team pitboss

[KingMorgan]

Sorry to flip flop, but i've changed my mind on events, i want them off.

 

[Munro]

Thanks for the tally, Earthling. Looks like we are heading for:

• barbs on (6 v 5)
• huts on (6 v 6)*
• events OFF (10 v 1) **

* But my vote carries in the event of a tie-break.
** I changed my vote here..

That leaves barbs and huts. Currently:

Barbs on: Munro, Earthling, Rusten, Niklas, Hoplosternum, Geronimo
Barbs off: Raskolnikov, Calis, oyzar, Kuningas

Huts on: Munro, Earthling, Rusten, Niklas, Hoplosternum, Geronimo
Huts off: Methos, Raskolnikov, r rolo1, Calis, oyzar, Kuningas

If anyone else has any strong preference they are yet to mention, please say ASAP!

...
I almost think a game without barbs is a bit unfair though, especially with humans who know how to abuse it, because expansion gets way too easy - this just makes imbalances in land more powerful. Huts are ok with me only because they work out right at this difficulty - I wouldn't be ok with huts if we were at a lower diff and they popped too much free stuff. But the mechanic of awarding scouts vs. warriors, plus the simple fact that at deity you have to be wary of barbs in popping a hut, makes them ok. No one is going to get to pop something amazing early on in this game, with 18 people around after all - you can't "save" huts (or if we have some New World I'm ok with that).

I completely agree.

The problem with barbs on is that on diety they won't be pulling any punches. There will inevitably be a few or more civs without copper, facing diety barbarians and such capable human players without having the benefit of choosing our own civ would make for a very very difficult game.

Barbs should be easier than a normal deity game... There are no AI players (who start with an extra settler) so it should be a lot longer before the barbs start entering borders etc. Also, none of the humans start with archery, so you won't be seeing any super-early archers (although axes will still probably appear around the same time).

To be honest though, given the calibre of some of the other players here.... I think barbs will be the least of our problems. In fact it may be our only chance for a chance against some of the better players here...

 

[Munro]

So to avoid any confusion, here are the current settings we're looking at.

Map settings

• Lakes
• Huge
• Rocky
• High sea level
• Ancient era
• Normal speed
• Cylindrical world wrap
• Standard Resources
• 18 players
• Deity difficulty

MP Options

• Simultaneous turns
• Take over AI
• 48h turn timer

Game options

• Permanent Alliances ON
• No Random Events
• (huts on)
• (barbs on)
• (vassal states on)
• (tech trading on)

Everyone has now connected successfully and the leader choices are in, so we should be ready to start whenever we're ready. I can aim to have it sometime tomorrow evening if that's not too soon for anyone..

Any additional comments / objections / suggestions / discussion on the settings or anything else in the meantime, or before we get going (barbs, huts or anything else)?

 

[oyzar]

Are you using the script i linked? it'll make things more fair... Why the heck would we have high sea level? with 18 players we would definatly want low sealevel...

 

[Niklas]

I can aim to have it sometime tomorrow evening if that's not too soon for anyone..

Seeing how I have a paper deadline on Friday night, just a tiiiiiny bit of longer delay would sit quite well with me. Or perhaps you could have the game up tonight, but set the timer to 72 hours for the first turn? That way I might play earlier if I get the chance.

Why the heck would we have high sea level? with 18 players we would definatly want low sealevel...

Why the strong assertive tone?

Why would we want low sealevel on an otherwise all-land map? Lakes with high sealevel is probably comparable to continents with low sealevel in terms of available land. And I like the strategic considerations that come with high sealevel on a Lakes map, which I believe were Munro's reasoning as well.

 

[Calis]

I'd also prefer low sea lvl. Some more öand to settle, before conflicts arise...

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Techtrading on and permanent alliances on...wouldn't be better to play 9 v 9 teamer? As it is techtrading makes grouping up mandatory, and since there won't be any oceans the groups will be very big (maybe just two).

Permanent alliances, which will be available early due to the high teching speed, are the ultimate "balance of power realpolitik" killer: no worry about uneven beaker trades, etc, you're going to team up at Communism (~500 AD) anyway.

 

[Niklas]

Forming some groups will be necessary yes, but to state the groups initially is just boring, that removes the diplomatic wheeling needed to form those groups, as well as the diplomatic attempts to bring the groups down. I really doubt there will be just two groups, since more than ~4 people in a group won't really contribute to research.

Also, forming PAs come with costs - higher research costs compared to not forming the PA, and higher GP generation costs (unless all GPs are generated by only one player).

That said - if given the choice I too would prefer PAs off, but I don't think they will kill the game if we leave them on.

 

[Renata]

I've been contemplating this for a few days, but I think I should probably not play. So I guess Catherine is available again for the lottery, for anyone who might want to change picks; and there's an open spot if kendi/PT want to play separately, or in anyone else wants to join.

I still haven't figured out where the kidlet hid my CD, anyway.

 

[Methos]

I prfer high water too. Will make things a lot more interesting.

 

[oyzar]

With 18 players continents with low sealevels would be very crowded...

@ PA's: It is indeed rather unbalancing, but only 2 civs can team up so it isn't anything like 9 vs 9... I don't think the option is needed on though...

 

[Earthling]

Oh good - I was about to point out what oyzar pointed out - only 2 people can team up in a PA anyway! In a single player game you can get vassals and all but that's not going to happen here - only two people can be in a Permanent alliance.

So my opinion is that PA's might actually help quite a bit once we get later in the game - and add another level of diplomacy (who to actually form a PA with). Having 18 (or 12, if people get killed ) teams in the modern era would be crazy - PA's can halve this to a more manageable number. Most importantly, I think a lot of the fun will be deciding who to ally with as the game goes on - something that wouldn't happen if we just set teams. Also with this many people in the game it would be nice to be able to work with someone the whole game and not have to kill each other in the end...I come down strongly in favor of PA's myself then.

Edit: IMO Lakes without high water would be insane. I really don't want an entirely land dominated map (and even this is pushing it). I might recall that another script (tectonics?) allows you to set a double preference for more land and low sea level - but then again any sort of continents map would still be very crowded with 18 players. If someone knows more or has another suggestion I'd hear it, of course, but for my first preference I'm willing to give the lakes a try.

 

[Hoplosternum]

Do the lakes on a lake map act as seas? i.e. can you build lighthouses by and ships on them? I played on a Highlands map with either Low Water or just lakes or some such setting and the water was both rare and fairly useless....

 

[Niklas]

Yes, if a lake exceeds a certain size then it acts as a sea for all purposes (yield, wonders, ships).

 

[Celebithil]

I think my vote for barbs huts and events off is not counted, so please add that. I think high sea level on a huge map gives enough land to settle. I would prefer not too big empires anyway as I find that mostly adds to micromanagment, more than to enjoyment of the game.

 

[Methos]

I would prefer not too big empires anyway as I find that mostly adds to micromanagment, more than to enjoyment of the game.

I agree with this. Too big of an empire means more time, which I'm not sure I have. Plus IMO a smaller empire is more fun to me.

 

[oyzar]

On a huge map empires have to be big to be competetive anyways... You can't really stay small for too long...

 

[Niklas]

Indeed, but it requires some more work from you to become bigger...

 

[Calis]

Indeed, but it requires some more work from you to become bigger...

Hm? Do you know him personally?

 

[Munro]

Seeing how I have a paper deadline on Friday night, just a tiiiiiny bit of longer delay would sit quite well with me.

Done.

I like the strategic considerations that come with high sealevel on a Lakes map, which I believe were Munro's reasoning as well.

Yes exactly. Lakes (even on high water) already has a lot less water than a typical continents map, and anything lower than this makes the coastal dimension more or less irrelevant. It would also penalize civs which have any syngeries with water (org. for cheap lighthouses, agg. for cheap drydocks, financial for commerce bonus, ind. for cheap water based wonders etc) which doesn't do anything for game balance...

(The same argument applies to huts and barbs IMHO which is why I like them both on).

I understand some people's preference for more land though... even with only 17 players now it will be a bit tight (though again, not everyone considers that less fun)! We could look at changing the climate though... I have a feeling that Rocky does create quite a bit of ice and tundra at the poles (which is especially significant on a map like this where the land typically goes all the way up to the poles). I'll have a look at some sample maps tonight and see if things are more generous with temperate, tropical etc instead.

It'd be nice to started reasonably soon though... how do people feel about aiming to kick things off one way or another in time for the weekend?

Also, I'll remove Renata and Catherine from the lottery.