The two most important decisions

[Lord Parkin]

One other advantage of playing simultaneous turns as opposed to sequential, not mentioned so far, is with email notifications. All teams get email notifications of a new turn on Civstats with simultaneous turns. With sequential turns, it's only the first team that gets the email (since Civstats wasn't built with sequential turn games in mind). Of course we have the turn tracker thread here, but it's nice to have the Civstats email as well (at least speaking personally).

 

[Robi D]

I'm for simulataneous turns, the rule for double moves is quite easy to sort out and given this is teams game there should be someone available to play the turn.

As for the tech trade, i'd go with off, because if anything this makes for more diplomacy not less. The reason for this is with trade on once you start trading with another civ that alliance is virtually set in stone, the two team become dependant on each other, whether its to stay ahead, catch up or keep up with the other tech trading alliances that will form. It is a bond that is very hard to break since doing so puts you at a disadvantage to the other alliances.

With tech trades off alliances are weaker since resources arn't as vital as techs, plus one civ can get access to a resources the other was providing. Because of this alliances tend to shift depending on the situation in the game, which means you need to be more involved in diplomacy and have back up plan if a one time friend becomes less... er friendly

 

[Darkness]

I'm for simulataneous turns, the rule for double moves is quite easy to sort out and given this is teams game there should be someone available to play the turn.

As for the tech trade, i'd go with off, because if anything this makes for more diplomacy not less. The reason for this is with trade on once you start trading with another civ that alliance is virtually set in stone, the two team become dependant on each other, whether its to stay ahead, catch up or keep up with the other tech trading alliances that will form. It is a bond that is very hard to break since doing so puts you at a disadvantage to the other alliances.

With tech trades off alliances are weaker since resources arn't as vital as techs, plus one civ can get access to a resources the other was providing. Because of this alliances tend to shift depending on the situation in the game, which means you need to be more involved in diplomacy and have back up plan if a one time friend becomes less... er friendly

Completely agree.
I vote simultaneous turns and tech trading off.

 

[Furiey]

I'm for simulataneous turns, the rule for double moves is quite easy to sort out and given this is teams game there should be someone available to play the turn.

As for the tech trade, i'd go with off, because if anything this makes for more diplomacy not less. The reason for this is with trade on once you start trading with another civ that alliance is virtually set in stone, the two team become dependant on each other, whether its to stay ahead, catch up or keep up with the other tech trading alliances that will form. It is a bond that is very hard to break since doing so puts you at a disadvantage to the other alliances.

With tech trades off alliances are weaker since resources arn't as vital as techs, plus one civ can get access to a resources the other was providing. Because of this alliances tend to shift depending on the situation in the game, which means you need to be more involved in diplomacy and have back up plan if a one time friend becomes less... er friendly

I thought I wasn't really bothered until I saw this post, but have seen exactly this type of dependency occur and effectively set up the game almost from the start.

So I'd go for simultaneous (for speed and let the admins deal with any incidents) and tech trading off (for the above reasons).

 

[Lord Parkin]

Robi D's points are good ones. However, it's also worth noting the major downside of no tech trading, which is that a civ that starts to obtain a slight technological edge often becomes unstoppable. There is no way for the weaker civs to work together and trade techs to at least have a fighting chance; the team with the tech lead can get to a major military tech first, stomp a rival, then has too much of a lead to be stopped by anyone else. At least, that's a potential scenario. Certainly most of the no tech trading games I've been in have ended up with one or two hideously advanced and powerful nations while everyone else is still emerging from the middle ages.

So there's your counterpoint to tech trading being off.

I wholeheartedly agree with having simultaneous turns though, it makes the game so much faster and as a result increases activity / decreases inactivity.

 

[BCLG100]

Robi D's points are good ones. However, it's also worth noting the major downside of no tech trading, which is that a civ that starts to obtain a slight technological edge often becomes unstoppable. There is no way for the weaker civs to work together and trade techs to at least have a fighting chance; the team with the tech lead can get to a major military tech first, stomp a rival, then has too much of a lead to be stopped by anyone else. At least, that's a potential scenario. Certainly most of the no tech trading games I've been in have ended up with one or two hideously advanced and powerful nations while everyone else is still emerging from the middle ages.

So there's your counterpoint to tech trading being off.

I wholeheartedly agree with having simultaneous turns though, it makes the game so much faster and as a result increases activity / decreases inactivity.

That is true to some extent, however the team with the tech lead has made the tech cheaper for the person following behind and I can't think of many tech advances that give such an overwhelming advantage over the previous units especially when considering build time.

 

[Sommerswerd]

a civ that starts to obtain a slight technological edge often becomes unstoppable.

IIRC that's also what you said about having tech trading on with an odd number of teams... the first teams to form a trading alliance gets a "slight technological edge"... etc, etc...


I mean, I want tech trading on too, but I'm just sayin'

 

[Lord Parkin]

That is true to some extent, however the team with the tech lead has made the tech cheaper for the person following behind and I can't think of many tech advances that give such an overwhelming advantage over the previous units especially when considering build time.

We should play a no tech trading game between ourselves sometime, if you believe it won't make much of a difference.

Units can be upgraded, for one thing. And once a tech lead has been established in a no tech trading game, it's near-impossible to stop.

IIRC that's also what you said about having tech trading on with an odd number of teams... the first teams to form a trading alliance gets a "slight technological edge"... etc, etc...


I mean, I want tech trading on too, but I'm just sayin'

Indeed, but that's why I'm advocating tech trading on with an even number of teams. Four would have been more reliable for a balanced game, but six should be okay too.

 

[Earthling]

Certainly most of the no tech trading games I've been in have ended up with one or two hideously advanced and powerful nations while everyone else is still emerging from the middle ages.

Actually, well, you'll notice I already voted for tech trading off, but I've never seen this be a problem. Admittedly it's because I haven't had the chance to play much multiplayer vanilla Civ IV with tech trading off. But I have played single player where I consider myself rather decent enough and multiplayer games in mods like FFH, and as a player I've never found myself able to come close to pulling off the same "gain an insurmountable lead" with tech trading off as one can do with it on.

So, then, I don't see why it wouldn't transfer to regular BtS as compared to some mods. Getting a tech lead just doesn't do as much in a human game as it does against AI as well; you can't gimmick your economy to beeline a certain way, expect relations bonuses to carry you safely without being attacked, and save up and upgrade 20 cavalry at once or something and avoid researching other techs. Why, two teams simply sharing open borders and resources probably make up or gain significant ground on any other teams anyway (5-6 commerce per city for the trade routes alone, versus an isolated civ "seizing the lead)

What I find that really matters of course is hammers but this tends to work out much closer to equal between even lagging civs regardless; I suppose if the game got to the industrial era the first civ with a tech lead would get way ahead. But until then I think other teams could keep a "leading" team in check just by non-tech trade cooperation. Without trading like you can against the AI a team can't just slingshot and build all the key wonders and stuff they'd want and get such a lead, assuming the other teams have remotely close to equal play.

The last demogame of course also influences me to agree that the way "alliances" worked out is something I don't want to see repeated. We don't have like 10 teams in this game, 5 or 6 already spreads things to thin and I don't want to see one alliance from like turn 20 of the game dominate it the rest of the way.

 

[Robi D]

Robi D's points are good ones. However, it's also worth noting the major downside of no tech trading, which is that a civ that starts to obtain a slight technological edge often becomes unstoppable. There is no way for the weaker civs to work together and trade techs to at least have a fighting chance; the team with the tech lead can get to a major military tech first, stomp a rival, then has too much of a lead to be stopped by anyone else. At least, that's a potential scenario. Certainly most of the no tech trading games I've been in have ended up with one or two hideously advanced and powerful nations while everyone else is still emerging from the middle ages.

So there's your counterpoint to tech trading being off.

I wholeheartedly agree with having simultaneous turns though, it makes the game so much faster and as a result increases activity / decreases inactivity.

Well just as weaker teams can work together on techs to catch up, stronger teams can do the same to keep them at bay. The thing is if a team or teams play well they can build an impossible to catch gap on the rest, whether tech trading is on or off. I will agree on maps that are not well balanced having trading off give the civs with the best starting position a shield against teams with poorer starts catching up but since this map is being made it safe to say everyone will start on equal footing so anyone who can build a impossible to catch lead will have earned it through good play.

Also with tech trading off leads to more interesting choices when it comes to which tech to research since you can't trade to fill in those tech you have missed and secondly the tech place is a lot slower so it gives teams more oppertunity to try different strategies.

 

[akots]

Completely agree.
I vote simultaneous turns and tech trading off.

+1 Cannot agree more. Double move is a no brainer provided that there is a good will and all my experience tells that tech trading must be off.

 

[Chimera1804]

I vote sequential turns. As for tech trading, I'll remain neutral on this one.

 

[HUSch]

... let the admins deal with any incidents

That was the end of the last DG.

 

[Earthling]

Yeah, although I guess I'm thankful I was not around for that, having kinda wandered off last summer. But anyway, I really don't think it's *just for double moves/rules things that simultaneous is better; I think that the pace of the game would be much better served, rather than taking a week to cycle between all 5-6 teams for just one turn.

 

[DaveShack]

I think simultaneous will work but it will need to be a longer than normal turn timer to allow diplomacy. Perhaps 48 hours would be good. Or we could allow diplomatic pauses.

 

[Lord Parkin]

My feeling is that 48 hours would probably work fine. (Or whatever equivalent pitboss time gives 48 hours in the real world - keeping in mind that the pitboss turn timer runs 5-20% slower than an actual clock, depending on the game and server.)

I'm not sure that there'd be a need for diplomatic pauses, but that could be considered I guess. Might be kind of obvious to the other teams that you've met someone else if you suddenly request a pause though. I guess that's a price you pay if you really want to stop the game for diplomacy, though. Personally I don't see the need outside of wartime. No reason why you can't make that resource trade or trade that tech (assuming tech trades are on) the next turn.

 

[BCLG100]

I don't think there is a need for 48 hours, 24 hours will be enough. Perhaps as the game continues then we can re-look at the turn timer if it becomes an issue but early game it will only preclude under delay.

 

[DaveShack]

Everyone seems to assume that the turn will take as long as the timer is set for. Most of the time it will finish much faster with simultaneous turns. And when a team needs time to discuss, they need time. We want a game speed fast enough to hold interest, but slow enough to keep the democracy in the demogame.

 

[akots]

Something around 40-42 hours might be OK IMO.

 

[BCLG100]

Everyone seems to assume that the turn will take as long as the timer is set for. Most of the time it will finish much faster with simultaneous turns. And when a team needs time to discuss, they need time. We want a game speed fast enough to hold interest, but slow enough to keep the democracy in the demogame.

I do accept this but surely it is also a team game and the better teams have a way of managing a quicker turn.