Brave New World

ricketyclik · July 19, 2003, 02:12

A CIVIII PBEM Game.

Players (in order of play):

Nuke Boy of the Egyptians - nukeboy1960_at_aol_dot_com
ricketyclik of the Chinese - ricketyclik_at_webone_dot_com_dot_au
Zalek of the Persians - zalek_at_interia_dot_pl
snotty of the Americans - snotty128 at hotmail dot com
superkozi of the Ottomans - superkozi at interia dot pl

Created by: ricketyclik

Settings:

Regular Map, all map variables set to the middle, pangea/archepelago?

Victory Conditions: Standard

Difficulty: Monarch

All of the above settings are open to discussion before we begin. Let me know your email addresses and tribe choices, and I'll edit them in.

Tiberius · July 19, 2003, 04:35

Why don't you start it with 1.21? Hopefully the difficulty bug was solved (but I'm not sure).

Harovan · July 19, 2003, 14:03

I don't want to spoil your game, but 2 bits of advice, or rather 2 questions:

- On the "largest" (meaning huge, 160x160) map, having only 8 civs, you have lots and lots of space and will be in REXing till fairly far into the medieval age. Significant portions of your empires will be completely corrupt. If you fight this by lowering corruption, your empire's core will be too productive and advances will flow too fast. This can even mean, that you're REXing till the industrial age, and have a big part of your cities still unimproved, when the clock says Steam Power. Is that really what you want?

- AI civs never have done any good in PBEM games. They are weak and make those players with adjacent AIs stronger. A player with no AI neighbor will have a serious disadvantage. Further, AI civs have the bad habit to violate borders at will and to whore around maps and techs. This can be a huge fun killer. Is that really what you want?

What I would recommend you is, play without AIs on a small map. Trust me, it's much more fun.

Zalek · July 19, 2003, 16:26

I suggest:
map size: not large - a one or even two level smaller map
not AI players
I get Persian civ
my email is zalek_at_interia_dot_pl

I suggest, we wait for one player more and start game.
I would like to be sure - we are going to play PtW, aren't we?

ricketyclik · July 19, 2003, 20:31

Point taken about the map size... I was thinking of the "large" setting, which I find fairly quickly fills up with me and 5 AI's in single player.

Zalek, why don't you want AI's? To my way of thinking they provide an interesting random element, in that a human can benefit greatly or be severely curtailed by AI's, depending on their silicon diplomatic skills

I'd like to hear the other players' on these issues.

Speaking of which, we're still to hear from Nuke Boy, GayGamer, and superkozi.

Oh, and yes, we're playing PtW PBEM.

Zalek · July 20, 2003, 15:20

Why I don't want AI's?
AI is so stupid, that nothing describe this case of stupidity

. AI has only chance with human player, when has a great bonus (in higher difficult level) - eg. less shield to produce things in cities, less unhappy citizens etc - and that is why I don't play singles games in civ - even AI has those great advantages, is still stupid and can't be compare to human player.
And you said "human can benefit greatly or be severely curtailed by AI's" - I don't prefer this kind of "random event", becaus it is not fair - it easiest way to warpe game.
But if more of us will decide to play with AI's

I'll accept this

I hope other players will contact with us, choose they civ and say something abut AI's in this game

Snotty · July 21, 2003, 04:23

I would be interested in getting in on this game, but only if we lose the AI. I solely play MP now as playing against humans has made me realize how little fun playing against the AI can be. I agree that your AI diplo skills would be tested but I find I have to take a much deeper aproach to my strategy when playing against humans as I can rely on the AI making stupid mistake after mistake. This isnt to say the AI is poor but it cannot hold up when placed beside a flesh and blood human opponant.

As for the map size I would come in the the 'less is more' side of the arguement. Map sizes have a recommended player size for a reason. Larger maps with less players can be fun but not when pbem forces it to take such an incredible amount of time.

So if after all that you still want me in my address is snotty128 at hotmail dot com. I am GMT+0 so place me in the order where I need to be.

Zalek · July 21, 2003, 04:57

So, what do you guys think about AI?

Luk · July 21, 2003, 09:21

Im interested too to join this game... I propose to have 8 players with rather small map. We will meet each other very quickly and the game will start to be exciting very fast

ricketyclik · July 21, 2003, 09:47

I'm actually more interested in a game with a larger map with fewer human players. The idea is that having less human players will encourage a higher turn speed, enabling more rapid progression through the early stages to more fully developed civs. Having some AI's will also facilitate this, through tech and map exchanges, and conquests. I'm not after an early slug-fest in this game.

Zalek · July 21, 2003, 12:55

Of course, I'm not interested in early war, too. But I think a medium map will be ok - a few place to setup your own faction and, in accurate time, a chance to contact with other players and try diplomatic skills

superkozi · July 21, 2003, 18:58

Hi all!
I would like to play (especially there's so many of "our people" (pozdrowienia!

)) however the problem is I am free for 2 weeks and then unavailbale for 2 weeks bcoz of holidays. Probably the only solution is to wait and start another game after my coming back... Am I right?

Av8tor · July 21, 2003, 21:24

Rickety,

Count me in!

I would prefer a standard or large map with 50-60% ocean. I would prefer the Americans or Egyptians. I'm not opposed to a few AI players. Monarch is fine for a difficulty level.

ricketyclik · July 21, 2003, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by superkozi
Hi all!
I would like to play (especially there's so many of "our people" (pozdrowienia!

)) however the problem is I am free for 2 weeks and then unavailbale for 2 weeks bcoz of holidays. Probably the only solution is to wait and start another game after my coming back... Am I right?

I am happy to have a 2 week hiatus before or after we begin, as long as the other players don't mind, and as long as you're a reasonably prompt and regular player after your holiday.

OK, I think we're getting toward a game here. Personally I want 4, maximum 5 players. We'll see who's still interested at the start of game.

Please vote for the following variables:

Map size: regular/large
AI's: yes/no (If "yes" wins, we'll vote subsequently on the number)

Also, please post the time of day (GMT) that you are most likely to play.

I take it everyone's happy with middle map settings and monarch difficulty?

Snotty · July 22, 2003, 03:27

This game does seem to be shaping up. Also I am not especially bothered by a 2 week wait.

Map: Regular
AI: No

GMT 0800-0900 + 1800-2300

And I will take the Americans as my civ.

Zalek · July 22, 2003, 06:46

It's no problem for me to wait two weeks.
Map: regular
AI: no
GMT +01

And I want take Persian

"Ciemnosc, ciemnos widze... Ty, nasi tu byli!" Superkozi - niezla ksywka

ricketyclik · July 22, 2003, 06:53

Is that what time of day you generally play Zalek? 01:00 GMT? I'm guessing that's your timezone, what time of day are you most likely to play your turns?

Zalek · July 23, 2003, 04:27

O sorry - it's my not to good english and sometime (often?)

I don't understand what exactly you mean.
So, I usually play at 1100 - 1300 and 1600-1900 - much better for me is second because now I have no job, but if I find it, I'll be at home only at evening.
I hope you understand, what I mean

ricketyclik · July 23, 2003, 05:52

OK, just waiting on Nuke's vote to begin...

Av8tor · July 23, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by ricketyclik

I am happy to have a 2 week hiatus before or after we begin, as long as the other players don't mind, and as long as you're a reasonably prompt and regular player after your holiday.

OK, I think we're getting toward a game here. Personally I want 4, maximum 5 players. We'll see who's still interested at the start of game.

Please vote for the following variables:

Map size: regular/large
AI's: yes/no (If "yes" wins, we'll vote subsequently on the number)

Also, please post the time of day (GMT) that you are most likely to play.

I take it everyone's happy with middle map settings and monarch difficulty?

Map size: regular
Map Type: Archipelago
AI: Yes
Time to play 2:00 am gmt (9 pm est)

Let me know when we start!

ricketyclik · July 24, 2003, 06:11

Oops, I was wrong. We still need superkozi's vote, as we are tied on the issue of AI's.

Are we all OK with archepelago? I am.

superkozi · July 24, 2003, 16:36

Sorry for delays. That's great, we could wait for 2 weeks. I am leaving 1st of August and be back on 15/16 night probably. So I need a break that time. But then I promise to be prompt with my moves.
As far as my choices are concerned:
Civ: Ottomans
Map: regular
AI: well, I wouldnt like to be more than 5 civ on such map, so I vote no for AI
Time: GMT+1 and favourably I would like to play in the late evening (22.00 GMT).
Kozi (Super ofcoz, hehehehehe)

Ps. "ChodŸmy na wschód, tam musi byæ jakaœ cywilizacja.."

)

superkozi · July 24, 2003, 16:39

And I forgot my mail:
superkozi at interia dot pl

Snotty · July 25, 2003, 03:21

I would prefer continents are pangea as I am involved in another pbem archepelego game and would like something a bit different.

ricketyclik · July 25, 2003, 04:18

OK, superkozi, Zalek, we need you to vote on land mass type.

superkozi · July 25, 2003, 18:51

My vote: neither for, nor against archipelagos (I dont know how it is called in English), bcoz I just cannot make up my mind:
I would prefer continents probably although it may finish to me quite soon, when I meet somebody too early.

So maybe archipelagos? But it also has many disadvantages... Is there anything in the middle?

And another proposal: maybe we start 3 games with the same rules and after let's say 25 turns we will decide by voting which one we should continue. It a little bit prevents situation when smb starts on tundra or on some other "pleasant" areas...

ricketyclik · July 25, 2003, 19:35

Quote:

Originally posted by superkozi

And another proposal: maybe we start 3 games with the same rules and after let's say 25 turns we will decide by voting which one we should continue. It a little bit prevents situation when smb starts on tundra or on some other "pleasant" areas...

Or how about this variation? We start 3 games and play only the opening turn, then each vote for our preferences, with a mark out of ten for each of the games. I did that once in another game and it worked well.

25 turns is a lot of turns to then abandon a game. It's not like we're playing for money here. But I'm open to the wishes of the group, please comment everyone.

Zalek, we still need your landmass preference.

Zalek · July 26, 2003, 05:28

Oki, Superkozi's proposition (3 games at the beginning and after few turns of each, we vote for one to continue) is good, but like ricketyclik I think 25 turns is too much. I think we should play only few turns - 3 to 6. Opening turn only is better then nothing but I think a little bit more turns (e.g. 3 to 6) will be the best way for each player to decide, which game he/she choose to continoue.

My preferences:
map size - regular
map type - continents

Snotty · July 26, 2003, 05:37

Rather amusingly I make the votes 2 for islands and 2 against, with 1 in the middle.
As for the 3 games thing, its a good idea. 3 turns, marks out of ten.

ricketyclik · July 26, 2003, 05:59

OK, I'll change my vote to pangea, which is in the middle. Pangea OK with everyone?