PBEM anyone? - Page 3

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 05:38

Monarch is fine with me, or Regent if that is what we get from the setup.

Can we stick to roaming barbarians please. I don't mind a few barbs but prefer my PBEM games to be about developing my civ and competing/fighting with the other players, not trying to survive hordes of barbs.

As for map shape shall we keep it simple and go for Pangaea. I would prefer Archipelago (I don't often play that one) but don't really mind between these two.

Patching - this will be my seventh currently running PBEM and I have a euro PTW so can't patch yet. I hope there will be a consensus that once the euro patch is out everyone will use it because I'm not really prepared to try and switch between 1.14 and 1.21 for the different games (and there seems little point once everyone can potentially patch). If the patch is due shortly can we wait a few days and aim to start with everyone using 1.21?

ormuzd · March 7, 2003, 06:19

the idea was to start new game because of the new patch - so we will have to wait until everyone has it

alva · March 7, 2003, 07:12

I' ll set it to monarch then.

alva · March 7, 2003, 07:16

How about setting shape to random ?

And the game will start the moment the euro patch is here

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 08:13

The drawback I see with random shape would be the possibility of getting a continents map with two continents separated by ocean so contact between them is impossible prior to Navigation/Magnetism and three players on each continent.

Not a problem if all three teams are split between continents but if we get both players of a team on one continent with one player from another team that is 2 against 1. I'm a competent player but I would not expect to survive until late medieval and contact with my team mate if faced with that situation.

Dauphin · March 7, 2003, 08:16

If it was two against one on continent, the same would be true on the other. The "Oners" would be screwed twice.

ormuzd · March 7, 2003, 08:48

Even on Pangea this can happen - if the team mates are in the oppsite corners of the continent they will be again 2 on 1.
If we fear of this maybe the best choice is archipelago or smaller continents.

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 09:08

The big problem in the situation I have described above is actually science, not being militarily outnumbered. It is possible to defend at chokepoints or favourable terrain but not if you are using spearmen and the opposition are up to cavalry. That is how it will go because a team will research at nearly twice the rate of a single player.

My first choice map would be archipelago where there is a good chance of making contact by galley early on to allow co-operation in science. Second choice would be pangaea where contact is again likely and if you are attacked there is a good chance your team mate can strike your attackers on a second front.

Dauphin · March 7, 2003, 12:30

Would having a couple of AI's make things 'easier'? Could help break things up a bit.

Just floating an idea.

alva · March 7, 2003, 12:43

* alva sinks idea *

Just imagine an AI civ cornered between a team...

I'm involved in one pbem with AI, and basically it's a race to exploit the AI as much as possible (trying to extort techs, land, workers).
You know they are going to gone soon, so no one cares about reputation, etc....

Basically they represent one big goody hut (remember you can only have two AI's present in his game)

ormuzd · March 7, 2003, 12:56

no, I don't think the idea wit hthe AI is good. Only human players is good enough.
About the science - you are right if we can trade only inside teams.
I have another idea - if we play continents and the situation is the worst (2:1 on two continents) we can change the rules - make teams three on three. I think in the beginning we will first explore. Eventual wars will begin later. So when we find each other and someone discovers the situation is like this we can change the teams.

Just another suggestions

Dauphin · March 7, 2003, 14:37

Does it *have* to be a team game?

alva · March 7, 2003, 15:10

Well SD, I did wanted to do somthin' else

Why?

Dauphin · March 7, 2003, 15:58

I just like questioning everything.

We could decide the teams later, once everyone has met or by a specified date. The leading nation paired with the worst. Second best with second worst.

alva · March 7, 2003, 16:43

hmm, havn't noticed that yet

Very healty attitude nonetheless

Scores don't mean that much though. A lot hangs on territory, so the more outspread you place your cities, the bigger it is. That doesn't say anything realy about the real situation.

How about 3 versus 3 ? If one gets "stuck", it's up to the two others to be creative..

ormuzd · March 7, 2003, 16:58

I suggest once again that we choose this depending on the situation - we can choose a dead line, let say 1000 BC and make the teams depending on the positions of the players