New Civ 5 PBEM - BNW

[Jowy]

I'd lean toward banning the the 11 civs + The Huns that have been taken in the first 2 Civ5 PBEMs, but I need to think about how a draft would go with such eliminations incase there's 2 or 3 clear standout civs.

Well I personally think there is one standout Civ left open, but others might not agree :P
But I wouldn't think it's the end of the world to play against it if someone else gets it, so I'm fine with leaving it open.

[Ichabod]

So, from the above, we have the following ban list:

Persia
Aztecs
England
America
Iroquois
Mongolia
Korea
Maya
Siam
Arabia
Egypt
The Huns
Shoshone
Poland

My thoughts about banning the civs from PBEM 1 is the same as Jkaen's - show a diversity of picks. But, considering the game changed a lot from them to now, I could go either way.

Anyone agree/disagree with this list? If everyone is on board with it, we can start discussing settings, define a turn order and pick our civs. I think we should go with the reverse turn order/pick order like previous game (I picked my civ first, I was last in turn order).

Regarding settings, I think Immortal difficulty is good, because it deters CS abuse. I think the settings from the previous game worked alright, mainly not banning pretty much anything (even Pyramids is a valid wonder now). I prefer a map where contact between players is possible since the beggining (i.e. astronomy is not needed to meet any of the civs), not necessarily Pangea, though - and if we have a mapmaker, I think we should avoid giving anyone a Salt start.

[Jkaen]

So what else is banned.

Those civs + desert folklore only?

[Ichabod]

So what else is banned.

Those civs + desert folklore only?

Yes, Desert Folklore should be banned, in my opinion.

Any opinion regarding the Terracota army?

[Azza]

I think Shosone and Poland would be ok to not ban. If the draft went along the lines of how I think I'd rate the civs, with them excluded last pick would be almost a formality. I also wouldn't say they're necessarily better than the alternatives.

If we have a mapmaker, I'd go with either making sure everyone has the same type of resources in their capital, eg a calendar and a mining, and making sure that any salt or marble is outside the 3rd ring since they're more swingy. And trying to balance the distribution of the city states, so that one player doesn't end up in the best position to abuse half of them, while someone else has no city states in their sphere of influence at all.

[Jowy]

If we had a public thread to talk about the game while it's going, could we keep it civil?

[Ichabod]

Well, if others don't care, I don't care about leaving Shoshone and Poland unbanned. They seem powerful, but so are other civs.

I have no problem with a banter thread.

I'm not sure I like the idea of having a mirrored/close-to-mirrored map. I like the diversity and flavour of Civ 5 starts. But, yeah, taking Marble and Salt of the Capitals + ensuring there's at least 1 early lux resource (non-water, non-jungle) is a must. The problem is finding a map-maker willing to do this.

[Meiz]

I'm ok with the list, don't have strong opinion for banning Poland or Shoshone. Don't think we need to ban terracotta army either. Keep the bans at minimun. Agreed that Desert folklore is too strong.

Any ideas who could do the balance check for the map? I'd like to keep the map as random as possible, so the possible maker could just re-roll and make small edits, until it doesn't seem too unfair between players. And checks that no one is isolated.

[Meiz]

T-hawk?

[Azza]

I'm not sure I like the idea of having a mirrored/close-to-mirrored map. I like the diversity and flavour of Civ 5 starts. But, yeah, taking Marble and Salt of the Capitals + ensuring there's at least 1 early lux resource (non-water, non-jungle) is a must. The problem is finding a map-maker willing to do this.

That works too, hopefully we can find someone.