April 15th, 2017, 22:08
(This post was last modified: April 15th, 2017, 22:16 by Singaboy.)
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2016
That would be a great idea.
By the way, I think standard map size for 5 Civs would be a little oversized. How about small as it shows default 6 Civs when you setup a game. Since, we go with 5 Civs, would we go with 10 city states?
Posts: 4,549
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2006
Small sounds good. Wow, not really something powerful to work there civ wise.
April 16th, 2017, 03:41
(This post was last modified: April 16th, 2017, 04:52 by Alhambram.)
Posts: 1,728
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2017
@RefSteel and Woden,
Thanks for shedding light on my idea, i was trying to come out with solution that would prevent raze and replace. But as noted by RefSteel it could be taken advantage of.
Ultimately i think that the best solution should be an patch from Firaxis which includes: when conquering city, its yields are halved for amount turns same as amount population of conquered city.
That would be similar as civilization 4 and it worked. Why Firaxis decide to change the working formula...
For this PBEM, since things are still relative new, i propose to not add any new rules here. Just play game and see how it goes, in PBEM1 there weren't any razing.
About map size then, small map looks okay as Singaboy pointed out that it sets six civilizations as default. Adding extra city state instead sixth civilization looks fine, since it make more certainly that every player should meet up with 3 city states as listed in criteria written by oledavy at page 2 of this thread.
Finally, thanks oledavy for rolling the civs, i surely gets three interesting civs to choose from.
Although i don't agree with Filthy's tier list, i have made my own list before i signed up for PBEM2 and it looks bit different.
But yeah, each tier is based on subjective observation and experience from person that makes the list.
April 16th, 2017, 06:00
(This post was last modified: April 16th, 2017, 06:02 by Singaboy.)
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2016
I playtested a little, small maps can end up with civs meeting each other really fast. I am not sure, whether standard would give more room to expand. Not too sure, what do others think?
So, who is giving us a subform so we can start posting there? I would like to post some initial thought there.
And....how do we go about setting the game up on the net? Some instructions here would be handy.
Posts: 1,728
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2017
Regarding the map size, maybe we should leave it to Sulla? He can check which map size is more suited towards the general criteria summed up by oledavy at page 2.
Posts: 6,686
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
You now have a new forum located here. I will move this thread over to the new forum later today after giving everyone a chance to see the new location.
Posts: 4,272
Threads: 38
Joined: Jun 2011
Quite a bit to respond to.
I have edited the first post with settings updates regarding map size. For my part, I think I will leave it to Sullla to decide which is better when looking over maps. Perhaps some combination of map and sea level can give us the map size we want.
@Sullla, that you for getting us a sub-forum and thanks again for volunteering as mapmaker!
@Alhambram, For what it's worth, Filthy Robot seems to think Russia is pretty good, and you are guaranteed a non-tundra start.
@TheArchduke, can you post instructions for how to use the turn playing client and help us get a test game set up since you've done this before?
I am taking the lack of debate on other settings (besides map size and Sullla's suggested house rule), as a sign we're basically agreed upon them. Check the first post just to make sure you're fine with everything else. I don't think I'm forgetting any settings...
Regarding Sullla's suggested house rule, I think we still need to hear from TheArchduke, but I don't think we have a majority one way or another on the rule at present, in which case I think we should play without it. Still, we're in no particular hurry, so if you guys want to continue discussing it, by all means go ahead.
April 16th, 2017, 19:05
(This post was last modified: April 16th, 2017, 19:05 by Singaboy.)
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2016
I am fine with those suggestions about map size. I am confident that Sulla will create a great map  Thanks for that.
My next questions, are we starting the weekend before May Day (maybe 29th April)? If that's the case, we should get that test game running soon. I am moving next Monday and the weekend before that (Including internet access) might be a little sketchy during that time to access any server from my laptop.
Finally, is there are deadline with regards to selection of civs? It would be good to know my foes early (especially whether Rome is in play  )
Posts: 4,549
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2006
I did not setup the play by turn client before.
It does work like a charm however.
Afaik
DL https://www.playyourdamnturn.com/
synch your steam
Someone starts a hotseat and passes it on.
I cna look into more detail this afternoon and can "host" if needed.
April 17th, 2017, 06:00
(This post was last modified: April 17th, 2017, 06:07 by Singaboy.)
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2016
I just synched my steam to PYDT and installed the software. It says I got no game there, so I guess someone needs to set one game up.
If you all want, I could try that.
Edit: I was able to setup a game with our settings, however the details of the setting are not clear to me. Archduke, do I need everyone's email addresses for the setup?
Oh, I found how it works: this is the link to the game:
https://www.playyourdamnturn.com/game/d7...1e60ba47fa
you need a pw too to prevent others to join: realms2
|