Pentium
Digital Matter
No no, I didn't come up with that, SW did. I could be Idiot ProcessorWhomp said:
Team Whomp *Spoiler*
- Thread starter Whomp
- Start date
- Status
Done and done.Pentium said:No no, I didn't come up with that, SW did. I could be Idiot Processor
FYI something I was not aware of is we can't send a save zoomed out (exploit I guess)
I don't know if I'm overreacting here but I don't particularly like this rule.
Major Idiot said:
RegentMan said:
Major Idiot said:I'm of the opinion "To the Victors Belong the Spoils"--Andrew Jackson.
I would prefer to amend this slightly where a conquered team can not join another team for, say, 7-10 turns. IMO if they are able to join another team it would add some randomness to the game.
What do you all think?RegentMan said:
SesnOfWthr
True Believer
Of all the words to describe him, plain and old are probably two of the poorer choices.
I'm a big Tek fan, personally, but I have a tough time calling him an idiot.RE: team changing. I don't understand this at all. Why would you join another team if you got eliminated? Someone could conceivably lose repeatedly in the same game. I really think that is unnecessary. IF it's allowed, then there should be a minimum of ten or twenty turns before any spoiler info is allowed. Not to beat a dead horse, but I really don't understand the concept and would vote for people only being allowed on one team for the duration.
Sesn, please see if this rule meets your need (there is no planned time between switching teams once you are eliminated):
Or perhaps we should have it so that you are not allowed to post in your new team's forum, just to read and lurk?
Or perhaps we should have it so that you are not allowed to post in your new team's forum, just to read and lurk?
SesnOfWthr
True Believer
so what - let's say we get eliminated after 40 turns, or whatever. I can't go and just browse the other threads to see what's going on? Is that where the need for a new team arises? I guess I'm mainly confused why I want to join a second team if we lose?
Because of espionage concerns, no, noone is able to view all 4 team forums simultaneously (except RM, myself, and the mods). So you can pick a team to 'lurk' or even discuss with to stay 'in the action'. You do not have to do this, it is merely for your entertainment.
SesnOfWthr
True Believer
Ahh, I guess thats the part I'm missing. Unfortunate we have to do this, I guess. Then I would say go back to the ten or twenty turns, or prohibit spoiler info, or whatever. However, if people are intent enough on cheating, they could always use PM's.....
My big concern is that someone who loses may be bitter. If they're bitter and vengeful they may do anything in their power to weaken the team that whacked them. Refugees have to walk a ways to get away from their oppressors I think it's fair that a team that loses should have to wait (some turns) before offering any info to their new team. Personally would be ok with GA's amended rule.
BTW I love Johnny Damon, he's sweet. Calling him an idiot was a term of endearment.
BTW I love Johnny Damon, he's sweet. Calling him an idiot was a term of endearment.
soul_warrior
Termite!
well, first thing...
since were NOT going to lose this is a mute discussion
but if some really freakish accident happen, like us losing each and every city, i guess 10 turns of running away is long enough.
after which you could comment on what happened UPTO that 10 turn mark.
and if you lose, well... you lose.
we have some of the cream de la Civ here, and SOMEBODY's got to go, right?
i will be upset if the inconcievable happens, but will just wait for another chance.
(e.g. - losing team members can choose if the want to join a new team or not. they can also decide to quit politics and lurk a team (becoming a citizen, but not a ruler))
since were NOT going to lose this is a mute discussion
but if some really freakish accident happen, like us losing each and every city, i guess 10 turns of running away is long enough.
after which you could comment on what happened UPTO that 10 turn mark.
and if you lose, well... you lose.
we have some of the cream de la Civ here, and SOMEBODY's got to go, right?
i will be upset if the inconcievable happens, but will just wait for another chance.
(e.g. - losing team members can choose if the want to join a new team or not. they can also decide to quit politics and lurk a team (becoming a citizen, but not a ruler))
Pentium
Digital Matter
Like Sesn, I don't think team changing should be allowed at all. If you lose, you lose. Why would someone try to win if he can jump to the winning team whenever he wants?Whomp said:
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
lurker's comment: hello fellow idiots! GA has given me lurker status for one team, so I chose this one. No comments form me in the thread, but good luck!
GA has given me lurker status for one team, so I chose this one. No comments form me in the thread, but good luck!
Pentium said:
Ah, ah, ah, you are missing the point I think. You can only change teams after you are eliminated - not just at any time you like. He can't just "jump to the winning team whenever he wants" - first he has to be eliminated, second he has to know the winning civ, and third he actually has to know who the winning civ is.
"Maine Idiot" ... I like that!
I have just read through this entire thread, and the choices and selections seem fine to me. I've never done a game like this before, but I know the team will help me get my feet wet. I'm just looking forward to having a great time, whether we win or, well, win...
I have just read through this entire thread, and the choices and selections seem fine to me. I've never done a game like this before, but I know the team will help me get my feet wet. I'm just looking forward to having a great time, whether we win or, well, win...
Pentium
Digital Matter
@GA: I didn't miss the point, I just didn't agree with joining another team when you lose. But the rest seem to agree with you, so I think we should allow this.
Whomp and this team:
On page two, post 33, IroquoisPlisken proposed this listing of 5 civs:
1. Iroquios
2. Celts
3. Persia
4. Rome
5. Maya
Does everyone agree to this? Or a last minute switch? You would get to be the first civ done with civ selection.
Wow this thread got off topic..
On page two, post 33, IroquoisPlisken proposed this listing of 5 civs:
1. Iroquios
2. Celts
3. Persia
4. Rome
5. Maya
Does everyone agree to this? Or a last minute switch? You would get to be the first civ done with civ selection.
Wow this thread got off topic..
No Ginger Ale. I don't think we've come to a consensus on our 3 to 5.
1. Iroquois
2. Celts
3. English 3 chose as their #3
4. Persia 2 chose #2 and a bunch in other spots.
5. One more ag civ. I said Aztecs/IP said Maya/Sesn said Sumerians so we need a few more votes here. I would suggest we make this our #3. Ags are hard to beat.
1. Iroquois
2. Celts
3. English 3 chose as their #3
4. Persia 2 chose #2 and a bunch in other spots.
5. One more ag civ. I said Aztecs/IP said Maya/Sesn said Sumerians so we need a few more votes here. I would suggest we make this our #3. Ags are hard to beat.
SesnOfWthr
True Believer
I did indeed say Sumeria, but in reality, it doesn't matter that much to me for the number five spot. I've always had good luck with the Maya as well.
Let's just nail it down and make whatever our final choice. One would think that if we can get this done and be the first with a preference, then it shouldn't go down to number five anyhow.
I'd say just go Iro, Celts, England, Maya, Persia, and get the choices submitted.
Let's just nail it down and make whatever our final choice. One would think that if we can get this done and be the first with a preference, then it shouldn't go down to number five anyhow.
I'd say just go Iro, Celts, England, Maya, Persia, and get the choices submitted.
Pentium
Digital Matter
That's good for me.
Now with settings polls, here are my votes:
Small Continents, Normal/Normal/Old, Emperor, and NO to Barbs/SGL's/SoZ
Now with settings polls, here are my votes:
Small Continents, Normal/Normal/Old, Emperor, and NO to Barbs/SGL's/SoZ
IroquoisPlisken
Brigadier Idiot
Actually, with only 4 teams, it CAN'T go down to number 5, right? Or am I missing something? 
And I agree with those settings Pentium, as long as there's safe passage between the two Continents.
And I agree with those settings Pentium, as long as there's safe passage between the two Continents.
@IP yu are correct but Ginger Ale asked for 5 so that's what we should do.
@Pentium all of our map settings seem to be agreed on now all we need is a map. the map is not ready so this game is probably still a little ways away.
I'm probably being a complete arse but what happens if we don't get the Iroquois or Celts? I assume the other teams will want them as well.
We have the opportunity to get another ag civ #3 so I would like to try this one more time and narrow down our decision based on the assumption we won't get our top two and maybe #3. IMO The English will not be taken by any of the other teams so getting them as our #3 would not be a problem. Against human opponents I am concerned about their late GA and if it's against all ags civs it could be a rough start but....
If you don't mind please rank the 3 ag civs below so we can narrow it down to another ag civ. If you don't want a ag civ just put them #5 on the 2nd list.
For me
1. Aztecs--Militaristic is not a good trait but with a cheap UU with good scouting skills, extra movement and potentially could allow us a rush against the other civ on our continent.
2. Sumerians-- Good traits, cheap UU but defensive.
3. Mayans Good traits but a 30 shield UU without barbs, no bombard and doesn't seem to have a lot of value versus swords and horses.
Then rank the ag civ, Persians and English.
For me...
3. Any ag civ.
4. Persians
5. English
I will use a ranking based on your votes to come up with the order.
@Pentium all of our map settings seem to be agreed on now all we need is a map. the map is not ready so this game is probably still a little ways away.
I'm probably being a complete arse but what happens if we don't get the Iroquois or Celts? I assume the other teams will want them as well.
We have the opportunity to get another ag civ #3 so I would like to try this one more time and narrow down our decision based on the assumption we won't get our top two and maybe #3. IMO The English will not be taken by any of the other teams so getting them as our #3 would not be a problem. Against human opponents I am concerned about their late GA and if it's against all ags civs it could be a rough start but....
If you don't mind please rank the 3 ag civs below so we can narrow it down to another ag civ. If you don't want a ag civ just put them #5 on the 2nd list.
For me
1. Aztecs--Militaristic is not a good trait but with a cheap UU with good scouting skills, extra movement and potentially could allow us a rush against the other civ on our continent.
2. Sumerians-- Good traits, cheap UU but defensive.
3. Mayans Good traits but a 30 shield UU without barbs, no bombard and doesn't seem to have a lot of value versus swords and horses.
Then rank the ag civ, Persians and English.
For me...
3. Any ag civ.
4. Persians
5. English
I will use a ranking based on your votes to come up with the order.
- Status
Similar threads
