Team Discussion

[RegentMan]

Do we want to expand the number of teams in the game from four to a higher number? It would probably be six, as any higher would require a huge participation rate.

Four? Six? Another number? What say you?

 

[classical_hero]

It really depends upon how many active members we have. I would prefer four ATM, but if we have lots of members, then we could go for maybe even 8 team or more.

 

[Tubby Rower]

I think that we ought to have ~15 per team. So once people start signing up, have 3 or 4 teams and then add a team as people come in. I would add teams once the other teams are @ 10 people until we start. After we start others will likely join and then we can have the 15 per team.

btw, who are going to be the admins? I'd feel bad for RM & GA to be the admins again and miss out on the fun .

 

[Furiey]

I would like to take part in this, but as daren't load the save in case I see floodplains in unexplored regions (which I will if there are any), perhaps I could help out with the admin side, I will have more time once the Civ 3 demogame finishes.

 

[fe3333au]

Not sure about Tubby's suggestion in having 15 per team ... it is my experience with our team MIA, that although we had officially 25+ citizens ... in truth 40% never showed up in the first place and for a long while, only 5-ish have been active enough to dicuss strategies and moves ... we now have 7-ish regulars that at least vote in polls.

Team KISS, I believe were different as they joined with a nucleus of known and friendly players already in place ... and thus possibly are the team with the most active of citizens ...

IMO All other teams have suffered mega attrition and drop outs ... and have had numerous lean times with low single digit actives playing the game .

It is my humble suggestion that we ascertain the number of interested players before we work on team numbers.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

fe3333au, that has affected all teams. You always start out with a higher number then you end up with actively participating - it's just the flow of things.

I don't think a team could ever be *too* active, thus, having a smaller amount of teams to ensure activity on each will be crucial. I also would like to stick with 4 teams; there is enough for diplomacy and war, as we've seen in the Civ3 MTDG, yet the turns move quickly. I think this is a very important thing: the game speed cannot take forever.

Determining how many teams we will have is the first thing we need to do. We can't start discussion on other stuff like map features, or what civs we'll be, because each team gets one vote, and teams cannot vote until they are formed. I suggest we stick to a number of teams, not a number of people per team, because the people that join really skyrocket once we get an annoucement in the Civ4 forums.

 

[Chieftess]

That's the fun thing about Civ4. You can have as many teams as you want on as small of a map as you want! (well, 18, but I suppose you could add more if you wanted.) Want a Game of Citystates? Sure, go right ahead on a tiny (or .wbs modified map)!

 

[Whomp]

I agree 4 teams work. It would be nice to spice it up with pitboss somehow. Something like a 2 hour once a week session.
Can anyone think of a way to do this?

 

[peter grimes]

I just want to throw an idea out there: An odd number of teams makes for more interesting Diplomatic terrain.

My non-existent vote: 5 teams.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I agree 4 teams work. It would be nice to spice it up with pitboss somehow. Something like a 2 hour once a week session.
Can anyone think of a way to do this?

We're going to put up a PitBoss vs. PBEM poll later (once teams have been formed to vote), but just with personal opinion I think it takes away a bit of the strategy part when you have 1 player playing with a team's input for a couple turns. Anyway, that will be discussed later.

 

[Tubby Rower]

I like Peter's idea of 5 teams. It's not such a mad rush to find a long-lasting friend. It would be quite interesting if it was 2 vs 2 with a single civ that could choose which side to be on.

I think that a 2 on 1 is a little more manageable in civ4 due to promotions and unit specialties (axe is better defense vs. swords, spears better against horses, etc.)

 

[Pentium]

I'd go with 4 teams too. I know there are more people who play Civ4 than Civ3, but I don't know how many of them will like the idea, how many will be active, and how long will the game last with more civs.

Edit: yes, 5 is a good idea too. But I would like to keep it PBEM, it's more democratic anarchistic style

 

[grahamiam]

I would be in favor of 5 or 6 teams as it would add more flavor to the game.

 

[Sigma]

I think 4 is a good number. 5 is okay, but it's pushing it and the teams may end up being really small after a while. Any higher than 5 is too much.

Also, keep in mind that not as many people have Civ 4 yet, or can get it to work on their computer.

 

[grahamiam]

'poly has setup thier demogame with eight seven teams we can certainly do at least 5 or 6.

 

[Pentium]

Well, one person who can run Civ4 per team is enough, right? The other ones can just vote, discuss, give instructions and advice.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

grah, we don't have to surpass Apolyton.

For each team you add beyond 4, it'll probably add a couple months to the end date time. Keep in mind that there will be expansions, so we don't want this to last too long so that no one plays 'Vanilla' anymore when everyone moves on. If we go with 4 teams, putting them all on a pangea will certainly make it more interesting; 5 teams I think would be the maximum.

 

[BCLG100]

4/5 would be the best number imo incase participation drops, id also prefer PBEM to pitboss.

 

[Emp. Killyouall]

4 teams, PBEM. I am the uber lurker!

 

[DaveShack]

Check out the "evolutionary" link in my sig to see how a pitboss game might go.

I'd agree with 5 teams, the diplomacy would be way more interesting that way. A team can get by on as few as 5-10 active members, though to make it fun for the most people something closer to 10 would be better.

Instead of balancing teams by total number of people, I think we should count "regulars" and "lurkers" separately. When a team is short of regulars it should get dibs on new players who show up. The admins have visibility to the number of regulars so that doesn't need to be revealed, in case the teams are nervous about revealing just how thin (or thick) they are.