what about a scenario for 4 players ?

[Arghis]

hi

does anybody here is interested by plaing a conquest scenario. with + / - 4 players, this could allow some interesting situation, and the rythm should stay correct.

if yes, what are the scenario you've already played ?

i'd like to play a game like the Age of Imperialism (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95741), one on WW2, or The great war.
The old empire seems interesting too (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=64987).

any idea, any comment ? [goodjob]

[Matrix]

I'd like to play one, though I'd prefer a Conquests-scenario, made by BreakAway Games. I like them all. :)

[Shabbaman]

Killer and I played Age of Discovery recently. It was (at least to me [:p] ) unbalanced. There are three introductionary conquests as well, those maps are more balanced.

[Matrix]

Yeah, but a historal scenario is much more fun because it's historic! [:p] Besides, other scenarios, like Middle Ages, are very balanced. ;)

[akots]

At CFC eveything is played, even Sengoku. I'm currently in 2 Napoleonic PBEMS, Rise of Rome, Sengoku and we recently started Middle Ages. Finished Mesoamerica. Age of Wonders and Age of Discovery as well as WWII in the Pacific are very poorly balanced IMO. Sengoku as well, it is messy and you can easily win or lose at the start. In terms of balance, Mesoamerica (3 players) and Rise of Rome (4 players) are probably the best on decent difficulty (Emperor+).

[Arghis]

@Shabaman : "There are three introductionary conquests as well, those maps are more balanced."
what do you mean ?
How was age of discovery unbalanced to your opinion ?

So Middle Ages seems to have some success. Why not taking it for a 4 player game ?

Also, if at CFC there's playing scenario games, why here do i see only common games ?

[akots]

Apparently, scenarios cannot count for the ladder. That is why they are not so popular. But IMO, there is no reason why they should not be played. It is fun after all.

Middle Ages should not be played by 4 players IMvHO. Eight players is barely enough for that map. And it is not balanced. For example, Danes start with 9 zerks (!!!) and can take out probably 10 or more cities before encounting any resistance. Byzantines are also overpowered with many cities and some improvements. All others have jsut a barren waste to start.

As I already told, Mesoamerica (3 players + 3 AI) and Rise of Rome (4 players + 4 AI) are more or less balanced.

[Arghis]

that the scenarii are not counted in the ladder is a bit embarrassing. i'll have a look at that and ask for an evolution of the ladder rules.

i'm more and more bored by having to play agaisnt IA, and i think that, in a pbem with experienced players, there is no need to wait the first 50 turns (grosso modo) to begin enjoying the interactivy that civ can offer.
So playing a well build scenario comes to me as the only solution for a decent amusement

basing on akots comments and experience i propose that we launch either Mesoamerica or Rise of Rome scenario game.

Who's going in ?

[anarres]

The only reason they are not in the ladder is because they are for more than 2 people, and the ladder is only 2 player games.

Maybe you can suggest a way to implement games with multiple players? The scoring isn't trivial, but you are welcome to suggest a solution. :)

[Arghis]

ok, so i've read things here and there and, considering that i'm not used to ladder calculating systems, and that i don't want something too complicated, i'll propose that :

e.g. : A game with four players => A, B, C & D

When the game ends, you look at the score, so you have an order to classify the human players (you do not count IA position)

So you can say that the first won agaisnt every others; that the second won against 2 others and loose against one, the third won against 1 and loose against 2, and the fourth, loose against 3 others.
(for rating you calculate as if 4 1vs1 game)

Or you can say that the first just wons against the second, the second just wons against the third, the third just wons against the fourth, and the fourth just loose against the third
(for rating you calculate as if 1 1vs1 game)

As a variation of the last idea, you can add a bonus of X points for each other players in the game that you bypass.
It gives :
the first just wons against the second (and have a X points bonus x 3), the second just wons against the third (and have a X points bonus x 2), the third just wons against the fourth (and have a X point bonus x 1), and the fourth just loose against the third (no bonus)
(for rating you calculate as if 1 1vs1 game with a small bonus)

i'm sure it is far from perfect

memo : the ladder system is =>
When you subscribe to the ladder you start with 2500 points. When you win a game you gain points when you lose a game you lose points according to this table

Rd H L
0-100 50 50
<200 45 55
<300 40 60
<400 35 65
<500 30 70
<600 25 75
<700 20 80
<800 15 85
<900 10 90
>900 05 95

Rd = Rating difference
H = amount higher ranked player gets if they win, and also the amount the lower ranked player gets deducted.
L = amount lower ranked player gets if they win, and also the amount the higher ranked player gets deducted.

i'm not sure to understand how this works; it's not clear

is this example (for 1vs1) ok ?
Initial rating
A = 2500
B = 2750

A loose, B wins; RD is + 250 (winner rating - looser rating);
A = -40 and B= +40

so next score is
A = 2460
B = 2790

the opposite
A wins, B loose; RD is -250 (winner rating - looser rating);
A = +60 and B = - 60

so next score is
A = 2560
B = 2690

[Matrix]

Em, so what scenario do you wanna play? [mischief] I prefer Rise of Rome in that case.

Akots is right that Middle Ages is unbalanced. I thought if all humans would play as a Christian civ it would be balanced, but that's not possible, since there are only eight civs in the game, because it's multiplayer. [crazyeye] The SP scenario has 18 civs (of which 13 are playable)!

[Arghis]

ok Matrix.

So for Rise of Rome, it seems that we're already 2 ready to go (akots are you interested ?). Anyone else ?

[Shabbaman]

quote:Originally posted by Arghis

@Shabaman : "There are three introductionary conquests as well, those maps are more balanced."
what do you mean ?
How was age of discovery unbalanced to your opinion ?

So Middle Ages seems to have some success. Why not taking it for a 4 player game ?

Also, if at CFC there's playing scenario games, why here do i see only common games ?


I mean the ancient treasures, 3 sisters and new alliances conquests. Especially the last one looks like a good mp game, although it's a team game. Maybe if you edit the locked alliances it's a good map.
An additional annoyance about the conquests is that they all have a time limit.

The AoD scenario is unbalanced because:
- Portugal starts with a golden age, and can build any great wonder they want (pretty important, since some wonders are unbalanced)
- Spain starts with a unit that can trigger a GA, unlike the dutch, english and french who can only hope for a late GA
- England has unproductive cities
- the dutch don't even have access to horses...
- Portugal has too many advantages to mention. In short, a human player should never play with this civ if he's looking for a challenge

Also, knowledge of the location of hidden resources (like the AI has, or any player who's already played the scenario) takes away a lot of fun.
If you'd want to play this scenario with multiple players, pick american civs only.

[akots]

quote:Originally posted by Arghis
... akots are you interested ? ...

Might be of interest in RoR only if I don't play Macedon. I'm already playing that one. Persia, Rome or Carthage please. And IMHO level at least Emperor. Otherwise, AI is too pathetic and they play a certain role in this game.

[akots]

@Arghis regarding the ladder: That should be may be another ladder?

Also, there is a problem on counting the score as a decisive factor in placement of the players. What if some are eliminated and some survive to the end? Apparently the winner is still a winner but the others may be arranged in different order then. What if there were 3 players, one won, another was eliminated but had higher score than the third which survived to the end? Who is second in this game? Don't really know, it looks complicated to me.

[Arghis]

Pk, sp wit Akots in (no prob for no macedonian), we're 3. anyone else interested ?

i'm currently testing the AoD scenarii. i've only played once RoR (as the roman and not to the end).

for the score calculation, yes it has to be tweak. i shall work again on this. the idea of a 2nd ladder is interesting, cause obviously, playing at more than 2 human changes things a bit.

[akots]

quote:Originally posted by Arghis ... playing at more than 2 human changes things a bit.

Some diplomatic skills in this case are required. [lol]



Regarding RoR: I'd like to have some special rules a little bit to make the game more interesting. But they are certainly optional.

1) No abandoning cities makes it more challenging for Rome to win. Rome is the only capital which is on the river IIRC and hence can easily snatch the most important wonders including ToA and Bacchanalia. The onther civilizations get the remains. Of course, unless Carthage manages to raze Rome early in the game. :)

2) No phony war tactics in Rome-Carthage and Macedon-Persia pairs. It is possible to have no active action for a while but no negotiations between these parties, only battle logs and GPS-type correspondence is permitted as well as public humiliation in the open thread. :)

3) Decent difficulty level, at least Emperor, so that AIs do play some role.

Otherwise, it is pretty much "out of the box". Just need to turn Accelerated Production off, turn on "preserve random seed" and set proper difficulty level.

[Matrix]

1: Rome can snatch the most important wonders, so to make it more challenging to Rome to win people are not allowed to abandon cities? http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/what.gif

2: Good point! Those locked in war are not allowed to negotiate. (It could happen that they don't attack each other, but then one never knows when the enemy suddenly appears at ones doorstep. ;))

3: Sure.

[Arghis]

quote:
Regarding RoR: I'd like to have some special rules a little bit to make the game more interesting. But they are certainly optional.

1) No abandoning cities makes it more challenging for Rome to win.

++i'm not sure to understand why [hmm]

quote:
2) No phony war tactics in Rome-Carthage and Macedon-Persia pairs. It is possible to have no active action for a while but no negotiations between these parties, only battle logs and GPS-type correspondence is permitted

++hmm what do you call GPS ... i'm not used to the subtlety of battle log.

quote:
3) Decent difficulty level, at least Emperor, so that AIs do play some role.

++yes, of course

[/quote]

[akots]

The problem with Rome is that Rome is virtually guaranteed ToA and has cheap settlers which take only 1 pop out of the city where they are built. Hence, good tactics by Rome can be defending from Carthagian attempts while hammering on Celts and Goths and expanding to the north. Even if Rome loses some occasional cities in Sicily and Sardinia, she is still able to expand at a huge rate. Macedon/Persia cannot seriously compete with this expansion especially if they abandon cities in anticipation of being captured from each other. However, if their cities are not abandoned, and one of them is really going down, the other can efficiently compete with Rome.

On the other hand, if Rome has an edge over Carthage, and Carthage cannot abandon cities, then Rome easily wins because of this.

GPS - got, played, sent.

I can probably call for a fourth player at CFC somebody like Romeo who is actually a very strong player.

[Arghis]

if i understand well you say that some players abandon cities for avoiding them to be captured ...

if your friend at CFC is a good player, i'm ok. what i call a good player can include being a strong player, but is first someone who plays for making the game interesting.
abandonning cities the way i understand it seems like an exploit of a game mechanics (unless in very specific case, hee and there). so i agree with Matrix

GPS implies the fact that we can discuss in the mail used to send the save, but we can't discuss in other context (MSN, common mail, ...). ok for me.

Also, those scenarii seems having been built for 1 human player. we can perhaps arrange things in the editor, no ?

[Matrix]

I agree with everything. [crazyeye]

[romeothemonk]

I'll sign up for the game. I'll take anybody. After playing with/against akots, I am not in a huge hurry to be in a locked war with him, but I will, if necessary.
mattjake ()AT() gwtc ()DOT() net
Ready whenever.

[Matrix]

Cool, so then we are with four! :)

I prefer to play as Rome or Carthage.
Akots does not like to play as Macedon.
Romeothemonk does not like to play as akots' counter-civ.

[akots]

I can take Carthage or Rome, Matrix will then be Rome or Carthage, respectively. Romeo/Arghis can be the Macedon/Persia pair. How does that sound?

[Arghis]

it is ok for me.

Do you want modification to be made to the scenario ?

A sidenote on GPS way of discussing : this is only for the locked wars ? (carthage / rome & macedonia / persia) So if i'm persian, and i want to discuss with carthage, nothing prevents me to do so. we're ok on this.

Last point, who launches the game ? If it's me, Matrix send me your adress by PM

[Matrix]

I believe Rome has too start the game. I'll send you my e-mail address anyway.

Akots, you may choose to play as Rome or Carthage. :)

[Arghis]

ok for Rome beginning. What for the rest of the list ? this is not automatic ?

As Romeo has no favorites, i choose to take the Macedonian. [king]

[akots]

Seems OK with me.

Matrix - Rome
akots - Carthage
Arghis - Macedon
Romeo - Persia

The following modifications to the scenario can be made:

Turn AP off.
Set all difficulties to Emperor.
Change the order of players (2 European then 2 US) do that we can play a turn per day. Is this needed? Alternating order would result in playing 1 turn per 2 days.

Custom rules:
No abandoning cities
No phony wars between locked pairs

The order of play is:
1.Rome
2.Macedon
3.Persia
4.Carthage

But this can be changed in the editor IIRC. If Arghis takes the Persians, this would not be required.

Let's hear what Romeo has to say and then we can start.

[romeothemonk]

I am fine with the Persians. I agree with the no AP. I check my email in the morning and evening 7 AM and 7 PM in mountain standard time. Turns will go quickly once I get my micro set.

[akots]

Seems fine with me. I also try to check the mail in the morning but sometimes oversleep and run to work without breakfast. :)

@Matrix: If you are Rome, can you start? Just edit the scenario and go-go-go? Doing 1-2 turns per day, we can finish this in a couple of months.

[Arghis]

good thing all this. let's go [jump]

[Matrix]

First turn sent to Arghis! :) The order of play is not changed. That wasn't so easy to do.
Difficulty setting is emperor for everyone.
Accellerated production is off.

[Arghis]

First turn sent to Romeo !

[romeothemonk]

I forgot a rule that we should have. No first turn MA's with the AI.

[Arghis]

i've not done it :-)

[romeothemonk]

Akots email bounced When I sent the game to him. Post here or wait for an answer from him?

[Arghis]

post it here.

strange that it bounces, i have no prob to mail akots usually.

[Matrix]

Too late, romeo. http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/lipsrsealed.gif

But I've given much more than necessary (to make him more powerful), so he'd take the deal anytime. ;)

[romeothemonk]

Just regular messages also bounced. But here is the file. Egypt wasn't at war with me, and that is all that matters. First 5 turns, egypts declaration will really hamstring the Persians. After that, the balance is much better.

Download Attachment: icon_paperclip.gif RoRArghis001.SAV (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/romeothemonk/2004815202730_RoRArghis001.SAV)
171.53KB

[akots]

I've got it and am playin as I type this. Sometimes mail.ru is bouncing what it thinks is junk. :)

[Matrix]

I'm away till wednesday, by the way. I might install Conquests at my brother's, where I am now, but I don't count on it. http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/undecided.gif

Shall we continue discussions in the open thread forum? :)

[akots]

Matrix, you are so organized. :)

But indeed, this is the opponent finding forum, and we have to move to an open thread with turnlogs and other discussion.

[Arghis]

yes

let create a RoR thread; we'll also use it as a kind of roster, no ?

[akots]

The open thread for the game has been created. (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1953)