1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Team 1 *SPOILER*

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Multi-site Demo Game' started by DaveShack, Jul 16, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    This thread is for team 1 pre-game discussions.

    We should name our team something a bit more imaginative, any ideas?

    How do we organize our team?

    Do we want to pick a civ or take what comes? Guess that depends a bit on what the "UN" decides, if we have one.
     
  2. vikingruler

    vikingruler Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    965
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    I think we should play as a civ with a strong defense unit, like carthage. the numidian mercenary's 2.3.1. stats will be great for early stages, and save us money on upgrading to pikes. since there will be only 4 civs, 4 teams, an i think no AI war will be definite and one civ will become very strong, and come after us. the mercenary will aid our defenses. also their traits, seafaring and industrious, give us great workers, a great spot for our capital, (seafaring starts you by the sea in most cases) more money for costal cities, and units won't sink easily. we could call ourselves, team Carthage or something like that. Also, I need to say that i'm going to be gone the 17th-30th, going to england but leaving tommorow night so i can get on tommorow.
     
  3. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    An agricultural civ is important to have, I think. Sumeria and the Iroquois would be my choices.

    As for a team name, only one name comes to my mind: Team Doughnut. :D
     
  4. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Regarding UU choice, which should we position for, a late ancient GA or early middle ages? I tend to think of civs with knight replacement UUs, and/or fast movement.

    From the team checklist thread it looks like we should provide a list of top 5 civs in priority order. No more than 3 of the top 5 may be agricultural, and no more than 2 of the top 3. Guess that means a lot of PBEMs are played with Agr civs?
     
  5. RegentMan

    RegentMan Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    Yes. Agricultural is often regarded as the civ trait. The restriction is to avoid having all four teams' civ choices be Iro/Sumer/Celts (for example).
     
  6. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    As for the organization, what if we have a constitutional monarchy? The King, elected at the beginning of the game for an indefinite term, would hold little actual power, but would represent the country at the UN and serves as titular Head of State. The King's term of office ends only with an abdication or perhaps a 'revolution' (losing a referendum with supermajority disapproval). Meanwhile, the Prime Minister, who holds the actual power, is elected for a term of no more than x turns, but can choose to hold elections earlier than that and can be booted from office following a failed vote of confidence, which any citizen could post. There might also be room for a Justice position to interpret our ruleset.

    Does this sound like a good idea, or should we go with something different? Keep in mind that we won't have very many citizens, so the number of officials by necessity will have to be low.
     
  7. vikingruler

    vikingruler Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    965
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    @Bootstoots, no offense but I don't really like that idea. it sounds interesting but it would give 2 people power, and the rest as normal citizens. the less citizens we have the more power each one should get. i think each citizen should get assigned to a particular position for a term or for the game. one or two people could nominate or self-nominate citizens and if 2 people want the same position we vote. this allows everyone to have a key role in the game, while spreading power evenly.
     
  8. Tomoyo

    Tomoyo Fate

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    9,698
    Location:
    Boston, Mass
    I would love to have the Iros (Agricultural and an awesome UU), but other teams will probably want them, so I'm leaning towards Sumeria, whom no one will want a part of early on.

    Don't know about the organization.
     
  9. Ginger_Ale

    Ginger_Ale Lurker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    8,802
    Location:
    Red Sox Nation
  10. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Okay, that's fine, just a random idea I threw out. So you suggest we create a high number of positions and give everybody one? If so, that may not be a bad idea if everybody stays active, but keep in mind that activity may wax and wane throughout the game as people gain and lose interest. We'll need to make sure the positions aren't set in stone if that's true; otherwise, we'll end up with high amounts of vacant seats.

    I've got another idea: what if we play the save as an open succession game of sorts? There would be no positions; whoever gets to the save first posts a "got it" and plays it, sending it on to the next team, subject to rules forbidding one person to hog the save. Important decisions could still be discussed and polled in the forum as usual, the only difference is that anybody can play the save. That way, we'd play the save quickly and there'd be no need for elected positions, making us a direct democracy where all citizens are equal. How does that sound?
     
  11. vikingruler

    vikingruler Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    965
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    that sounds great. :D Just as long as we disscuss and poll things like a true DemoGame.
     
  12. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Certainly, the goal is to be as close to direct democracy as possible. I think, with a small userbase, that this should work well in practice. So what does everybody else think of this idea?
     
  13. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Sounds good to me. :)

    Of course, my team name proposal still stands. :D
     
  14. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I'd approve of Team Doughnut. :D
     
  15. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    RegentMan is calling for a team vote on the issue of adopting the new rule 0.3.3, which deals with information held by refugees. He has asked each UN representative to take a vote within the spoiler threads and return it to the official poll within 48 hours, where we can state our country's stance. Since we don't have an official UN rep yet, I would be willing to step in as temporary rep for this decision, if no one objects of course.

    Here is the text of the proposed rule:
    Is this acceptable? Please vote yes, no, or abstain within this thread. Once the deadline nears or it appears we have everyone's vote, I will post our decision in the official poll.
     
  16. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Seems reasonable to me.
     
  17. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    There are several more polls: SoZ, Difficulty, SGL's, Age/Temp/Weather, Map Size, Barbs, Landform. Please discuss here so one of us can enter a team vote.

    My opinions:

    SoZ -- no strong thoughts either way. It may not be as killer in PBEM as it is in Epic. The ISDG team had SoZ and got obliterated by the other three teams anyway -- but that's the only PBEM I've seen to completion, all the others have been plagued by others dropping out.

    Difficulty -- Emperor seems standard.

    SGL's -- On one hand why not some rewards for researching fastest, OTOH random events can make an awfully big difference.

    age/temp/weather middle setting for all 3, mapmaker balances so one team isn't stuck with a lot of desert / marsh / jungle / tundra.

    Map size -- small

    Barbs -- roaming or restless. otoh some don't like the random event nature of goody huts

    Landform -- continents or archipeligo, 60 or 70%. Mapmaker balances land tiles available to each team and makes crossings difficult but not impossible.
     
  18. WarDance

    WarDance Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    473
    Location:
    The Fire Dances
    Newly immigrated citizen, WarDance, checking in. Hello all! :)

    I'm not a fan of the SoZ, so I will vote against it.
    I would think that difficulty wouldn't really matter, Emperor is fine.
    I also vote against SGL's.
    Barbarians: I like all or nothing. Raging or none at all.
    I agree with Daveshack on the climate, etc. Middle positions are fine.
    Map size, small
    Lastly my vote is with Continents, 70% water.


    And as far as the other referendum goes: "0.3.3 - Spoiler Info
    Description: Upon joining a new team, you are not allowed to give out spoiler info to your new team that the new team you are on would not know about if you had not joined. If you have to give out spoiler info to prove your case, then do not post / vote in the thread. Verdict: Red (Personal) "

    I vote yes
     
  19. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Here are my votes:

    SoZ - no
    Difficulty - Emperor
    SGL's - yes
    Barbs - none
    Age/Climate/Temp - all middle
    Map size - small
    Landform - Continents
    Water coverage - 70%
    0.3.3 - no (I think it could make the game more interesting and realistic to allow refugees to tell of what their country knew, rather than use a gag order to silence them)
     
  20. zyxy

    zyxy Warmongering Fool

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,390
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Hi guys, checking in. Nice to see you again, Wardance :)

    My prefs (all based on guessing, I have never played human opponents):

    A small hand-made or extensively balanced map (this involves more than just giving everyone a similar number of tiles).
    No SGL's, no SoZ, no barbs for me.
    Middle positions on climate etc.
    continents.

    This means fairly early contacts, so we need a civ with early UU and possibly increased ability to cross the water.
    Iroquois, Celts, Persia, Carthage are all decent. If we expect early combat, then Sumeria, Aztecs, Zulu or Byzantium are ok I think. If late combat, maybe Vikings, China or Dutch.

    Maybe we should first decide what strategy we'll use? Early rush, or build-up? Offensive, or defensive? UU choice should depend on that...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page