PBEM, Anyone?

[Zero]

Is there a way to accelearte a startup in the game? pbem gaming would be too littel playing during first few turns.

[alva]

not that I'm aware of.
But to be honest , I want to play the first turns myself. Don't trust the AI/generator/whatever, that would put you in a later stage

[Buster13]

Maybe accelerated production wasn't what I thought it was...I'll have to try it.

I'll let you know if I change my mind.

BTW...I'm in the US...I'm just of German descent...that's why the german flag is there. If that matters to you guys...

Also, EB's website is saying PTW ships the 21st, but the local store is saying the 30th. I guess we'll see. If I get it sooner, I'll let you know. Of course, I might not be online for playing PTW constantly.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Buster13
BTW...I'm in the US...I'm just of German descent...that's why the german flag is there. If that matters to you guys...

Also, EB's website is saying PTW ships the 21st, but the local store is saying the 30th. I guess we'll see. If I get it sooner, I'll let you know. Of course, I might not be online for playing PTW constantly.

Same with me, on both counts.

[Buster13]

I'm looking forward to the opportunity to get schooled by you Trip, especially now that I know you have that German tactician blood in you...

If the Apolyton community has enough faith in you to be the Demo game's el presidente...you should be a hell of a challenge to play MP against.

Anyway, I look forward to being your slave state.

[Buster13]

Oh yeah, the real reason I was going to post...

I checked out accelerated production, and it doesn't play the first few turns for you, it just decreases the shield and beaker cost for everything, which I don't think would be a bad thing for PBEM.

You'll get to the better part of the game earlier, and troop movements will be more important. Also, if we play on a standard board, it'll allow more ancient era warfare...which will be important since nearly half of the civs have ancient era UUs. Of course, I was into the middle ages at 750 bc or thereabouts...

I have to say that I'm still for accelerated production, but if you want to play a small map, I'm ok with that.

[Tiberius]

I've played a few OCC games this weekend with acceletated production on. I wanted some really fast games and it worked. I finished 3 or 4 games in one day! (and not counting those that ended with Ctrl-Shift-q )
After a few games you would familiarize yourself with AP and it plays faster. So if you want a fast game, AP is the way to go. Otherwise, it ins't any better than normal production. On the contrary, the ancient ages pass faster and since I like them I'm changing my vote:

Accelerated production: abstain (because it has advantages as well as disadvantages) (old vote: ON)
Map size: small with AP off or regular with AP on (old vote: regular)
barbarians: random (old vote: restless)

Edited to add my old votes

[Jon Shafer]

Problems with Accelerated Production, as I see them:

- It was designed to make multi-player games faster, so people did have to sit for 6-8 hours and play one game. That leads to some interesting effects on the game being played regularly (as in not MP).

- It greatly shortens the early-game. Like Busty mentioned, the middle ages come quite fast, and some of the more important parts of the early game are lost due to the shorter amount of time.

- More frantic, less strategic. Pumping out cheap units to smash against attackers is quite commonplace in AP. There's less strategy, and more 'frantic unit pumping'.

- Basically, it 'sqeezes' the game, without modifying the engine, which makes a few interesting situations emerge, which, IMO, 'dull' the flavor that Civ III has.

Originally posted by Buster13
I'm looking forward to the opportunity to get schooled by you Trip, especially now that I know you have that German tactician blood in you...

What's worse is that I've been a military historian since I was in 3rd grade, am a history/military science major, and will soon be a lieutenant in the armored branch of the US army. I suppose I'm just following my roots. There's been quite a few people in the army on both sides of my family. My great-great grandfather was an officer in the Austro-Hungarian army.

If the Apolyton community has enough faith in you to be the Demo game's el presidente...you should be a hell of a challenge to play MP against.

Opinions on my performance are mixed (due to my 'take charge and get stuff done' approach), and I didn't have to run against anyone, but I suppose I did an alright job. My contributions were mostly political though, hammering out the system which was to be used later on, and not really directly in-game-related, but I suppose every bit of experience and professional work helps.

Anyway, I look forward to being your slave state.

May Rommel, Guderian, Ludendorf, Hindenburg and Frederick see me to victory.

Back to the discussion about the game.

I think we may need to establish a couple few 'house rules' before we start. There are quite a few 'quick and cheap' strategies which exploit the game engine to gain an advantage, such as early-game horseman rushing, high-density ICS, etc. Personally, I don't like strategies like those. While 'technically' part of the game and the strategy of playing, they help suck the fun out of games, IMO, and instead put the focus on 'winning', so if we could all agree on a few things not to do, then I'd be willing to not use them. Some people see an early rush as a viable strategy (though I see it as rather cheap, personally) for winning wars, but I don't. I suppose it depends on what kind of game you guys want to play.

Over on this end, I'd really prefer a longer, more drawn-out game with a buildup period, then an escalation, then whatever comes... a more 'standard' civ game. I guess that's just how I enjoy playing my games.

One final thing. I think we ought to find a time to get all of us together and do the first few turns, so we avoid playing up to 2500 BC in one week. Since we have quite a lot of time, any time on the weekend or after about 2300 GMT on any weekday, after I get out of classes. What do you guys think? I think working for an hour or two on one day with all of us together could really get the game rolling much better than playing as we will later on, with 1 turn every or every other day. We could hammer out quite a few of the early turns at one point, and get to the more interesting stuff (imagine how annoying it would be to play the game for 2 weeks, and only get to 2500 BC, still with one city and 3 units ).

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Trip
I think we may need to establish a couple few 'house rules' before we start. There are quite a few 'quick and cheap' strategies which exploit the game engine to gain an advantage, such as early-game horseman rushing, high-density ICS, etc. Personally, I don't like strategies like those. While 'technically' part of the game and the strategy of playing, they help suck the fun out of games, IMO, and instead put the focus on 'winning', so if we could all agree on a few things not to do, then I'd be willing to not use them.

I don't like those strategies either, but I'm very much against any limitation of this kind. Everybody should be allowed to play in his own style. I'm a builder but if I'll get stucked on a small island with somebody else, I don't want to be limited to get my "lebensraum" by some out-of-the-game rule.

One final thing. I think we ought to find a time to get all of us together and do the first few turns, so we avoid playing up to 2500 BC in one week. Since we have quite a lot of time, any time on the weekend or after about 2300 GMT on any weekday, after I get out of classes. What do you guys think?

I say we should stick to the rules, which means:
- if possible, send your move ASAP
- if not, send them in max. one day
- if you leave town, you are busy with your work, have your internet connection down or have some other problems, send a notification to the others and you can get a longer delay (let's say max. 3 days, after that your turn is cancelled; can we do that? )
So if everybody will be free and willing to play in the weekend, I see no problems in playing more than 2 turns in 2 days. There's no need for separate arrangements for that.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Tiberius
I don't like those strategies either, but I'm very much against any limitation of this kind. Everybody should be allowed to play in his own style. I'm a builder but if I'll get stucked on a small island with somebody else, I don't want to be limited to get my "lebensraum" by some out-of-the-game rule.

True, but I'll be keeping my blacklist.

I say we should stick to the rules, which means:
- if possible, send your move ASAP
- if not, send them in max. one day
- if you leave town, you are busy with your work, have your internet connection down or have some other problems, send a notification to the others and you can get a longer delay (let's say max. 3 days, after that your turn is cancelled; can we do that? )
So if everybody will be free and willing to play in the weekend, I see no problems in playing more than 2 turns in 2 days. There's no need for separate arrangements for that.

I just think that finding a time to get the first few turns of the game out of the way would help get the game rolling, better than playing for a week and only getting to 3300 BC, having done nothing but watch your worker dig for 5 seconds before shipping the file off again.

[Tiberius]

True, but when you have people playing from diferent continents, it is a bit difficult to arrange a common time for playing. You can't request from others to stay awake until 4 am for a few civ turns, can you?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Trip
I think we may need to establish a couple few 'house rules' before we start. There are quite a few 'quick and cheap' strategies which exploit the game engine to gain an advantage, such as early-game horseman rushing, high-density ICS, etc. Personally, I don't like strategies like those. While 'technically' part of the game and the strategy of playing, they help suck the fun out of games, IMO, and instead put the focus on 'winning', so if we could all agree on a few things not to do, then I'd be willing to not use them. Some people see an early rush as a viable strategy (though I see it as rather cheap, personally) for winning wars, but I don't. I suppose it depends on what kind of game you guys want to play.

In SP games, I have been trying to keep up with the AI, on building cities, so I might build cities fast, I don't know, have never tried Civ MP before...Though I don't build dense...but I wouldn't mind to have any "house" rules...

I always play for fun, not to win (it's not like I have a chance to win a MP game in the first place )

Originally posted by Trip
Over on this end, I'd really prefer a longer, more drawn-out game with a buildup period, then an escalation, then whatever comes... a more 'standard' civ game. I guess that's just how I enjoy playing my games.

That's how I prefer to play too...

Originally posted by Trip
One final thing. I think we ought to find a time to get all of us together and do the first few turns, so we avoid playing up to 2500 BC in one week. Since we have quite a lot of time, any time on the weekend or after about 2300 GMT on any weekday, after I get out of classes. What do you guys think? I think working for an hour or two on one day with all of us together could really get the game rolling much better than playing as we will later on, with 1 turn every or every other day. We could hammer out quite a few of the early turns at one point, and get to the more interesting stuff (imagine how annoying it would be to play the game for 2 weeks, and only get to 2500 BC, still with one city and 3 units ).

I wouldn't mind spending a couple of weekends to get started

[FrustratedPoet]

Wow.

I go away for the weekend and look what happens!

I agree with Trip's idea to meet up one time to play out the first few turns quickly one-at-a-time, kind of like a demo-game session (onyl with secret moves, of course). Trip should know all about that .

[alva]

well , I kind of updated the votes. But Tiberius' vote makes it somewhat difficult

About the early rush tactic: if we go standard map, this problem should not acure at all.

[Jon Shafer]

I think we can all agree that we won't be using any 'cheap win' tactics. Sure I've beaten diety, but since the AI cheats, you have to do the same. And how many people think we should try to find a weekend to start off? Like with the demo game (hint hint wink wink nudge nudge ) it was somewhat difficult to find a time, but it was doable, especially on the weekend, and we ended up getting quite a bit done. So far 3 people support doing that.

[alva]

I would love to support it too, problem is I work in a kitchen, so I kind of have flexible days/evenings, and don't have many weekends off.

This situation could change soon though, I hope *sigh*

[Jon Shafer]

Ahhh, no heart for the game eh? You'll make a good target then.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by alva848
well , I kind of updated the votes. But Tiberius' vote makes it somewhat difficult

Sorry. Make it then small map and accelerated production off.

[notyoueither]

I'd do that.

[notyoueither]

Random.

[alva]

Originally posted by Trip
Ahhh, no heart for the game eh? You'll make a good target then.

I tried to arrange my vacation to coincide with the release of PTW , is that good enough for you : , unfortunately it didn't work out as planned .

Say, Maybe we could decide on a few other game issues. Now these are just examples, just to see what you guys think about them.

1. razing (allowed or not)
2. GL's
3. communicatins before map making
4.???

1. There's IMO something wrong with this option, it just doesn't feel right(never do it in sp either)

2. I don't wanne play a 'real' mod or anything, but I have alway found GL's to be , well, a bit to overpowering. They can really change a game.

[Buster13]

I have no problem with giving up a few hours to get the first few turns out early. It would get the game going quickly, which would be preferable to 5 emails to warrior....






I see your point about squeezing the game, Trip...I just thought that it would make the game more playable in a PBEM format. I mean, watching your worker dig and playing a turn where there's nothing new built or researched isn't really that different, except that you might have some units to more around, and possibly a domestic advisor to play with...

In any other type of game I would definitely be against Accelerated Production. I've played it a couple of times now, and I like a normal game better in general, but otherwise I'm worried the game will take well over a year to complete.

As I said before, though...I'll go with the flow without complaint.

(General Note: Attack Trip with horseman rush)


I don't think we should make any agreements for "rules changes" out of the game, but technically it IS diplomacy...so make whatever agreements between players that you want, but realize that it is what it is...

I also get off of work at 2300 GMT or thereabouts. I wouldn't have a problem scheduling some time to play the first few rounds. Mondays and Wednesdays are bad for me, and then there IS the girlfriend thing. Otherwise, whatever you guys want to do.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by alva848
1. razing (allowed or not)
2. GL's
3. communicatins before map making
4.???

1. I never liked razing, so I'd say it should not be allowed...
2. GL..? You mean Great Leaders..? Can we play without them...or what do you mean?
3. Communication without contact, shouldn't be allowed...except for "It's your turn"

[FrustratedPoet]

I agree with no.3

The players shouldn't be allowed to talk to each other about the strategy of the game until their Civs have actually met. It won't take very long for our Civs to all have knowledge of each other anyway. If you can see someone on the Diplomacy screen then you can talk to them.

[Tiberius]

I agree with 1 and 3.

WTF is 2 ?

I also agree on horserushing Trip

[alva]

2. GL..? You mean Great Leaders..? Can we play without them...or what do you mean?

Yes, it is quite easy to make sure they don't appear. You could still have armies though. I don't know, it's not a game breaker i suppose. Just to much luck involved IMO and too much favouring the The Dark Side.

[Buster13]

While I agree I don't like razing. I think it should be allowed since it is part of the game. If you don't like someone doing it, that again becomes an issue of diplomacy.

To play without great leaders takes away one of Militaristics biggest advantages, you HAVE to play with them...and I wasn't aware you could play without them...

Ditto on the communications issue...good thinking.

[FrustratedPoet]

EDIT: hmmm, three of us posted at the same time.

I think alva would like us to disallow the use of Great Leaders (either through modding the game so they don't appear, or promising that we'll disband them if we get any). I can see why he suggests this, and it would have some advantages, but I think we should leave it as it is.

[FrustratedPoet]

I'd also like razing to stay on, but if the others feel very stongly that they want it off then I won't complain. I agree with buster, razing is a part of the game, if another Civ does it to you and you don't like it then you should put them on your permanent 'hate list' and never trade with them.

[Tiberius]

Nooo. GL's are fun. Dark Lords can be countered with global "anti dark side" alliances.

We will play with the unmodded, standard rules, won't we?