The Two-Civs Option

[Sommerswerd]

Poll Question:

Should Team AMAZON vote for the 2-Civ Option?

This poll will stay open long enough for everyone to vote, however, ONCE YOU HAVE CAST YOUR VOTE, TRY NOT TO POST ON THE POLL THREAD TO SAY YOU ARE CHANGING VOTES. VOTE CHANGING CONFUSES THE POLL RESULT. ALL VOTES SHOULD BE FINAL.

Happy Polling!!!

There is discussion of this issue In our UN Team Thread and in the Double Civ Setup? Thread

Explanation of Choices

Choices:

Yes, I want each team to start with 2 different civilizations to control

No, I want each team to control 1 civilization

Once our Team vote has concluded, our team Captain will post in the UN Forum to say "Team AMAZON votes (Yes or No) on Double Civs"

Post here with any questions before you vote.

 

[Sommerswerd]

when we have two Civ's, our research won't go any faster. The game corrects the research needed for pre-defined teams.

This is partially correct and partially incorrect.

With teams, the Game automatically makes reasearch take 150% of the time it normally would. So you research slower.

However, when you control two civs, you will obviously gift everything one civ gets immediately to the other civ, so you are getting techs twice as fast (or 200% as fast as normal). This was mentioned earlier in the UN threads, but I don't remember which one.

So even with the game auto correcting for team co-operation, we will still be researching 50% faster than we normally would. I hope that is helpful to everyone's decision making process.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Never mind, see the above post.

 

[SilentConfusion]

I tried running a single player game with an AI teammate to simulate what having 2 civs would do to teching. I assume the general rules would apply to a team with 2 player-controlled civs.

First thing I noticed is that even though the teammates can tech separately, they have only one pool of techs. If one learns it they both know it. No need for gifting (don't have to worry about Alphabet). You can both tech the same tech and both sets of beakers will go towards that tech or you can tech different techs and get two at the same time.

So if you have 12 applied beakers per turn and your teammate has 13 applied beakers per turn it is like having 25 bpt, except that you can split it up and tech two things at once. So you can tech 1 tech twice as fast or two techs at the same time. The former would seem to be usually a better option.

As Sommerswerd points out there's a 1.5 multiplier in tech costs for having 1 teammate, but you can effectively double your beaker output.

The main thing that wasn't mentioned is that the tech pool is the same for you and your teammate. If one learns it the other learns it automatically without need to gift it, and you start with all starting techs and don't have to wait for Alphabet to gift them.

 

[nabaxo]

I have played a few multi-player civ-games with friends in teams and what Silent says is true. Except that if you split it, you don't tech as fast as you would with just one civ in a normal game.

 

[SilentConfusion]

The faster teching is such a deciding factor because everyone techs faster. For me the real factors are complexity and flexibility.

Having two civs is more flexible, but it is more complex to understand all the strategic synergies and combinations.

I would prefer not having two civs just to make strategic decisions somewhat simpler and to avoid missing some possible synergy which other teams might find. Plus, I am completely unfamiliar with the dynamics of a two civ empire.

 

[remake20]

The faster teching is such a deciding factor because everyone techs faster. For me the real factors are complexity and flexibility.

Having two civs is more flexible, but it is more complex to understand all the strategic synergies and combinations.

I would prefer not having two civs just to make strategic decisions somewhat simpler and to avoid missing some possible synergy which other teams might find. Plus, I am completely unfamiliar with the dynamics of a two civ empire.

That would be something to consider, going after one tech for each team, or teching together, that is some of the new options with the double civ. And if you're unfamiliar with the dynamics, why don't you try playing a game like that.

 

[SilentConfusion]

That would be something to consider, going after one tech for each team, or teching together, that is some of the new options with the double civ. And if you're unfamiliar with the dynamics, why don't you try playing a game like that.

I played a little ways in such a game. Though I will definitely play more if it looks like we will choose this option. I voted against it because, as of now, it's just would involve developing a lot of strategies I haven't come across or thought about before.

As with most, if not all, of the settings I am not dead-set on one way or another. So long as the settings are the same for all teams, then there is room for us to outplay the other teams even if in some situations with some settings we may have to work harder than another team to do so.

 

[remake20]

I played a little ways in such a game. Though I will definitely play more if it looks like we will choose this option. I voted against it because, as of now, it's just would involve developing a lot of strategies I haven't come across or thought about before.

As with most, if not all, of the settings I am not dead-set on one way or another. So long as the settings are the same for all teams, then there is room for us to outplay the other teams even if in some situations with some settings we may have to work harder than another team to do so.

Well, with the double civ option, IMHO makes it easier for newer players and keeps everyone more equal. With the double civ, it is more of a true test of skill, because it's who's team can find the most new strategies, which is really what skill is.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Well, with the double civ option, IMHO makes it easier for newer players and keeps everyone more equal. With the double civ, it is more of a true test of skill, because it's who's team can find the most new strategies, which is really what skill is.

I understand the logic. Although I'm not convinced that everyone in this demogame is nearly as new to the concept as I am and it may not be the level playing field that you suggest.

 

[remake20]

That's why you play and find out more, who knows after playing with it you may decide that it's fun and you want to use it. If you don't know how to do that, go to multiplayer>Hot Seat. So the game might come down to whoever does the most play testing, which may be the people who aren't as good. Of course that wouldn't be the whole game, but it would defiantly level out the playing field.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If you look at the double-civ vote in the UN (public forum) and click on who voted in favor of Double-civs, you can see that the majority of the people who voted for double-civs are on Sirius...

This is not a coincidence. Lord Parkin is already very familiar with the best way to play with double civs. He has practiced it again and again. If we play with double civs, we are handing team Sirius a HUGE advantage in this game. That is not a level playing field, and it will not be as fun.

That is why so many Sirius players are in favor of it. It gives them a big advantage over us. Yes we can practice and play-test it, but Lord Parkin has already put months and months into playing with this strategy. As I said before, giving a big advantage to Lord Parkin by going along with the play option that he came up with and he is most familiar with will not be as fun as playing in a way that everyone is familiar with.

If we play with double-civs we will either need twice as many turnplayers, or we will need our turnplayers to spend twice as much time playing the turns. If we don't have enough turnplayers or time our team will start having to rush our turns. That will not be as fun. Only a couple people play the turns... EVERYONE discusses the turns. The most fun is in the discussion not in playing the turns. Playing with two civs means more time is devoted to just moving the pieces around, and less time is available for discusion. In other words... less fun.

 

[Calis]

Well, if most people who voted it are in one team, they only have ONE vote. All the better for the teams, who do not want it, right?

 

[Sommerswerd]

True indeed, but some people on our team are changing their mind, which is fine... I just want to be sure that they are hearing both sides before making the decision. I don't want our team to get swayed by someone on a different team, who is looking out for his team's advantage, rather than ours.

 

[remake20]

It'll take 30 minutes to play 2 turns instead of 15 to play one, how much discussion is going to happen in 15 minutes? Maybe two posts? Most likely none. I don't see how that would take the discussion out of the game. I do think Sirus has an advantage, but it's not that huge. He has play tested for many months, but he can't know everything, and they might get a lead, but not anything they will keep the whole game. Another bonus of that is everyone wants to gang up on them, because they know more about it and so other teams will want them gone. We could end up with a 5 on 1, or 4 on 2.

 

[Sommerswerd]

everyone wants to gang up on them, because they know more

Well DMOC and LP are team-mates from the last game, so I think Mavericks are less likely to gang up on Sirius, but we will see... Plus LP is very popular (look how much YOU like his ideas for example) so I don't think Sirius will get ganged up on.

It'll take 30 minutes to play 2 turns instead of 15 to play one, how much discussion is going to happen in 15 minutes? Maybe two posts?

About the time issue...

Not everyone will always have 3 or 4 hours a day to spend on the game. Spring break can't last forever afterall. Sometimes a turnplayer might only have 20 or 30 mins that day to devote to civ...

In those situations, if we are playing 2 civs, and you only have 30 mins for civ that day, you will spend 15 mins playing the first team, and 15 mins playing the second team, and you will have no time to read and respond to the forums. At least if there is only 1 team, you can read and respond to the forums for 15 mins before playing. We don't want turnplayers playing the turn without having time to read the forum first and see what people want done do we?

Remember we want as many as possible to be able to play turns sometimes. We don't want turnplaying to take so long that the only person who can play the turn is someone with 4 hours to burn every single solitary day.

 

[remake20]

Well DMOC and LP are team-mates from the last game, so I think Mavericks are less likely to gang up on Sirius, but we will see... Plus LP is very popular (look how much YOU like his ideas for example) so I don't think Sirius will get ganged up on.

About the time issue...

Not everyone will always have 3 or 4 hours a day to spend on the game. Spring break can't last forever afterall. Sometimes a turnplayer might only have 20 or 30 mins that day to devote to civ...

In those situations, if we are playing 2 civs, and you only have 30 mins for civ that day, you will spend 15 mins playing the first team, and 15 mins playing the second team, and you will have no time to read and respond to the forums. At least if there is only 1 team, you can read and respond to the forums for 15 mins before playing. We don't want turnplayers playing the turn without having time to read the forum first and see what people want done do we?

Remember we want as many as possible to be able to play turns sometimes. We don't want turnplaying to take so long that the only person who can play the turn is someone with 4 hours to burn every single solitary day.

I can see you're last point, but the first... not so much. I think being popular makes you stick out as a target. Like when playing doge ball (or when I use to), it always seemed that the popular people were the targets, I see it being no different here. I would love to take out LP first just to say, "hey, you're dead." I'm not sure if I feel the same way about DMOC or ash. Even if he is friend with DMOC, all of that will end now, now that they are on different teams they are bitter enemies to the end. People take this like real life, it would be like if you we were both from the USA and in the army, but then I decided to go to Portugal and joined the army. Portugal then invaded the USA and we meet on the Battlefield, I have a hard time believing we would not shoot at each other.

 

[Calis]

Well DMOC and LP are team-mates from the last game, so I think Mavericks are less likely to gang up on Sirius, but we will see...

That would be horrible. This should not be a reason not to attack each other. If for example Chamnix of the C3C MTDG II would decide to join MAVERICKS, I'd not hesitate for a second to attack that civ(s), if the situation in the game requires it. But that's just my opinion. I reallly hope that nobody on our team would have any objections to attack or to ally against a former team-mates team!?

EDIT: X-post with r20

 

[Sommerswerd]

Point taken about the Sirius/Mavericks issue... and I hope they do kill each other like rabid wolves... that would be awesome.

But my main point was the one about the time issue... right?

 

[remake20]

Point taken about the Sirius/Mavericks issue... and I hope they do kill each other like rabid wolves... that would be awesome.

But my main point was the one about the time issue... right?

Yeah that was you're main point and I get it. I guess I assumed people had a lot of free time like me . I guess I was pretty dumb to assume that. Though if you look at it most people seem to spend more than 45 minutes on the forum every day