Page 1 of 3

Pitboss Game #3

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:40 pm
by Overload
The last Pitboss game ended in disappointment. I'm very sorry to everyone who was having a good time and had it abruptly end like that; it was totally my fault. I have made arrangements so that same thing can't happen in future games (online backup of the save game files. Note: If the entire earth explodes, the game will still be lost. Also if the United States falls in to the ocean, we will also be screwed.)

In other words, Now taking signups for Pitboss Game #3!

Reply to this thread if you would like to take part in Apartment 167 Pitboss #3!

This is just to get a headcount. Individual rules will be decided upon later. If you have an opinion about particular rules, post them and subscribe to this thread so that when there is discussion about the rules, you can take part. Also post what your leader choice(s) are. If two people want the same leader I will flip a coin an the loser will get his second choice.

This game will be using the Beyond the Sword expansion. I can provide this if people need it.

Game: Civilization 4 Beyond the Sword
Turn Timer: ~24 hours

This game will have a set of "house rules" to help fix some problems that occur with human players. They will be very similar to these rules although the "No non-scouting open borders agreements" will NOT be a rule. They will be posted here in detail before the game starts.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:44 pm
by e3_Jeb
I'm in, I was having a lot of fun even though I got my taint handed to me by not building enough of an army early on. Also I want to be random again, we'll see what the fates decide!

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:51 pm
by Michi

Regarding rules -- I really honestly hate playing with Barbarians when there's so much else to worry about, so I'd love to do No Barbarians, but that might just be me.

I kinda wanna try playing as the Celts and Boudica, the new leader chick.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:32 am
by ThePumaman
Count me in. I agree about the "No non-scouting open borders agreements". Aside from being a mouthful, it's kinda cheating the game mechanics by saying "I want the benefits of open borders but none of the downsides!"

I also agree with No Barbarians, playing Civ with the likes of us is hard enough without some jerk barbarian ruining your day.

I propose a Terra map, though this proposal may be unpopular. That way we could fight each other, or we could try our luck in the new world. Though with barbarians turned off, I'm not sure how well that would play.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:35 am
by Overload
You like the "No non-scouting open borders agreements" hm? That was the only rule in the Oob's list that I thought was stupid. I am personally a fan of "creative" trading agreements, like agreeing to keep military units at least 3 squares from your borders. I assume the Oob added that rule because someone complained that someone broke the agreement they had, but I find that situation very simple: any agreements made that aren't governed by the built-in game rules are free to be broken when anybody wants. It's not any different from saying "Yes I am your ally" and then attacking them later. So basically I think people should be able to say "Let's have open borders, but not send any units through the borders". Or maybe if one player is not on good standing, the agreement would be that only one of the players can send units. In fact, Dan did that in our first game and I thought it was a particularly great peace treaty idea. I'm pretty sure he gave peace at the price of the guy he was at war with allowing him to spread his religion to all of his cities. Things like that are what make the human game more interesting, in my opinion.

I strongly disagree with No Barbarians. I think barbarians are an important part of the game - it makes early scouting more difficult and requires you to build more scouting units because your first ones will die. It also provides the way to get early XP that can be helpful later in the game. I might be okay with a "less barbarians" option if Civ4 has that one. I'd like to know what the other players think about the issue.

I'm not a fan of Terra because it makes the game too long. Because people are often preparing to go to the new world, there is less military action in the first half (read: TEN MONTHS) of the game. And then once you get to the new world, your economy is shot and you spend another ten months improving your infrastructure. But if everyone wants to do it, then I guess we could. However, I definitely will not do No Barbs plus Terra. That's just dumb.

As for other game options up for discussion, we have the all-important "tech trading" thing! Most everyone seems to play with tech trading turned off in human games, and I think it's for good reasons. We all seemed to agree about it last game. However, with Beyond the Sword, we have a new option that we could try. It makes it so you can trade tech, but you can only trade away a tech that you personally researched. That means someone that has high research still has good trading potential but slows down the spreading of all the techs through the world. However, it still has the potential problem of two allies researching down two trees and trading everything they get, which is the precise reason most people play with tech trading turned off in the first place. It makes for a less-interesting game if groups of allies do that. So... my vote is for no tech trading, although I would be willing to try the new option if people want that.

For the map type, I would be up for Pangaea, or continents if we have enough players, or archipelago. I think there are others that would be good too, but I can't remember their names. Basically anything but Terra.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:58 pm
by Michi
I really like Pangaea.

One main reasoning I have against Barbarians is that I'm trying to play the game with you guys and not just be unable to get anywhere. It's a fine thing to worry about playing games on my own, but not when I want to contact my friends and might not be able to get past my own borders because of barbarians coming by.

I dunno.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:23 pm
by ThePumaman
Good point about the "No non-scouting open borders agreements". I withdraw my complaint. I don't wanna turn this recruitment thread into a debate, but just responding to the barbarians thing:

I don't like barbarians in pitboss games because they can seriously put individual players at a disadvantage for a large portion of the game. When the rest of the players are increasing their economy, the player adjacent to barbarians needs to focus on military to eliminate the barbarian threat, otherwise they'll come in and pillage all that player's improvements.

I also would be fine with pangea and would like to try out the new tech-trade option. Even though it makes it so allies will clump and share technology, I feel without it the game moves slower and less experienced players can be flat out screwed by their tech choices.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:30 pm
by Michi
Yes, that's pretty much what kept happening to me in the last game. I was doing okay, but where I was trying to go was right next to a barbarian settlement, so I had three scouts killed in a row. We're playing this game one turn a day; I don't really want to have to worry about things like that. (Especially for my own selfish reasons of being in Japan and not needing that sort of frustration when I wanna play with you guys. :P)

I want to try the new Beyond the Sword tech trading option!

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:52 pm
by PopnFresh
I'm totally in. I might go with random this time though, just to give it a whirl.

And I agree completely with Michi and Puma about the rules. New tech trading option sounds cool, so let's give it a whirl. Pangea? Pangeawesome. Barbarians? More like Boo! Boo! ians!

I think the argument FOR barabarians is sound. But I think from a fun gameplay stance, we should try to eliminate as many random variables like that as we can. People can already get screwed by their starting point, their starting neighbors, or being on the wrong end of combat with an 89.5% success rate. It sucks ALSO having to worry about AI controlled jack asses bullying around my cottages and building cities in the one slightly obscured square of land 10 spaces away from my capital.

Although, to be fair, having a form of tech trading could make the barbarians less annoying or could at least add some political strategy to the mix ("omfg I was too busy learning to read to research archery! Help!")

I'll be happy regardless, but I wanted to throw my seven cents in.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:19 am
by Overload
Fiiine! Unless like 5 more people join up all demanding Barbarians, it looks like we'll have them off.

The vote so far is to use the new BTS tech trading option. That should be pretty cool.

My only reservations about Pangaea is that I really like water. Sure, there will still be an ocean in Pangaea, but you could go an entire game without building a boat. With the new BTS features of naval blockades and privateers, I think the naval stuff could be even more fun. That's why I suggest archipelago. However, I think archipelago does make the game take longer as you need transports to do anything. Is there a map type that is kind of like continents except that they are so close you can cross during the early years (not separated by ocean?) I think that would be pretty cool.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:40 am
by ThePumaman
There's the "inner_sea" map, or whatever it's called. I played it a couple times, it's basically a bunch of land surrounding this one big ocean in the middle. I think it could be kinda fun, you could take the land route through your neighbors to get to someone or you could take the direct route by sea and go straight across.

\/\/\/ I agree, it's like a reverse-pangea. I think the best part is the fact that you can use early-game shallow water units really effectively, and there's the deeper water in the middle for later game use. I change my vote to inner_sea!

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:10 am
by Overload
ThePumaman wrote:There's the "inner_sea" map, or whatever it's called. I played it a couple times, it's basically a bunch of land surrounding this one big ocean in the middle. I think it could be kinda fun, you could take the land route through your neighbors to get to someone or you could take the direct route by sea and go straight across.

I really like that idea. My vote goes for that maptype, but I'd also do Pangaea if people hate me.

Edit: Now that I see the picture, I like it even more. I like the relatively balanced distribution of landtypes around the sea.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:17 pm
by Michi
Ehh, sure, I'd like something different. Let's go for Inner Sea.

I'm in

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:04 pm
by Studlybob
I would like to play.

I think Barbarians are a good thing because it makes scouting a harder thing to do, therefore it requires people to make a significant choice in whether or not to push hard to scout or not. Something that could have a significant impact on the game one way or another. I like things that change the game in a major way as long as it's because of a player choice.

Not having Barbarians is cool too though

I prefer no tech-trading.

The map doesn't matter as much to me although the fewer continents the better. With a map you can explore completely by land there is more opportunity for diplomacy which is half the point of playing an all human game imo. However, with water or multiple continents there is more strategy in the sense that building an army and taking them across to attack another continent is risky. When you have water you can't just keep sending reinforcements since you have to wait for the boat. There is also a lot less backstabbing in multiple continent maps. In Pangaea maps anyone can backstab you at any time while it's very difficult to see it coming. At least with water maps you can put a watch around someone else's continent to see if they launch any ships at you.

In the end I would prefer a large map with one continent, but water on it (similar to the screenshot above).

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:13 pm
by Overload
My ideal barbarian setting would be "Animals, but no barbarians" but I don't think you can do that. I thought about it more and realized that it's the animals that I like. I don't really care about the other barbarians.