The 32 Player Warlords PTBS
- Thread starter Great_Scott
- Start date
azzaman333
meh
Archi would reign supreme in my opinion, but I'll take anything.
CB Droege said:
I don't think there's a problem with poll threads here.
And I'd third the island/archipelago/civ-per-continent vote.
TELawrence
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 13, 2006
- Messages
- 73
What about Lakes? Creates lots of 'choke points', players have neighbours on all sides, plus an extra strategic dimension in that you have to control the waters on your boundary...
But I have little problem with archipelago if that's the way everyone's going.
But I have little problem with archipelago if that's the way everyone's going.
Aside fom this discussion: do we have to install the mod ourselves too, or is it embedded in the Pitboss game?
Great_Scott
aka Cottus Arci
The only problem I have with Polls are, people who've registered no interest in the game vote, and then I ask them if that means they're interested and they reply, confused... thinking it was just a regular poll.
I could open a 2nd thread (we'll get our own forum for this anyway) @ StrG with a poll... since it's a quieter site, or I could just have everyone PM me their vote and i record them in a thread.
I could open a 2nd thread (we'll get our own forum for this anyway) @ StrG with a poll... since it's a quieter site, or I could just have everyone PM me their vote and i record them in a thread.
CB Droege said:I want to play (I also posted on Strategamer).
For map: How about Custom Continents: One continent per player, with balanced resources. With those settings you wouldn't have to check the map for fairness before the game begins.
This only works up to six continents...though we could go with Islands, which can do this (plus make extra islands so that we have something to have conflict over that isn't just an opponent's home).
JMaltman
Prince
I'd love to get in on this, but can't start until Oct 3rd (will be on vacation next week, and my backup's computer likely wouldn't handle this well.. he's got me covered on my other games).
So if you'd like to put me down in 32nd position, and if I get bumped by the time I'm back, too bad for me?
I think it would also be supercool if you randomized leaders for everyone. But I like random leaders. If forced to choose, how about Hannibal again.
I'd be cool with Archi/Continents/Islands.
So if you'd like to put me down in 32nd position, and if I get bumped by the time I'm back, too bad for me?
I think it would also be supercool if you randomized leaders for everyone. But I like random leaders. If forced to choose, how about Hannibal again.
I'd be cool with Archi/Continents/Islands.
Great_Scott
aka Cottus Arci
Matrix: You'll need to install the mod. It's just one file, and we have may throw in a .xml file too... there are easy, easy ways to manage mods, so that they load automatically and have all the IP settings saved etc...
JMaltman: Your down as player 32.
JMaltman: Your down as player 32.
Great_Scott
aka Cottus Arci
Guys, check out this post @ StrG, we're having one almighty vote on what the options of the game should be. If you want a say, you better make your votes heard!
The Warlords 32 Player PTBS Poll Thread!
The Warlords 32 Player PTBS Poll Thread!
Studlybob23
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 7
I would like to join.
I definitely have the PC for it, I definitely have Warlords, I definitely have played Pitboss games before (only missed 2 turns out of about 200), and I'm definitely excited about playing a 32 player game.
I definitely have the PC for it, I definitely have Warlords, I definitely have played Pitboss games before (only missed 2 turns out of about 200), and I'm definitely excited about playing a 32 player game.
OverloadUT
Stats Monkey
Ah what the hell, count me in.
A 32 player game just sounds like it'll have too much fun diplomacy to miss.
Edit: Wait, I see now that "No Tech Trading" is a distinct possibility and is winning the vote so far. I'm not... completely sure I want to play in a game without tech trading, since it's my favorite part. I'll have to think about it...
A question: How are you going to handle diplomacy stuff? The in game diplomacy system is super buggy so it'd be nice if we had an alternate method of communication, like a dedicated forum, email, or even the civstats diplomacy feature. Are you going to want this hosted on CivStats? If you are, I might shift in to overdrive to get the improved diplomacy section online, as it would be very helpful for this game...
A 32 player game just sounds like it'll have too much fun diplomacy to miss.
Edit: Wait, I see now that "No Tech Trading" is a distinct possibility and is winning the vote so far. I'm not... completely sure I want to play in a game without tech trading, since it's my favorite part. I'll have to think about it...
A question: How are you going to handle diplomacy stuff? The in game diplomacy system is super buggy so it'd be nice if we had an alternate method of communication, like a dedicated forum, email, or even the civstats diplomacy feature. Are you going to want this hosted on CivStats? If you are, I might shift in to overdrive to get the improved diplomacy section online, as it would be very helpful for this game...
Great Scott said we'll have a dedicated forum. But it'll also be added to civstats.com, so if all players register there (that's the tricky part) communications can go through there.
Great_Scott
aka Cottus Arci
platfuss, Studly Bob, welcome.
Overload: The general consensus is that diplomacy alone of 32 players is enough, tech trading with 32 players would result in a VERY quick game, so much so that there would be barely time to build a stack of units, before they are fazed out.
In our 18 player game (hosted @ StrG) the diplomacy is pretty entangled... there's no clear alliances, just people friends with friends who aren't friends with their friends etc etc. I think there will be a constant feeling of not knowing where your next attack will come from... should be crazy stuff!
Well, I've made my spiel... hopefully you'll still sign up. Think of it as, instead of trading techs, one must trade things like resources, gold, defensive pacts, units, even cities in order to survive. If early on I go for a non Copper/Iron Working tech choice, well I better start making friends and ensuring they have axemen/swordsmen and are willing to back me up.
And yes, we'll have a dedicated forum for this... so no major rush on the diplomacy @ Civstats... you've done enough
(and yes this game'll be registered @ civstats)
Overload: The general consensus is that diplomacy alone of 32 players is enough, tech trading with 32 players would result in a VERY quick game, so much so that there would be barely time to build a stack of units, before they are fazed out.
In our 18 player game (hosted @ StrG) the diplomacy is pretty entangled... there's no clear alliances, just people friends with friends who aren't friends with their friends etc etc. I think there will be a constant feeling of not knowing where your next attack will come from... should be crazy stuff!
Well, I've made my spiel... hopefully you'll still sign up. Think of it as, instead of trading techs, one must trade things like resources, gold, defensive pacts, units, even cities in order to survive. If early on I go for a non Copper/Iron Working tech choice, well I better start making friends and ensuring they have axemen/swordsmen and are willing to back me up.
And yes, we'll have a dedicated forum for this... so no major rush on the diplomacy @ Civstats... you've done enough
(and yes this game'll be registered @ civstats)OverloadUT
Stats Monkey
Okay, you've convinced me. I actually am curious to see how the dynamic works without tech trading. I see your points about tech moving too fast, which is actually a problem in my current (first) Pitboss game.
So count me in
So count me in
Great_Scott
aka Cottus Arci
It's random Civ assignment, I just carried out the assigning and you'll been given Frederick. Welcome aboard!
