looking forward to play an email game?

Shaka Naldur · January 10, 2001, 17:12

I looked the 2194 email game and I can´t wait to play an email game
I don´t care which scenario,
who wants to play?

Allard HS · January 10, 2001, 18:03

What about Vikings v3.1 by Harlan?

Marko · January 11, 2001, 04:40

Or WW2: Pacific Theatre by Harlan? I have finely balanced multiplayer version of it.

Shaka Naldur · January 11, 2001, 09:16

Allard,
vickins sounds good!!
which civs would be playable??

MARKO,
could you send me your multiplayer version of the pacific theatre?
what about your WW2 scenario?? when it´s goingto be ready? can´t wait toplay it

anybody eelse wants to play?

RobRoy · January 11, 2001, 10:45

I looked at Vikings again. I think one major problem with that one is that everyone would want to play the Vikings; I certainly would - they're so much more interesting. The Byzantines and Abbasids should certainly be playable. But I'd hate to play the Franks, Holy Romans, or Hungarians if the neighborhood was controlled by humans, rather than AIs.

Someone suggested a modified version of Jesus Munoz' 30 years war. That seems a more balanced scenario, and the proposed double movement might improve the pace a bit (although I've always disliked the idea of using double land movement without also increasing ship movement). Someone also suggested Alex' Sparta, but I never played that one (error messages); there is a nicely balanced John Ellis scenario called Hellas in that period, but it's more empire-building, as I recall.

Looking back at some of the other one's, Kull's End of the Bronze Age scenario is a fairly fast-moving, militaristic one; and I think at least 5 or 6 of the civs would be fully playable. I think Mark Laanan's Fall of Rome would also offer a nice mix of action and balance.

I'd probably take a pass on the WWII scenarios, though. Not that I dislike the period - quite the contrary. Despite the amazing works that have been produced, I just find the game engine's limitations too severe when attempting to simulate that conflict.

Stefan Härtel · January 11, 2001, 15:15

Hmmm.... OK, if somebody tells me how this works I'd be happy to join. I'd play the Abbasid's in a Viking game, but any other scenario would be just fine.
Just try to locate this on a Saturday, I suppose this is the day on which anybody can play.

------------------
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!

The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.
-George W. Bush

Shahan Shah Eran ud Aneran

Visit my Homepage at: http://members.xoom.com/SHaertel/Index.html

Jay Bee · January 11, 2001, 15:33

I'd be glad to join but... I agree 100% with Rob Roy both in the WW2 and the Viking issues. Unlike Allard, I'd be for a scen with only a few cities (preferably one) at the start. To get the feeling I-built-that-civ right, you know.

RobRoy · January 11, 2001, 15:51

Allard - You might be confusing End-of-the-Bronze-Age with Kull's sequel (Seeds of Greatness). In the former, each of the playable civs starts with 15-25 cities and 30-50 units. The questionable civ (Sea Peoples) has even more units, but only one city - I would still call it playable, however. Though there are slightly fewer units than in Vikings or 30 years war, I think there are still too many for a real-time multi-player game, so I'd think it a good PBEM candidate. The reason I keep bringing it up is it seems more balanced than Vikings; Vikings clearly has three very strong civs, and three weaker ones.

I like Jesus' 30 years war scenario, especially for its relative balance. But I doubt it will be as fast-paced as Vikings or End-of-the-Bronze-Age even with the suggested modifications to movement. That's not necessarily a problem, but, given the PBEM format, will the slower pace keep our interest over a long term?

Couple of stray thoughts on Vikings: While I agree that the Holy Romans face a difficult challenge, their position isn't that much more difficult than the French. I think both civs become a bit more viable (but only a bit) if they both have human players, preferably players who realized that they both have common enemies and could benefit greatly from close cooperation. As for the Hungarians - they're lots of fun when playing the AI, but with a human Byzantine neighbor...? Course the Byzantines might want to come to an "arrangement"...

As I ramble, it occurs to me, that you're right, even the weaker players could be fun, even if "winning" in the traditional sense is difficult or impossible. But I honestly think that the game would be better if all three of the weaker powers were represented by humans or none were.

Assuming we played Vikings, how should we assign countries? Country selection for 2194 seemed like "DIBS"; Allard's expressed a preference in Byzantium, me for the Vikings, Stefan for the Abbasids...but that hardly seems fair. Would some sort of preference list be better? Or some kind of random selection? Since life is never fair, I'd almost prefer a random selection - I'm sure we can come up with a reasonable mechanism - but how do others feel? While I would prefer one of the "big three", I'd be willing to play one of the smaller countries (but, again, I'd prefer all three smaller countries be represented).

Another argument in favor of Vikings, by the way (related to "fast-moving") is the maximum turns. Although I suspect in any of these scenarios, the issue will be decided long before the max turns is reached, Vikings has about half the turns of 30 years war or End-of-the-Bronze-Age (but still more than 2194).

So who's solidly interested, anyway? My free time tends to be feast-or-famine, but I suspect PBEM would fit nicely into my schedule, so I'll try to commit. With Allard, Marko, Shaku, Stefan, and J.B., that makes 6! A nice number, but have I over-estimated anyone's interest? And does your interest depend on which scenario and/or which player you will be? Also, Mao and Techumseh piped up on the 2194 thread, but I couldn't gauge their interest.

J.B. - If we were to play an empire building one, like you're suggesting (maybe Kull's Seeds of Greatness?), a better format might be to start it as a standard multi-player internet game, then switch to PBEM when it got too big to be playable under that format. I'm pretty sure we could do that, but the switchover might get a bit tricky.
[This message has been edited by RobRoy (edited January 11, 2001).]

Stefan Härtel · January 11, 2001, 16:24

I somehow agree with JB, a scenario in which you have to do a bit work in the start is somehow more challenging, especially for an MP game, since you have something like a "race" in the start.

Is there any topic somebody doesen't want??

Jay Bee · January 11, 2001, 16:32

Rob

Point taken although I've played PBEM's before (normal games not scenarios) and to me there's is no problem at all with having only a few units to move in the beginning. If the thing is well co-ordinated we could play several of these short turns in only a few hours.

I still have strong reservations about playing Vikings this way. I do not think it's playable in this format.

quote:

And does your interest depend on which scenario

Absolutely, I love empire-building scens and tend to disregard the rest

But I see this as a nice way to compare strategies. So if you go, I'll go. I do not care about wich civ to play. I'd be happy with the one nobody wants

Shaka Naldur · January 11, 2001, 17:20

well,

by the way, AREN´T WE GOING TO PLAY THE GAME BY EMAIL????

I´d rather play an scenario with lots of cities and units

right now we are six players,
we should play an scenario where the powers are balanced

why don´t we play "time of thunder"??
if we are six player we could left the italian cities to the Ai
the countries are
spain, france, austria, ottoman empire, english and dutch (with just two cities though)

I think it´s a balanced scenario
I don´t care which civ to play but I think that it is the scenario that we should play

the empire building scenario are too many turns, and I don´t want to play an ww2 scenario either
the vicking is okay but there are just three major civs.....

just tell me what you think

Allard HS · January 11, 2001, 17:29

Thunder is a great idea too! At least then I can play (and die) as the Dutch!

Hey guess what! I just found out how to crack people's passwords from the saved game files! Was quite tough to do, but it works!! hehehe! But I won't tell anyone and won't use it badly.. i promess..

Now if everybody agrees with Thunder, we could start. Everybody agrees?

RobRoy · January 11, 2001, 17:52

J.B. - so yes you care which scenario, but you'd accept the consensus, and won't be picky about which player? Is that a fair statement?

Stefan - is that a good summary of your position too?

I don't think a consensus has developed just yet, but we've had two nominations and a second for Vikings; and we've had a nomination and a second for 30 Years War; and we've had a nomination and a second for Time of Thunder by my reconning. Even though some of the nominators and seconders (and others) have expressed reservations about these scenarios, they rightly dominate the selection discussion.

If some people prefer a more pure empire-building scenario, which one would it be? We've thrown out a couple of nominations: Kull's Seeds of Greatness; John Ellis' Hellas and/or Colonies3; BeBro's Cross & Crescent. Would any of these be preferable? Or are there others that are better balanced or more appealing? Given the time commitments that are liable to be associated with this undertaking, I don't think we should rush into a selection without making sure all the potential players are relatively satisfied with the scenario choice. I think we can still nominate alternatives, or second one of the options that've been bandied about in this thread or the 2194 thread, and discuss the pros and cons of the options. I'm anxious to play too, but would like to be sure we've got a good candidate.

J.B. and Stefan - while I share a preference for empire-building, in general, I would consider the ones that have received most of the discussion "mixed" scenarios, leaning toward militaristic, but with significant empire-building elements (at least compared to your average WWII scenario). I think that a PBEM experiment will hold people's interest more effectively if it has mixed elements, is reasonably balanced, and is fairly fast-paced.

Kull's End-of-the-Bronze-Age would still my first choice, based on those criteria. But I seem to be the only one pushing that one, so far. And I don't want to push a scenario that no one else is interested in pursuing.

Allard - Sorry, can't agree to Thunder that quickly. It's great, but I'd prefer both Vikings or 30 Years War to it. It has more serious multiplayer balance issues than Vikings IMHO, plus there is the problem of who designed it.

I haven't seen anything from Marko, recently. Is he truly "in"?

By the way, have any of you given thought to how we should pick countries or do you like the random idea?

RobRoy · January 11, 2001, 18:25

Looking at my last post, I'm concerned that I may be guilty of prolonging the selection discussion too much. In the interest of moving things forward, let's just assume that we've got three choices to choose from, until/unless we get other nominations or seconds:

Vikings
30 Years War
Time of Thunder

Why don't we all rank our preference from among those three choices (along with any other nominations that are seconded). Also let's express any opinions you may have regarding civ selection (i.e,. random assignement, random selection, preference list, don't really care, etc.)

My choices are:
1 - Vikings
2 - 30 Years War
3 - Time of Thunder

I prefer a random assignment of civs (to the extent possible)

Jay Bee · January 11, 2001, 18:26

quote:

J.B. - so yes you care which scenario, but you'd accept the consensus, and won't be picky about which player? Is that a fair statement?

Yes.

Once again I have to agree with Rob Roy. If I am in, Thunder should not be the game to play. I think I would have a colossal advantage over you guys

Let's park the empire building issue for another game, ok? Said this I vote for 30 years war. Who knows, maybe Techumseh joins us.

PS. Rob, do not answer if you do not want to but... why is your Settler title underlined?

Jay Bee · January 11, 2001, 18:30

RobRoy and I posted at the same time.

My list
1. 30 years war
2. Viks
3. Thunder

Don't care about civ selection.

Allard HS · January 11, 2001, 19:42

1. Vikings
2. 30 yrs
3. Thunder (as indeed JB would be advantaged).

But I don't really care, to be honest. Neither about civ selection.

RobRoy · January 11, 2001, 21:00

J.B. - Good question. I suspect it has something to do with an unwillingness to keep "demoting" me. The better question, of course, is why would I ever want another title when I could be known as the most powerful and fundamental civ unit?

Thinking about next question - civ assignments - it occurs to me that people may not know what I mean by the three selection methods I've mentioned. It also occurs to me that we probably won't have the luxury of having an uninterested party available to help sort out civ assignment in a timely fashion. So the "randomness" might be difficult to verify or accept. So here is a brief explanation and some procedures we could use that might enhance the credibility of a "random" process, and reduce the possibilities or appearances of conflicts of interest:

RANDOM ASSIGNMENT:

- "Assigner" randomly assigns a numeric rank to each player besides himself (will only matter for lucky player #1);

- "Assigner" randomly assigns a civ to each player;

- Player #1 (only) now has the option of forcing a trade with the "Assigner" (only).

= Slight advantage to Player #1, slight disadvantage to the Assigner. Neutral for everyone else.

RANDOM SELECTION:

- "Assigner" randomly assigns a numeric rank to each player;

- Starting with Player #1, players sequentially pick civs, making public announcements regarding selections;

- "Assigner" gets the leftover civ.

= Significant disadvantage to the Assigner. Neutral for everyone else. Increases the likelihood that more players will be happy with their civ.

PREFERENCE LIST:

- "Assigner" ranks and publicly posts his preference for civs;

- Other players then rank their preferences and privately submit them to "Assigner";

- "Assigner" collects and publicly posts preference lists, which will be resolved per next three steps:

- If any civ is uniquely identified as a the topmost choice of just one player, that civ is assigned to that player;

- For civs that are the topmost choices of more than one player, the "Assigner" randomly resolves the conflict, unless the "Assigner" is involved in the conflict AND another player has already been assigned a civ (in which case that player resolves the conflict);

- For the losers in conflict resolution, another round is conducted examining their topmost civ still unassigned...repeat above.

= More cumbersome. Slight disadvantage to "Assigner". Highest likelihood of greatest overall satisfaction with civ assignments, but also a high probability that one player will get his last choice.

Let me know if anyone sees any problems with these procedures or has a more elegent solution. Or if anyone who isn't interested in playing wants to assume that "Assigner" role for us...

I'm willing to be "Assigner", if no one else is eager (or if no one else really cares), regardless of which civ selection method people prefer. I don't really mind who I play, but I do care that we have a process that is as fair as possible.

In the likely event that this post is greeted with a resounding...YAWN..., I'll assume I'm the only one who cares about the process even a little and may just start randomly assigning civs.

So far, we have a slight lead for Vikings, with no new submissions, but almost equal support for 30 Years War. We do need confirmation from several players regarding their interest level, though. We might actually be able to start tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by RobRoy (edited January 11, 2001).]

Shaka Naldur · January 12, 2001, 01:32

Robroy
I took a look to the vikings scenario and I agree with you
I think that any of the 30 wars period,(hagsburg bid for mastery, time of thunder, 30 year wars by Jesus Munoz and The Capo)
are really balanced

I think that Tecumseh mention once that he has a multiplayer modified version

I´ll write him an email

so Allard, Marko, and Robroy want to play an email game

anybody else????

Allard HS · January 12, 2001, 01:50

I'd prefer to play as Byzantines than as Vikings.
I think that all three; Byz. Vikings and Abbasids are equally fun. Hungarians are also pretty ok, and Franks may be fun for a good player. Only Indep. and HRE are not playable. So that makes 5 players to play.

About everyone wanting the Vikings to play, I don't think that's true as it's the easiest. For better players, weaker civs are more challenging.

End of Bronze Age is also fun but turns are very short and especially in the beginning you spend the whole turn on only one unit. A bit waste of time, I believe.

30 years' war seems nice too. Peloponesian War (not called Sparta) might be a nice candidate, but a lot of things are not correct in the scenario and there are too many events.

Marko · January 12, 2001, 05:55

I can play every scenario, still The Thirty Years War seems the most interesting.
At moment I'm away from home until Monday and can start then.

To Shaka Naldur: The Struggle for Europe scenario is almost finished. I polish now easy version of it and release will be soon.

[This message has been edited by Marko (edited January 12, 2001).]

Stefan Härtel · January 12, 2001, 11:38

Well, I'd be happy to play any of those. WW2 scens would be nothing for me, especially because the plot is alwaysthe same, here's the good guys there's the bad guys, and bad guys have atvantage but etc.

I can unfortunately not play Mondays, because school goes to 6:30 PM, and any weekday would be bad

As I said, Saturdays would be the best, but I will see if I can comfort with your decisions.

------------------
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!

The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.
-George W. Bush

Shahan Shah Eran ud Aneran

Visit my Homepage at: http://members.xoom.com/SHaertel/Index.html

RobRoy · January 12, 2001, 16:26

The votes are in! With Stefan abstaining, and the Florida recount completed, the consensus choice appears to be:

30 Years War! by Jesus Munoz

The latest version I have is 2.3, per the README.TXT, with the scenario file having a date of 11/27/95 (which is impossible and must be an error). Does anyone have a later version than this? If this is the latest version, we'll have to fix the "starving barbarians" problem. Does anyone know of any other problems that we should fix before we start?

The second question is whether we want to use "double movement", as someone suggested? Personally, I'm a purist and would prefer to play the scenario as is. But if there is strong support for double movement, I'd propose changing the rules.txt file to double sea movement as well - just seems right.

The default difficulty is Emperor level. Is this okay, or is there a groundswell of support for Deity or something else?

The only other issue is civ selection and no one seems to care how we do it, except me. So I'll assume it's okay to just randomly assign the starting country (Spain in this case), and then have the subsequent civs assigned sequentially to the remaining players in geographical/time zone order (I'm thinking that may also help minimize game delays). I believe that order would be:

Marko
Stefan
Allard
Shaka
RobRoy
JayBee

unless someone's changed locations. For example, if Allard is assigned Spain, Shaka would be assigned Sweden, I would be the Protestants, JayBee would be the Imperials, Marko would be the Danes, and Stefan would be the French. I'm arbitrarily leaving Poland to the AI, since it was historically less dynamic during this period than the others, unless anyone objects strenuously, or unless we get another player.

At the risk of being accused of steam-rollering the process, I'll assume the version I have is the latest and go ahead and make the "starving barb" mods to it. I'll then send it to whoever gets Spain, unless someone wants to double check it.

Unless there is a lot of discussion about scenario errors, double movement, or difficulty levels, we should be able to start as soon as the Spanish player is identified and is ready. In Marko's case that might not be till Monday, but anyone else should be able to start the MGE Hotseat game as soon as we're sure we're working with a good .SCN file.

Jay Bee · January 12, 2001, 16:36

No double movement please. Other than that, ready and willing...

Stefan Härtel · January 12, 2001, 16:45

30 Years War seems OK, it is an awesome scenario. It'd be allright for me to play the French

Although my religio-political feelings tell me "play the protestants"

they were too hard for me to manage in a single-player game.
Emperor level is alright to me, I'm not such a good player. Prince is too easy however, and I think there's no such big difference between king and emperor.

Now, I am still lacking knowledge: I have never played such a game before, and if someone could explain to me like to a five-year old how this works that would be good.

One more thing: I remember there was a mulitplayer tournament with this scenario, and I think I remember that techumseh had made an MP update of it. Could someone send that to me, so I can train a little (not to make it too embarassing to me

)

And then there is the time factor ... ?

------------------
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!

The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.
-George W. Bush

Shahan Shah Eran ud Aneran

Visit my Homepage at: http://members.xoom.com/SHaertel/Index.html

Shaka Naldur · January 12, 2001, 17:07

okay, so let´s play
my heart tells me to play Spain but I agree with the random country asign.
I rather play single move, like in classican civ.

I never played an email game before so I´ll need a little explanation first, I think I´ll ask in the multiplayer forum.

Tecumseh has a multiplayer version of the game so I think we´ll have to ask him, but we have to change the fortress unit, some cities are unconquerable, I don´t like that aspect

other point that I don´t like of the scenario is that turks neither english are represented in the scenario, neither an italian association

I still don´t think that Jesus has and advantage in his Time of Thunder but....

Stefan Härtel · January 12, 2001, 17:12

Of course we could ban him into the lowlands but...
(j/k)

RobRoy · January 12, 2001, 17:51

Okay, I've modified the .SCN file to illuminate the barbie cities and prevent famine. I also made some tiny adjustments to terrain improvements around the unconquerable Barbie cities of Cardiff, London and Genuva, similarly to prevent famine. I have made no other changes (though I notice the Spanish player will have a slight problem with Cordoba on the first turn). But if anyone wants to review the work, just ask.

Shaka - At this point, I think any other mods to the scenario should be avoided, unless they correct obvious errors. We'll never finish, once we open that can of worms. Nor do I think we should wait any longer to examine, discuss, approve Techumseh's version. For better or for worse, this is the scenario that we've chosen - we haven't selected some alternative version that allows...whatever...weaker Fortresses, forays into or by Britain, Turkey or Italy, etc. Since yours was the deciding vote, I suppose you could change it and we could do Vikings, instead, or even open up the selection discussion once again. But otherwise, I think we should move ahead with what we've got (else we may never move ahead). Basically, that means this scenario with default settings.

Stefan - Since silence is consent, and I've heard no objections or alternatives, We're going to randomly assign the Spanish player. I'll set something up after this post, then post again. Everyone else will be assigned to the subsequent civs in the arbitrary order I outlined above. The Spanish player will start an MGE Hotseat scenario game, with 6 players, none of the options should be selected. Each player will password protect his civ, conduct his turn, end the turn via CTRL N, save the .HOT game, then e:mail the .HOT game file to the subsequent player, who'll load his civ and repeat the process. I'm probably forgetting several steps, but Xin Yu posted some useful cautions in the 2194 scenario thread.

RobRoy · January 12, 2001, 18:02

I've just randomly given each of us a "Spanish control number". I've e:mailed Allard the results, to keep me honest.

Would the next poster to this thread (aside from Allard), kindly roll a 6-sided die and post the results.

We'll then be able to determine who the Spanish player is, and the rest of us will be assigned the succeeding civs in the geographical order outlined above.

Jay Bee · January 12, 2001, 18:47

Stefan:

quote:

I'm not such a good player

do not worry about that. I always play all scenarios as if they were Spanish Pride. Nothing to fear from me in the battlefield (but in the econmical side....)

Shaka,

quote:

I still don´t think that Jesus has and advantage in his Time of Thunder but....

he, he... maybe we could set up a Spanish-only game among you, me, Juan Fiera, Jesús M, and Manuel P. And Allard of course as a guest star and former Spanish citizen

. No joke, I mean it!

Rob

quote:

Would the next poster to this thread (aside from Allard), kindly roll a 6-sided die and post the results

Not quite sure of what you mean here (dice?) but my little princess is now playing with the marble dice I won at Las Vegas' Mirage and the first one she dropped on the floor marked 5. (For those interested, it miraculously survived).