Official: PBEM or Regular?

Method · April 20, 2003, 12:29

alright, i know we already had a poll about this, but it was unofficial, and now some new people have come. anyways:

PBEM Style - Several teams are formed, likely of about 5 people. Each team plays its own faction, and makes decisions within itself. The turn is mailed to teams like a regular PBEM game
Pros
- More fun, much better for role-playing purposes, more challenge
- Something new and interesting
- Lets people do what they want (IOW, if you want run planned in your own faction, you can

)

Cons
- We may not have enough participants
- The whole joining process is more long-winded and not so simple.

Regular Style - Everyone plays together in one faction, and votes to make decisions. The president (or commissioner, provost, or whathaveyou) plays the turn every so often and posts it publically
Pros
- the opposite of PBEM's cons
- you can be sure we can have enough people

Cons
- Too easy VS the AI
- Compromises must be reached within the faction

and, i'll let this poll run. no expiry date

Drogue · April 20, 2003, 12:59

PBEM

I agree with TKG's pros/cons except for one:

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
Regular Style:
Pros
- you can be sure we can have enough people

I don't think we will have, and we certainly cannot be sure. While it will need less people to work, we will probably get fewer, IMHO. And we can never be sure we will get enough.

And this is the big thing for me:

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
Regular Style: ...
Cons
- Too easy VS the AI

It was too easy last time, and if we do it again, we already have a forgone conclusion, we will win. Thus I think it would be much more fun to not know who will win before we start.

Kassiopeia · April 20, 2003, 13:04

After some personal pondering, I've come to the conclusion that, my earlier opinions notwithstanding, we should give the suggested play style a go. The prospects of intrigue, the roleplaying, the tactics, all that - there is so much more depth on offer in the new play style. Especially if we opt to play with the expansion pack.

So, I voted "PBEM", and really hope that it'll work out. Maybe I can instead of playing become a neutral reporter or analyst or something.

Static Universe · April 20, 2003, 13:25

I voted PBEM, although I'm not really sure what the differences are.

Method · April 20, 2003, 13:26

well, ok. perhaps i should actually explain that in the first post

Static Universe · April 20, 2003, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
well, ok. perhaps i should actually explain that in the first post

Thanks for explaining.

I'm not so sure about PBEM now, for the following reasons:

1) I've never demo gamed before
2) My tactics are not the greatest for multiplayer
3) I won't have much free time for the next few months

Being on a smaller team only highlights my current weaknesses.

Frankychan · April 21, 2003, 01:39

Voted PBEM, but I've never played PBEM b4. Additionally, would have to agree w/Static in that I probably won't be a 100% participant. Would probably be 50-75% participate.

Kassiopeia · April 21, 2003, 04:58

Ah, I was kind of afraid of this. We are facing a risk that we won't get that much experienced players interested after all, and with all the not-so-experienced players shunning away from such a more play style (told you Drug

), we might end up with not enough participants.

However, I think that should this PBEM style DG not lift off, we could do it the normal way. However, remember, that the PBEM style is more interesting and exciting than regular. "It was too easy last time, and if we do it again, we already have a forgone conclusion, we will win. Thus I think it would be much more fun to not know who will win before we start." Thus, a new *regular* game might not attract much people from the *first* DG, who are sick and tired of the old system.

GeneralTacticus · April 21, 2003, 05:03

I'd still participate in a second SPDG, but probably with rather less enthusiasm, and I'd definitely want us to find a way to handicap ourselves to try and reduce the 'human conquers all' syndrome.

Static Universe · April 21, 2003, 05:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Kassiopeia

However, I think that should this PBEM style DG not lift off, we could do it the normal way. However, remember, that the PBEM style is more interesting and exciting than regular. "It was too easy last time, and if we do it again, we already have a forgone conclusion, we will win. Thus I think it would be much more fun to not know who will win before we start." Thus, a new *regular* game might not attract much people from the *first* DG, who are sick and tired of the old system.

I have no problems with the PBEM style, but if there aren't enough people to fill out 6-7 teams, perhaps 2 or 3 teams might be possible?

Hercules · April 21, 2003, 07:45

Three or four teams would be fine and would help turn rate. I voted for pbem style and smax.

FlameFlash · April 21, 2003, 10:21

Write-in:

If we can get enough players where each team has at least three active players, I say PBEM... otherwise we should stick with regular.

Drogue · April 21, 2003, 10:48

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Kassiopeia
Ah, I was kind of afraid of this. We are facing a risk that we won't get that much experienced players interested after all, and with all the not-so-experienced players shunning away from such a more play style (told you Drug

), we might end up with not enough participants. QUOTE]
True, but I'm unexperienced when it comes to PBEM, and I think its worth a go. So I might get slaughtered, but I want to have a go, and it's easier than starting a PBEM straight of, since you have some people to help and guide you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
However, I think that should this PBEM style DG not lift off, we could do it the normal way. However, remember, that the PBEM style is more interesting and exciting than regular. "It was too easy last time, and if we do it again, we already have a forgone conclusion, we will win. Thus I think it would be much more fun to not know who will win before we start." Thus, a new *regular* game might not attract much people from the *first* DG, who are sick and tired of the old system.

Exactly. Maybe with SMAX it might be a little different, but we all got a bit bored towards the end of the last one. Unless we can make it much harder, then I see little point in another regular game, personally. Though saying that, if it came to it, I'd probably still participate (how else will I become an Emperor

)

Micha · April 21, 2003, 13:20

PBEM. Never played that, but it sounds great to me!
AND: Some kind of CNN should be introduced again, but with reports from very different points of view. So a real "propaganda war" could start which would be real fun, wouldn´t it?

Makahlua · April 24, 2003, 02:19

Write-in : agreeing with Flame Flash

Jamski · April 24, 2003, 04:14

An honest Xenobanana from me

No, really, I'm going to take part whatever version we play - just so long as everything works out, and we don't end up with two teams of three people and one team of 17 - that's not so much fun.

-Jam

Kassiopeia · April 24, 2003, 07:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Static Universe

I have no problems with the PBEM style, but if there aren't enough people to fill out 6-7 teams, perhaps 2 or 3 teams might be possible?

Ah, I was never even dreaming about more than two or three teams.

spartak · April 25, 2003, 18:57

Not really bothered but isn't there a danger of players drifting away and leaving some factions underpowered?

Method · April 25, 2003, 19:00

not necessarily underpowered, but lacking people perhaps.

Hercules · April 25, 2003, 20:25

I think we're slowly getting there. I think we need 2/3 anchors per team.
By anchors I mean players who can actually play the game PBem style.

This would not now be a case of playing 4-8 turns per session as last ACDG, but the members receiving copy of turn and communicating views to player/leader on next move. And of course future plans. The player would then play the turn.
Turn rate would vary depending on team decision making style (now is that not politic).

Maniac · April 26, 2003, 08:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Hercules
Turn rate would vary depending on team decision making style (now is that not politic).

I think in the Civ3 PtW DG the team HAS to pass on the turn at most 24 hours after they received it. I think we should use a similar time limit here as well, otherwise we might get stuck with playing one turn a week, which would lengthen the game quite a lot...

Hercules · April 26, 2003, 08:29

Certainly it should be quicker at the start, but as the factions grow maybe 48 hours would be needed.

GeneralTacticus · April 26, 2003, 08:44

I don't see why. As long as you have some basic plans in place (and the actual rate of turns per day may in fact be slower than what we did in first DG, remember) and are prepared to improvise a bit if necessary, I see no reason why one would need 48 hours to play one turn.

Static Universe · April 26, 2003, 15:33

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I don't see why. As long as you have some basic plans in place (and the actual rate of turns per day may in fact be slower than what we did in first DG, remember) and are prepared to improvise a bit if necessary, I see no reason why one would need 48 hours to play one turn.

Yes, 48 hours seems long if plans are in place.

Drogue · April 26, 2003, 16:23

No, it may not take 48 hours, but as a maximum, I think it would be good. Suppose someone forgets, or has a day without the net. Usually it would take less than 24 hours, but as a maximu, later in the game, 48 might be a good idea.

GeneralTacticus · April 26, 2003, 20:19

Well, as long as each team has more than one person who can play the turn (at the PTW DG each team has three, but that may prove too many here), that shouldn't be a problem too often.

Drogue · April 26, 2003, 21:07

True, although we do not need to decide now. If we start with 24 hours per turn, then we may move to 48 later if we need to, but that we can decide later.

GeneralTacticus · April 26, 2003, 21:11

Indeed. Cross that bridge when we come to it.

Hercules · April 27, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Well, as long as each team has more than one person who can play the turn (at the PTW DG each team has
three, but that may prove too many here), that shouldn't be a problem too often.

That's just the sort of detail we need to know and discuss.

MrWhereItsAt · April 27, 2003, 23:22

/me baulks at the prospect of PBEM....

I joined this game (and other Demo games) in order to sharpen my own playing skills. I have had my eyes opened considerably, but I don't feel I am ready for this. Chalk me up as one of those inexperienced players who is reluctant to look at anything beyond team decision ATM.

We could always go the way of the civ2 demo game. We are on our third game. All Deity, and there's never a question of losing normally. But for the last two games we have put in our own restrictions - this game we are not allowed to build Wonders or Caravans, shoving us firmly into a different role - there's no caravaning wour way to a win - we will have to fight and fight often.

Why don't we think about this with SMAX? We can say that crawlers are not to be used, or only for rushing - no crawling squares. Or we can't build SPs, we have to capture them. Or we can even mod a faction to have no positives, or fewer positives, or no advantages whatsoever!

Please, I want to learn more, and I want to join in, but I don't feel up to it with PBEM. Can't we think about giving a challenge like what I have mentioned for the veterans, and still allowing those of us who need to learn to do so under the protective (and sometimes evil) umbrella of said veterans?