PBEM anyone? - Page 7

FrustratedPoet · March 23, 2003, 13:58

alva: I think you should just play the turn. We'll take our chances with the RMG.

alva · March 23, 2003, 14:38

Ahh, sort of a UN avant la lettre

-
Game with BC.

Dauphin · March 23, 2003, 14:53

Sent to FP

FrustratedPoet · March 23, 2003, 15:00

to Cerberus

CerberusIV · March 23, 2003, 15:07

To Zeit

ormuzd · March 24, 2003, 03:25

3950 BC sent to tiberius

alva · March 24, 2003, 09:23

I received some news about the map.

Aeson had a look at it and said all start were at least b+ and that it should be ok for a team game.(but for one player )
He said he would help us form teams too.

What if we let Aeson decide on teams, but except for the members, noone knows who is siding with whom.
This could give some extr edga edge.

(IIRC outside deals were off for this game, right?)

Dauphin · March 24, 2003, 09:35

You mean form teams now and be told whose team we are on, but not be told how the other teams are comprised? I like this, we are not to tell anyone our teammates, ever. Leave it for people to workout.

Quote:

(IIRC outside deals were off for this game, right?)

You mean we can only trade with our team partners?

I'd prefer the game to be a loose team game. i.e a standard game but the objective is for you or your team mate(s) to win. If you wish to trade with other teams/players it should not be restricted IMHO.

alva · March 24, 2003, 09:52

Perhaps we should wait a few turns before forming teams. If one teams gets very unlucky, things could get very unbalanced. It's gonna be easier for Aeson to match teams when the initial rex is over (2000bc?).

I was talking 'bout deals that are not possible in-game. (non-settlement agreements, border agreements....)
(Coordinating with your partner should be possible though.)
-
We could do a 'never trade' with anyone except with your partner setup too.

Dauphin · March 24, 2003, 09:57

Quote:

(non-settlement agreements, border agreements....)

I have no problem with such deals. I would request that you must be able to trade maps if you wish to give information related to the map. Extra-game treaties require an embassy.

How about that?

FrustratedPoet · March 24, 2003, 10:12

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
What if we let Aeson decide on teams, but except for the members, noone knows who is siding with whom.
This could give some extr edga edge.

I also love this idea.

FrustratedPoet · March 24, 2003, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Quote:

(non-settlement agreements, border agreements....)

I have no problem with such deals. I would request that you must be able to trade maps if you wish to give information related to the map. Extra-game treaties require an embassy.

How about that?

I'm in favour of this. I like the unusual diplomatic agreements that you can't make in a normal SP game, but a little effort should be expended by the teams to enable them (such as research Writing/Map Making; paying for an Embassy; etc...)

CerberusIV · March 24, 2003, 10:28

Some interesting ideas there.

How about Aeson sets the teams now (or after the initial REX to about 1800BC) then we play as individuals up to say 1000BC before finding out who our team mates are - could be interesting if you have to switch sides in a war or discover some of the cities you have captured culture flip to your team mate.

I would like to allow unusual deals once a pre-requisite has been met. Map making should be required before any deals involving maps.

Once you have contact with a civ you should be able to do direct deals such as agreeing borders and who will have what territory between your two civs only.

Embassies should be required to strike more complex deals such as joint attacks on a third civ or anything involving another civ.

How secret should an unusual deal be? Can it be kept between the parties or should it have to be posted in the turn thread after a certain number of turns. I ask because it has implications for judging who you should trust. Having said that I would publicly denounce anyone who broke such a deal with me anyway.

FrustratedPoet · March 24, 2003, 10:30

edited because it's no longer relevant.

CerberusIV · March 24, 2003, 10:37

Apologies FP, I had a change of mind and edited my post. I didn't realise you had replied before I changed it.

Dauphin · March 24, 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
How secret should an unusual deal be? Can it be kept between the parties or should it have to be posted in the turn thread after a certain number of turns. I ask because it has implications for judging who you should trust. Having said that I would publicly denounce anyone who broke such a deal with me anyway.

Keep it secret, but maybe we can CC to a game moderator any deals we make (no need to CC dicussions, just treaties). Only if there is a dispute will a moderator be involved.

alva · March 24, 2003, 11:42

Let's NOT make it too complicated though.
This will go on for a long time, if anyone drops out or needs to replaced, the new guy have to have a chance of knowing what is allowed and what isn't.
-
Let's play individually until ????bc, ask Aeson to make teams and inform those that are teamed-up.
No deals before having an embassy (except your teammate?).
With embassy, anything goes (with anyone).

How does that sound?

Dauphin · March 24, 2003, 12:05

Seems Ok. 1000BC seems good as a date.

Is the game with you Alva?

alva · March 24, 2003, 12:07

Not yet, still in Tiberius' hands

CerberusIV · March 24, 2003, 12:07

OK with me.

Date to play to before making teams?

I would say 1000BC, certainly no later,

FrustratedPoet · March 24, 2003, 12:16

I'm happy with the current proposals and support 1000BC as the date to set teams.

alva · March 24, 2003, 12:18

A 1000 bc, is rather late, isn't it? In the euro PBEM we reached that date recently, and we are taking 10 to 15 cities, entering midevil, almost all land settled...(small map/4players).

-