the point. There are qualifications to get a drivers license, to gain admittance to high school or university, and to practice a multitude of professions. In asking players to establish (not just assert) their readiness for Deity play, many things are gained, among them a sense of fraternity. People tend to value things they have to earn, and that promotes a higher commitment level to the events.
I've played in dozens of SG's and seen many disintegrate. That is a fate worth working to avoid. SG's particularly tend to start falling apart if the going gets rough, as it is apt to do at Deity. Those who have won a deity game have definitely "seen the elephant" and will be much less likely to panic or lose heart while playing from behind -- sometimes from way behind. I know you understand this, so why the tension?
In the interest of group community, I would be willing to forego my spot in RBE5, so that falsfire can play, if that's so desired.
That's not desired by me. I'm all for working out agreeable arrangements, trying to accomodate everybody's interests, but once plans are decided and rosters formed, I'm not in favor of renegotiating. Now whether the roster comes first, the game settings to be decided last, or the game settings chosen then the roster formed up, those are both workable. We had some of both here, dividing the players up between game versions.
You offering to give up your spot is generous, but it also forces another round of negotiating and decision-making. I happen to believe that a ship needs a captain, and that so does an SG. If there is a leader, there is somebody to make final decisions and to steer the helm. You, Charis, LK, and I are all accustomed to being captain. We have each led very successful, entertaining games. We each also have some difficulty giving up the helm, or at least tend to do so with reservations and conditions.
I thought I had met your conditions, but now you're raising more of them and tossing uncertainty into the mix. Now we've got no less than four captains in one game, without a consensus. You took charge, narrowed the options down, then handed off control to Architect. Charis affirmed your choice to do that and Architect is executing the consolidate-and-lead role you handed him, and already you are objecting to his decisions. This wagon feels like it is rolling downhill without a driver.
I'm ready to apply the brake. This game needs a captain, and until we all agree on one, it's not going forward. I don't have a need to be in charge. I've played many an SG with somebody else at the helm. When you've been in charge and run your own games, they come out fine, but this... is too chaotic. My hope that we'd go through the game with the hatchet buried is already gone. You are not only nitpicking the RBE rules, but also Architect's decisions, after YOU told him to run with the game start. I do want you to play with us, but now it will be on the condition that you let Architect be the captain. More negotiations to come to consensus on what to play is fine, but if at the end there are still disagreements, Architect will resolve them. If you're fine with that, then we have a process to reach accord. If not, if you need to be in charge to be comfortable, then that's what you should do -- in your own game -- and we'll play with four or we'll bring in an alternate.
Architect's set-up looks OK. It looks more "builder" than I've been in the mood lately
60% water is a bit "more builder" than average. That's the only thing "builder" about his listed settings. Builder games are those with more land per civ than average, for the given map size. All 60% water games are on the builder side unless more than the default max civs for the map size are inserted. Games with 80% are likewise cramped unless the game is played with less than the max number of civs. Combine 60% water with fewer than average civs and you have a true Builders Game, ala RBE1.
What makes such land-to-civ ratios "builder" games is that with so much more land available via settlers, there is more to gain by pushing expansion than pushing military, because while you fight one civ, the two of you get hurt while the rest grab the land. You can still do as much warfare in a builder game as any other kind of game, just that it comes later, because it takes you longer to grab, fill out and consolidate your share of the land.
The land ratio is not a dictator on war vs peace. That is a choice. You can make the war choice in any situation. You can't make the peace choice and succeed if you don't get enough lands in the grab phase, but RBE2 shows about how much land you need to eke out a win, and it's not that much. Peace is a viable option in all but the worst starting situations.
I don't want to replay RBE2, at least not in this game. That doesn't mean I want a builder game. Trust me, I got my fill of deity builder game for the time being in RBE1 and Epic 17. I want middle of the road, and a warmonger approach is fine. I did include China in the list of industrious civs on my Most Preferred list. China is the only original civ for which I have zero Hall of Fame entries. I have been in many Chinese games, but for a variety of reasons none have been concluded. China was just played, but I don't think anyone from that game is on this roster. They're in RBE4. The industrious trait aids warmaking: more roads, rapid tile improvements, get by to some extent with slaves, etc. In the end, though, I don't care too much about what civ we play, as what civs we play against.
Raging barbs are fine, IF we forego the 60% water and go with 70%. I've played a little PtW solo now, enough to see that the barbs aren't supermen. Deity barbs are a whole other breed than on lower settings, though. Nobody who played Epic Four will ever view them the same again. Get caught with a lot of land around you, and no AI's nearby... 60% land is the right choice if we WANT to deal with endless raging hordes. Their new AI would make a builder game with high barbs play very differently from the no barb variety, but I'd rather save that for later.
I do want you to play, Arathorn. Your views about the settings or the strategy aren't the problem. It was that you gave the green light too soon, and ineffectively, leading to confusion. We're NOT ready, even now, to start. With so much open in PtW and each of us wanting to explore different things, there is less consensus now about what to play than I've ever seen for an SG.
Normally, I direct the organization, obtain consensus quickly, then form up teams and get things rolling. Sometimes I have a vision for the game and I make most of the decisions (RBE1). Sometimes I work to keep a low profile and only help to enable others who have a vision carry it out (RBE4). Sometimes we run the game settings and scenario by committee (RBE2), and sometimes I just get out of the way (RBE3). In each instance, though, I make sure not to allow the process to wander, so as to avoid players reaching this state:
I guess I'm also a bit confused like Iteean as to exactly which games are actually being proposed and who is being expected to join them. - Carbon Copy
You, Arathorn, are the only player in the SG community to have expressed a public vote of "no confidence" in my leadership. When you expressed an interest in an RBE game, I decided that I would take a step back, try to avoid provoking you, meet all your concerns, and make every effort to move on with a clean slate. I was extending a spirit of reconciliation and looking for the same in return. Instead, you've launched a barb of sarcasm at the RBE rules, taken charge of the roster and settings for this game but only produced confusion, and it seems to me you've made effort to circumnavigate around me. Those results and actions on your part lead me to conclude that this game isn't going to go forward without our prior getting in the way. I tried, but meeting your concerns and being welcoming to you are not my only responsibilities. So... let's try to reach an understanding.
First of all, you wouldn't go into an LK game, ignore Lee, make arrangements for the settings and terms, than hand the game off to a third party arbitrarily. (Would you?) And if you did so, that would produce confusion. Why? Some would be agreeable to your ideas. Some would defer to Lee out of confidence in his leadership through past games. Some wouldn't care either way, just wanting to get a game going. And all of these folks would be confused as to who's in charge.
Lee's games were going when I got here. I played in one almost immediately and I had a good time, but the difficulty was more tame than I preferred. Rather than try to take over his series, I ran my own games (under Charis's RBD series, mostly). You did the same: rather than try to take over RBD, you started your own games, with even higher difficulty than RBD.
LK is Lee's series, RBD and RBP are Charis's series, and LOTR is your series. Well, the fact is, RBE is my series. I came up with the vision for it and provided the canvas. The series also belongs to the players, who are wholly responsible for painting the results. I provide the studio, they make the art. The art that has resulted is generating a lot of interest and excitement.
You happen to be a talented painter, and we're all interested in seeing what you'd paint on an RBE PTW canvas. I made a decision when you expressed interest in RBE that I would not exert my leadership, as a show of good faith. I'd wait and see what you wanted, even let you take charge of the game. But it is not working. You don't have the authority that you do in a LOTR game to make the final decisions, and you did not choose to try to include me in the arrangement, but more to work around me. The moment I expressed some of my preferences, other players started to account for them in the group decision and you're immediately showing discomfort and talking about bailing to go run a LOTR game instead.
Help me out, here. I want this to work. If you honestly want or need to be in control, that's fine. You run a good game, and no reason not to run LOTR5 in cooperation with RBE5 to "share" the players in search of some gaming. I'd prefer that not turn hostile, as forcing players to start "choosing sides" is no fun for them. On the other hand, if you want to be part of the RBE gaming, you are welcome here only if you leave the politicking and power struggles at the door. If you are not comfortable with me or my leadership, or with the confidence and loyalty others show for me, best for all that we come to that conclusion quickly.
In terms of actual gaming, what do you want? Offer us clarity. I'm stepping in to take charge of organizing the roster for RBE5, as it is my responsibility to resolve series-wide issues. If you are good with that, the roster is already set (with five) and we can finish negotiations on settings. Once that is done, we'll go with your idea to play under Architect as captain and have him generate the start and play the first round. You don't have to feel obliged to run LOTR5 for others -- Charis had the vision for another game and can organize it as an RBP -- so this comes down to what you, personally, want, for your own gaming.
- Sirian
, and with upcoming Epics. So if there were enough interest without me that would be good, and I would recommend Celts or Spanish, or... do a 'mirror' of RBE SG5 with Carthage in your own thread. 
supported by other players. Having said that, LK34 is heading toward domination so I'd love to play in RBP2 although I wouldn't regard it as a "true" DSG qualifying game.
