February 18th, 2012, 17:33
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
slowcheetah Wrote:But... But... Double Cake
 Yeah, you can't argue with getting double cake!
February 18th, 2012, 17:42
Posts: 1,487
Threads: 14
Joined: Dec 2011
I'm ok with all the listed settings.
Do we want to ban corporations, if not all corporations maybe just Sid's Sushi?
Mapwise I'm happy for the mapmaker to go crazy (gives us something to think about during those early scouting turns)
Civ Bans- India, Inca
Leaders- Ban Fin?
February 18th, 2012, 17:59
Posts: 2,265
Threads: 54
Joined: Aug 2011
i'd actually consider banning Pyramids if Finanical is banned ... I'm starting to get the feeling that Rep Specialists are just as strong (if not stronger) than Financial empowered Cottages, and there's few things that can keep up
February 18th, 2012, 18:08
Posts: 7,916
Threads: 158
Joined: Jan 2012
Yeah Catwalk, those settings sound good in regards to game rules, I don't have any problems with them.
Banning Fin/India/Inca sounds like a good idea to me as well, that seems to be the norm in most of the PBEM's I've looked at, except for the really special variants which we're not doing :D
In regards to a map, I didn't have any preferences coming in, but I must say I would prefer a constructed/edited map for balance for this game as opposed to just a natural untouched map generation.
February 18th, 2012, 18:15
Posts: 1,487
Threads: 14
Joined: Dec 2011
I agree on having the map balanced, I just foolishly didnt state it out loud. I'd like water to pay a role in the map as well.
February 18th, 2012, 18:20
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
I'm fine with this being a pretty standard PBEM, I'm still busy learning the tricks of the trade myself. I suggest that the map should have some amount of water on it and meaningful islands, with all 4 players starting on the same continent. Should be natural looking otherwise, no crazy additions like submarines or railroads in the middle of nowhere.
I'm fine with banning Sid's Sushi only. Still haven't tried founding a corporation, even in SP games
I'd be in favour of not restricting leaders and civs at all, actually. Would any positions in the snake pick be majorly unbalanced? I guess India and Inca would go first. The next two players will likely pick Pacal and Willem, leaving stuff like FIN/AGG, FIN/IND, FIN/PHI and FIN/SPI.
February 18th, 2012, 18:26
Posts: 1,487
Threads: 14
Joined: Dec 2011
Problem with leaving India and Inca in is that they are the two strongest civs, whereas the FIN leaders listed are all closer together. Hence the two to pick India and Inca will definitely have an advantage.
It's also a bit boring if everyone picks a Fin civ.
Edit: In case it wasn't clear i'm happier without Fin
February 18th, 2012, 18:27
Posts: 7,916
Threads: 158
Joined: Jan 2012
Which would be okay about having the superstar lineup, it's just going to be a bit predictable, and everyone would probably end up being Fin which still could be fun, but also seems kinda boring. I think I would prefer banning those, but if no one else wants that I'd be okay with all unbanned.
February 18th, 2012, 18:36
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
Alright, then I'm fine with the standard bans (Inca, India, FIN). Does anyone want to ban Pyramids or other wonders? We could make a special ban saying Pyramids can't be rushed with an engineer, since it's a fairly unique case (very expensive for its time period).
February 18th, 2012, 18:40
Posts: 2,265
Threads: 54
Joined: Aug 2011
rush needs a GE which needs Forges, which comes at earliest on a Oracle shot ...
Turnwise it takes roughly the same time as building it manually (with a excepted finish at t50-55)
|
