The Monarchists' Cookbook Bullpen

[OTAKUjbski]

Round 1: 4000 BC - 1000 BC (120 Turns)
Round 2: 1000 BC - 700 AD (100 Turns)
Round 3: 700 AD - 1200 AD (45 Turns)
Round 4: 1200 AD - 1600 AD (75 Turns)
Round 5: 1600 AD - 1800 AD (70 Turns)
Round 6: 1800 AD - 2050 AD (340 Turns)

???

 

[Bleys]

700 AD is pretty deep for round 2. I agree with round 1, that looks like an ideal point where certain commitments are made (Rushing, religion, early wonders), but maybe we should cut Round 2 back to around 400 AD. That would even up round 3 as well.

I think each round should gradually lower the number of turns, since as the game goes on, there are more and more critical decisions. So maybe something like:

1. 4000 - 1000 BC, 120 turns
2. 1000 BC - 400 AD, 80 turns
3. 400 AD - 1000 AD, 60 turns
4. 1000 AD - 1400 AD, 50 turns

etc. I didnt do the actual math, so those numbers may be off a tad, but you get the idea. Start with 120 turns, to 80-90 turns, to 60-70 turns, to 40-50 turns. This seems more logical, because even though each successive round has less overall turns, there is actually more to do.

 

[Refar]

It might be a good idea to only set the lenght of the first round in stone.

Dependig on the situation in the save you choose to continue from, a different Round-length might be in order. If so, i think a "Moderator" (or maybe the donor of the "Best" save) should set the length of the upcoming turn - putting it to a vote every time would be too long/complicated.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I'm not sure I like the idea of dynamic turn lengths. My goal for the series format (that's not to say mine is right) is to require minimal input or control. Players simply play, report and vote. The most the should ever have to do is "moderate" the discussion, break any voting ties which may arise and update the thread and OP as necessary from round to round.

That being said, I'm not opposed to trying a dynamic format for Game 2. That could give us a little more heads up as to how long static turnsets should be in future games as well as an idea of just how "difficult" implementing something like that might (or might not) be.

--------

Assuming we use a static round length, how about:


1. 4000 BC - 1000 BC (120 Turns)
2. 1000 BC - 400 AD = (100 Turns)
3. 400 AD - 1150 AD = (60 Turns)
4. 1150 AD - 1500 AD = (60 Turns)
5. 1500 AD - 1700 AD = (40 Turns)
6. 1700 AD - 1780 AD = (40 Turns)
7. 1780 AD - 2050 AD = (390 Turns)

 

[Bleys]

Exactly what I was thinking OTAK, perfect.

I also like Refars idea, and I think we can actually do both. Have a "Set variable" so to speak. Round 1 ends at 1000 BC, we know that, but round 2 could be "350-450 AD", which is set by the and decided when the Best Ball save is selected. That could work, we still have a basic target, but having a bit of flexibility is also not too bad.

This kind of flexible turn-set actually works MUCH better in standard SGs though, where each player plays 20 turns . . . or so (18 - 22, depending on a tech, wonder, whip, trade, GP pop, etc). With this format, I think we would run into a LOT of problems if each player decided his own stop-point, unless the target was very small, say a 5 turn variable (+/- 2 from an exact date).

Maybe for this 2nd game we should stick to a set schedule, and see how it goes with the modifications we have made. If we all find ourselves being +/- a couple turns of an important event, we can add a flexible feature of some kind, either by the or a more "general" target date each player decides for himself. We actually had some of this in the first game, some stopped early in some rounds, I actually played 1 extra turn in round 4 to finish a tech).

 

[Diamondeye]

I like the idea of this new round system. Should I update the OP?

Also, I think the "around XXXX" system we used in this first game was fine.

 

[Winston Hughes]

It seems I won't have enough time to fully participate in the next game, so I'd be happy to pick a suitable map if you want.

I think it'll be important to have much tougher maps in future. The current one is okay for the first game, just to get things going. But the best ball format is always likely to lead to easy (ie. boring) play-outs if the map isn't sufficiently challenging.

It'll be equally important to avoid playing similar maps/starts in consecutive games. But, at the same time, it's nice to have the uncertainty that comes from using Refar's script without excluding any map types.

If you guys have any other specifications (eg. no totally isolated starts; no industrious leaders), I could take care of that too. You could also indicate just how evil I'm allowed to be...

 

[r_rolo1]

^^

IMHO fell free to be mean if you want to . But prepare to face the consequences if you put us in a tight pangea with 6 maniacs ( something like Alex, Cathy , Monty , Shaka, Boudi, KK and Justinian ) .... Bleys already done that in his backstabber PYL

 

[Bleys]

Hey, that Backstabber game ROCKED! Talk about "Always War" without clicking it on, even good diplomacy was pretty useless with that crew of cutthroats, LOL.

I dont mind Winston picking the map, he could even check the WB to see if the AIs arent all repeats (1 or 2 is ok, but sometimes its ridiculous) or even hand-pick em (watch those colors!), and to be sure that there arent any really amazing advantages.

Hmm, if you hand pick AIs, are they visible on the settings screen at turn 1? Or do you still have to meet them "manually"? You hand-picked in the Brennus NC game, right rolo? I just peeked at an old save, and no AIs were listed.

So Winston could actually pick the map, the AIs, and all we would know would be the size (standard, large, huge, etc) and the sea level. That Brennus game had hand-picked AIs, Global Highlands map, but the Settings screen doesnt have any of that info. I wouldnt even mind if he jumped in at round 3 or so, it wouldnt make much difference "knowing" by that point.

 

[r_rolo1]

I didn't picked the AI of Brennus game... but awsering your question: if you handpick the AI you don't know who they are in game until they show up ( unless you reveal the map or give satelites to yourself ... in that case you don't see or have any intel on the scoreboard, but you get messages saying the name of the cities where the wonders are built, a thing that it is spoiler info unless you trash the city lists )

And I still think that a backstabber game is the place for a diplo game ( IMHO my best game until now was the hannibal LHC, where I used Cathy, Gilga and Alex to nulify my competion and eachothers by throwing them against eachother selectively and waltzing DPs to force further hates .... surely it was my best diplo manouvering so far ), but I agree that normal "make friends" diplo would be a not so good idea...

 

[Winston Hughes]

I don't think I'll choose anything manually; I'd rather leave everything random (inc. the player civ, unless a particular leader is specified) and keep rolling starts 'til something suitable shows up. I'll probably give the likely candidate(s) a quick playtest too - sometimes a map that looks difficult and/or interesting at first glance can turn out to be easy and/or boring once you get going.

If you guys can agree on your requirements a few days before the game is scheduled to begin, it'll give me time to find a really good one. I'll even try to avoid similar colours nextdoor to each other, if there's a consensus on that.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

If we're going to be checking the map this time, I recommend:

• Exclude Method set to "Archipelago" and "Medium and Small" to prevent another water map.
• No Germany.
• No Industrious.
• No Gems or Gold in BFC. (Silver ok)

Additional [optional] thoughts:

• Players Start set to "On Biggest Land" to encourage close neighbours by land.
• No more than 3 repeat civs?
• No Expansive?
• No Coastal?
• No Stone or Marble in BFC?

----

If there's anything to learn from "easy" maps like the one featured in Game 1, it's that the early game means the most. If you set yourself up for success, the rest of the game is just "mopping up".

 

[Quotey]

You can use ruff_hi's BTS Leader Picker to exclude/select certain traits and civs, if you have Microsoft Excel.

 

[Diamondeye]

If we're going to be checking the map this time, I recommend:

• Exclude Method set to "Archipelago" and "Medium and Small" to prevent another water map.
• No Germany.
• No Industrious.
• No Gems or Gold in BFC. (Silver ok)

Additional [optional] thoughts:

• Players Start set to "On Biggest Land" to encourage close neighbours by land.
• No more than 3 repeat civs?
• No Expansive?
• No Coastal?
• No Stone or Marble in BFC?

----

If there's anything to learn from "easy" maps like the one featured in Game 1, it's that the early game means the most. If you set yourself up for success, the rest of the game is just "mopping up".

Hmmm. I think excluding Coastal is going too far, as is adding exclude method, but I will bow to the majority if people like OTAKUs suggestion?

Also, should I add the new rounds system to OP, or?

 

[Bleys]

Just traits, map, and opponents, should be enough. If the map isnt similar to the first, then the GLH strategy of a coastal start is much weaker, so I dont think we should exclude it.

 

[futurehermit]

Agreed

Are we going to do random leader again, but just ensuring the traits are different?

I don't think we should force an inland start

 

[Winston Hughes]

Are we going to do random leader again, but just ensuring the traits are different?

That would be the better choice imo. In fact, I think Expansive wouldn't be so bad - it's not so strategy-specific as Industrious. I can exclude it if you want, though.

I don't think we should force an inland start

Agreed. If I'm picking the map, there'll be no need to force inland starts or exclude any map types except Archipelago (since that would almost certainly be both too easy and too similar to the current game).

 

[Bleys]

I am not sure what map type game 1 was, but I dont think it was Archipelago. I think it was "M&S with Snakey Continents and Island Region Separate". After all, there are 2 pretty large landmasses on this map, and even though we started in the "islands" area of the map, the areas to our east were definitely continents.

 

[futurehermit]

Yeah, I would agree with that assessement. the strangest thing though was having overseas trade routes and being able to trade overseas resources without astronomy

 

[Bleys]

the strangest thing though was having overseas trade routes and being able to trade overseas resources without astronomy

Thats actually very common on M&S and B&S maps, especially with "Island region mixed in" selected. These map scripts have become my favorites to play, because I really feel the TRE is a much stronger REXing strategy than the Mids-based SE, and most of the time, above Prince, its not very sound to build both the Mids and the GLH. REXing across a snakey continent with large enough islands to support a couple cities each makes for a very exciting game, IMHO.