Who is ready to Cut more Crap?

[Beam]

Let's Cut more Crap. :) Please post if you are interested to play and if you have suggestions for the settings. I'm almost OK with current ones but I could imagine not all are happy with Diplo Vic enabled. ;)

Imo vassal states should be off cause it is pointless in MP and there will be no Colonial Expense maintenance.

I'm more than happy to host again and I'll post a request for a Ma(uer)pmaker. ;)

Takers:

Robi D
Killer
PP\Akots\Shabba
Matrix
Stapel
socralynnek
Wosret
Gahamiam
NHJ
azzaman333
Beam
IanDC
Plattfuss
Dandridge
Indiansmoke


Game settings:
- Normal speed
- No city razing
- No diplo win (pending ingame / out of game)
- No tech trading
- No vassal states
- Two settlers, one warrior plus a warrior or scout depending on Hunting. (pending worker / no worker)
- Didn't we play the previous Pitboss two levels below Monarch? (I forgot wether it was called Pimp or Iffy ;) )

[socralynnek]

I'm in!

[ProPain]

Very much tempted, but what is the turntimer? A turn a day?

[Robi D]

I'll join in :)

You could call it Trim the Turds to change it up a bit ;)

[barbu1977]

I'm going to pass on this one.

[Matrix]

I think I'd rather join than make a general spoiler anyway, so I'm in. ;)

[Beam]

Very much tempted, but what is the turntimer? A turn a day?

Yup. :)

[IanDC]

I'd like in please.

[akots]

I'm very much tempted but would need at least one long sub soon and another one or two until the end of the year. So if there is somebody in a similar situation, the two of us might be able to manage. Cat Behemoth for now is not functional, and any offers of such cooperative play are welcome.

[Matrix]

You could ask barbu1977 for that, assuming he won't read this thread anymore.

[ProPain]

I'm very much tempted but would need at least one long sub soon and another one or two until the end of the year. So if there is somebody in a similar situation, the two of us might be able to manage. Cat Behemoth for now is not functional, and any offers of such cooperative play are welcome.

I'd like to play in a duo. With work/kids/stuff around the house my time can sometimes be limited and a turn a day is not feasible for me, but if we can share the burden that would be another thing. You'd have to make due with a player below your level though. I'm an average emperor level player atm. (but working on improvement :))

[Beam]

Updated the first post with takers etc.

[Matrix]

I'm an average emperor level player atm. (but working on improvement :))
Talking about improvement. [:O]

Suddenly I feel so small... [sulk]

[ProPain]

Talking about improvement. [:O]

Suddenly I feel so small... [sulk]

Why, you beat me in our last 1v1.

[Matrix]

Yea, but was because you weren't paying attention. Emperor is out of my league!

[Beam]

The first three weeks of July I'll be on holiday and probably others will be as well in July and / or August so I'm proposing to pick this up again 2nd half of August?

[akots]

Sounds reasonable. I'll try to find a partner for this game by then. Also, everyone would be patched to 3.19.

Meanwhile, we can excercise the muscle and sinew things in the CDZ league, in GOTMs at CFC or some other online gaming events. Better be prepared. Also, Stapel seems to be either pissed or busy and I'd like to have us placed near to each other in the game. [hammer]

[NHJ]

I'm in as well by the way :)

[Beam]

I'm in as well by the way :)

Registered. :)

[Plattfuss]

I am interested as well

[Shabbaman]

Well, that's a good way to get acquinted all those bastards, errr excuse me really cool guys here at cdz. Welcome :)

I don't have the time to play in a pitboss, but I suppose ynnek will force me to play over half of his turns anyway.

[Beam]

Let's get this one started. :) Anybody else interested to play?

[Stapel]

Already underway?

[Matrix]

I wish. This is taking rather long, to be frank. But the good news is you can still join, Stapel. ;)

[Stapel]

I wish. This is taking rather long, to be frank. But the good news is you can still join, Stapel. ;)

:D

I have but one wish: no diplo victory please ;) !

[Shabbaman]

:D

I have but one wish: no diplo victory please ;) !

If that keeps you spamming this forum I guess everyone can live with that ;)

[Beam]

Well my gear is waiting to load a sav but we need a mapmaker.

[Stapel]

Well my gear is waiting to load a sav but we need a mapmaker.

It's quite here, these days......

Would a random map do?

[Shabbaman]

It's quite here, these days......

Indeed.

There are some people that showed interest in the game by posting here, but aren't as active as before. Perhaps there are inactives that want to participate. I could spam everyone with a mass email. Is that a good idea?

[Matrix]

I doubt people will mind, so good idea. :)

[Stapel]

Make it so!

[Lt. Killer M]

I did not get any spam yet, shabba!

[grahamiam]

The Spam Bunny sent me a message, and I can probably fit in a game, though I'm running Win7 so I don't know what havok I'll create with pitboss :)

[NHJ]

Oh hey, spam :)

I'm still in, things just have been pretty quiet and I haven't been playing much Civ lately. So a nice pitboss is just what I need!

[Azza]

The spam has interested me.

[Shabbaman]

Well, that's even more effective than I'd hoped for :D I thought the email thing was broken, because I didn't receive the spam errr... interesting email myself. Hopefully it reached most people.

[akots]

The Spam Bunny sent me a message, and I can probably fit in a game, though I'm running Win7 so I don't know what havok I'll create with pitboss :)

Well, I'm sure your life is quite busy at the moment, so may be we can try to combine the three busy people (ProPain, you, and me) into some structure to be able to play the game. [;)]

Win7 does not have to be a problem. It has similar firewall and security settings as Vista and you might want to click a few buttons to give Civ-related traffic complete access. IMO, hosting the game (PB or even regular MP) is tricky but playing shouldn't be a problem as long as Civ runs fine and you have real IP address either dynamic or static.

[Wosret]

here am I, the offspring of the spam :D

well, i admit I almost forgot my brothers of CDZ, tragic, tragic... but I`ve reborn, due to spam bunny, thanks man! :D


And i do want to play this pitboss, it will be fine.

btw, is there any other thread with the rules?

And ill forward some questions.

- Why not diplo victory? because de resolutions only or there are another tricks?

- About vassal states, i isnt that waste whe we face some quiting... As is supose when one quites their civ becomes an AI. And its better a vassal stupid AI than one free.

- Another experiences makes me question about the possible order of playing. To avoid such a double moviment as players to standing online to try avoiding it manualy.


- And what about civ and map choices?


Nice to see you all again.

[socralynnek]

I am ready and I am fine with no diplo as a setting.

(Short version for wosret: The last game saw a diplo win and it was, let's say, a maybe strange kind of winning, especially with Apostolic Palace)

[Shabbaman]

- Why not diplo victory? because de resolutions only or there are another tricks?


Because some people don't appreciate it when they're about to win and somebody pulls off a apostolic palace vote. Welcome back btw!

[Robi D]

The spam bunny gave me a call. I'm still interested was just waiting for it to begin

[barbu1977]

So we have:

Robi D
Killer
PP\Akots\Shabba
Matrix
Stapel
socralynnek
Wosret
Gahamiam
NHJ
azzaman333
Beam

Have not confirmed yet!:
IanDC
plafuss

[IanDC]

I'm still interested.

[Plattfuss]

me too!

[barbu1977]

Good, I'll make a map tomorrow for 13 players.

Normal speed
No city razing
No diplo win

Anything else?

[Wosret]

and what about tech trade?

a non tech trade game will be nice.

by the way, is this the right thread to discuss about game options? :D

[akots]

Good, I'll make a map tomorrow for 13 players.

Normal speed
No city razing
No diplo win

Anything else?

+ No tech trading
+ No vassal states
+ Two settlers, three warriors (or two plus scout for those with hunting) and worker at start?

[akots]

- Why not diplo victory? because de resolutions only or there are another tricks?

- About vassal states, i isnt that waste whe we face some quiting... As is supose when one quites their civ becomes an AI. And its better a vassal stupid AI than one free.

- Another experiences makes me question about the possible order of playing. To avoid such a double moviment as players to standing online to try avoiding it manualy.

- And what about civ and map choices?

There are some people who are unhappy about diplomatic victories.

There is no quitting to be expected and so far, we have managed 4 games without major players quitting. Even if one loses interest, one should try to continue or find a suitable sub.

Usually, there were no problems with double moves. All players here are very reasonable people who do not want to abuse game mechanics.

IMO, civ and map choices are better left to the host and mapmaker. This is not a duel game and it is unlikely that civ choice is very important unless it comes with some bad neighbors.

[Azza]

+ No tech trading
+ No vassal states
+ Two settlers, three warriors (or two plus scout for those with hunting) and worker at start?

Personally, I'd prefer 1 settler 1 warrior/scout, but don't really mind.

Also, I'd rather be playing the game with the BUFFY mod, since I really love the extra features that assist with micro, but again I don't mind if people are opposed to the idea.

[Robi D]

Don't have a problem with any of the suggestion.
The actual map was excellent last time with the various starting positions.

I have no idea what the BUFFY mod is so i can't say whether i'd be for or against it

[Stapel]

Hehe, read my spoiler and you'll see!

[Azza]

Don't have a problem with any of the suggestion.
The actual map was excellent last time with the various starting positions.

I have no idea what the BUFFY mod is so i can't say whether i'd be for or against it

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=329225

[Dandridge]

If there's still room I'm interested in joining.

[Plattfuss]

Can we exclude Diplo victory by rules not in game options? This way wonders are not affected.

[emperor]

Got the spam... wow, I'd almost forgot about old CDZ. ;)

Unfortunately I'm in Europe and travelling regularly at the moment, so a turn-a-day pitboss game won't really work too well for me right now... unless there's someone else who also has a tight schedule and wants to double up playing/subbing on one civ. That could be fun. If not though, I'll have to sit this one out.

Thanks for the email, and I'm sure it'll be a great game - whether I actually end up playing or not. :)

[akots]

Personally, I'd prefer 1 settler 1 warrior/scout, but don't really mind.

Also, I'd rather be playing the game with the BUFFY mod, since I really love the extra features that assist with micro, but again I don't mind if people are opposed to the idea.

Experience shows that this leads to really, really slow starts and this means extra 3 months of the game for no particular reason. Many people lose interest already at the early stages and two settlers + worker make it a very dynamic right from the beginning.

Buffy is a nice mod used for Hall of Fame and GOTM, have no objections about it. But should everyone install it as a requirement to play the game?

[Matrix]

Everyone will need to install the BUFFY-mod. I wouldn't mind, though. For the rest I agree with all akots said.

@Plattfuss: in what way are wonders affected by excluding a diplo victory? And would changing the rules imply playing with a mod?

[barbu1977]

Buffy only being 2Mb I don't mind installing it. I'll be waiting for objections.

We are now 14 player:
Robi D
Killer
PP\Akots\Shabba
Matrix
Stapel
socralynnek
Wosret
Gahamiam
NHJ
azzaman333
Beam
IanDC
plafuss
Dandridge

[socralynnek]

I don't mind using BUFFY.

[Stapel]

I have no idea what Buffy is all about............

[Azza]

Experience shows that this leads to really, really slow starts and this means extra 3 months of the game for no particular reason. Many people lose interest already at the early stages and two settlers + worker make it a very dynamic right from the beginning.

Sounds ok to me then.

[akots]

I'm afraid that experience with BUFFY in multiplayer is not very positive. There are some unanswered questions about that in the BUG forum at CFC and I've talked to some league players at CFR and they say that OOS errors happen each time there is combat.

See this unanswered thread : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=330880

And here there is some clear screwup with stack attack : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8339598#post8339598 and some posts below that. Also, same OOS in post 199 later in the thread.

IMO, that rules out BUFFY unless there is some fix.

[Stapel]

Well, some very good reasons not to use use Buffy.

Apart from that, I haven't read too many reasons for it here. though I do believe there must be some.

[Indiansmoke]

I'd like to play as well

[Ville]

Hi everybody!

Not that I'd be much of a help for the team but always happy to lurk :p

[Matrix]

Apart from that, I haven't read too many reasons for it here. though I do believe there must be some.
It has some funny gadgets. The best way to find out is by trying it out in a single player game. You can download it here (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/mods/BUFFY-3.19.001.exe). (Remember, it doesn't alter the game. It's all optional.)

At the other site, it's used for people playing GOTM or attempting to make a HOF entry, because it has some anti-cheating stuff in it.

[Robi D]

Since it looks like we are probably heading for a vote on BUFFY i better download it and check it out

[Stapel]

Since it looks like we are probably heading for a vote on BUFFY i better download it and check it out

If there are some serious multiplayer bugs, as Akots said, we should not even consider it, right?

I just checked it out. Seems ok. But bugs might really spoil it.

[Azza]

I haven't tried BUFFY in MP, so I haven't personally experienced any issues with it.

But, unless multiple people are logged in at once, OOS errors don't occur. (and I've definately had quite a few OOS problems playing unmodded Civ games)

[Wosret]

i agree with Stapel. Once there is a potential fail, its better to avoid the situation.


Edit: @Azza, OOS may occur even if only one player is logged in. I`ve already experienced this at CBR pitboss.

By the way, the new patch is told to avoid oos issues, so another check point to let the mod stuf aside.

[Lt. Killer M]

yeah, lets stay away from sources of trouble

[akots]

I haven't tried BUFFY in MP, so I haven't personally experienced any issues with it.

But, unless multiple people are logged in at once, OOS errors don't occur. (and I've definately had quite a few OOS problems playing unmodded Civ games)

In PB, OOS can happen with a single player. Most of OOS errors (and it is the most common way to hang the server). The latest patch fixed many things except amphibious stack attack.

[Azza]

I've never seen it happen from the 1000s of turns I've played.

If not everyone wants to use BUFFY, I'm happy to not use it, just wanted to put the option out there.

[socralynnek]

If indeed BUFFY can cause OOS in Pitboss, then we should not use it.

I am fine with a slightly accelerated start, like 2 Settlers (maybe plus warriors/scouts and one worker). Might also decrease the chance of one civ being eliminated too early.

No tech trades is a must have, IMO. No espionage would be ok, but also the opposite would be ok.

Maybe "No city razing"? Helps the builders...

[Robboo]

I am not ready time-wise to commit to a daily play BUT if Someone needs a sub for a few days I can follow directions and help out.

By mid-october(hopefully) I will again have more time for daily play.

[Stapel]

If indeed BUFFY can cause OOS in Pitboss, then we should not use it.

I am fine with a slightly accelerated start, like 2 Settlers (maybe plus warriors/scouts and one worker). Might also decrease the chance of one civ being eliminated too early.

No tech trades is a must have, IMO. No espionage would be ok, but also the opposite would be ok.

Maybe "No city razing"? Helps the builders...

Indeed, tech trading should be off!!!!

I don't think espionage adds more fun to the game, but I wouldn't really mind.

In the original CtC game, city razing was off. IMHO, it proved to be a good thing.

Accelerated start is fine.

[barbu1977]

Map maker reporting.

- With Indiansmoke, we are now 15, 16 will be maximum number for the map I have in mind.

- I think Espionage is good. And will remain on. If you don't like it, don't use it but others may take advantage of it.

- City razing is off, mainly to prevent late game coastal city razing without real chance for retaliation.

- We will not use BUFFY. The KISS principle applies here (keep it simple, stupid)

- 2 settlers does speed up things alot.

[Indiansmoke]

In regards to city razing, I find it terrible when it is off. reason being that if someone goes and make a city 20 tiles away from his capital in the middle of your land and places the city badly it basically screws your game.

So infact if you want to screw an opponent no need for an army..just make a crap city in a location that prevents him from building cities.

I find it a terrible idea to be responsible for the mistake of others, thus I strongly urge you leave city raising on...I understand the late game reason...but the reasons against it are much more important IMO.

[Stapel]

In regards to city razing, I find it terrible when it is off. reason being that if someone goes and make a city 20 tiles away from his capital in the middle of your land and places the city badly it basically screws your game.

So infact if you want to screw an opponent no need for an army..just make a crap city in a location that prevents him from building cities.

I find it a terrible idea to be responsible for the mistake of others, thus I strongly urge you leave city raising on...I understand the late game reason...but the reasons against it are much more important IMO.

That's really poor reasoning! If my opponent actually succeeds in wasting a settler by building a city in my land (on a crap location), I should congratulate him!

[Indiansmoke]

That's really poor reasoning! If my opponent actually succeeds in wasting a settler by building a city in my land (on a crap location), I should congratulate him!

I guess you will congratulate barbs as well.

[Matrix]

Well, I think no city razing is a reason to play without barbarians. But I have to say I'm on Stapel's side in this matter. Besides that, we can all just agree not to use that tactic.

[socralynnek]

I think, with the Civ4 maintenance and corruption system, it would be kind of stupid to build such a useless city. It hurts you enough (and if it it at least a little useful, then I don't see any problem).

Civ is a game where the expansion phase is crucial and if you don't secure the good spots for yourself, then it is your fault if an opponent can hurt your settling plans.

I'd be fine with barbarians off.

[Plattfuss]

Everyone will need to install the BUFFY-mod. I wouldn't mind, though. For the rest I agree with all akots said.

@Plattfuss: in what way are wonders affected by excluding a diplo victory? And would changing the rules imply playing with a mod?

e.g. no Apostolic Palace and its extra hammers

[Beam]

Map maker reporting.

- With Indiansmoke, we are now 15, 16 will be maximum number for the map I have in mind.

- I think Espionage is good. And will remain on. If you don't like it, don't use it but others may take advantage of it.

- City razing is off, mainly to prevent late game coastal city razing without real chance for retaliation.

- We will not use BUFFY. The KISS principle applies here (keep it simple, stupid)

- 2 settlers does speed up things alot.

Many thanks for making the map Barbu. :) Please PM me when you're finished so I can give you the e-mail address where to send it to.

Updated the first post with the current gang and will also update with the current settings. With respect to BUFFY: it won't be installed on the hosting server here. ;) From what I've read here and on that other side it is buggy and I am certainly not waiting for the OOS shit on my internet connection.

[Beam]

Afaik there are 4 game setting options left for discussion and deciding:
- Is there a worker in the starting stack. Imo yes, because it is a timesaver in the opening turns.
- Barbarians on or off, mainly because of the poor settling they do. No problem for me with barbs on but no prob if they are off. We played with barbs on in the previous game and afaik no issues.
- Diplo disabled in game or out of game. Since it is very easy to make a very clear and verifyable out of game rule I strongly suggest to go that way as Plattfuss proposes.
- Diff level. Noble. Iirc we played all previous Pitboss this level.

[Wosret]

Diplo disabled means ... no stuff trading (goods, units, open borders....)??

[barbu1977]

Diplo disabled means ... no stuff trading (goods, units, open borders....)??

I think Beam was talking about Diplo as a victory condition.

[Beam]

I think Beam was talking about Diplo as a victory condition.

Indeed. :)

[Matrix]

Well, that would be perfect, I think: the Diplo victory is checked, so the Apostolic Palace and United Nations are fully functional, but we simply decide not to propose a diplomatic victory. :)

[Lt. Killer M]

I garee with Beam that there should be a worker at start. Early development can so massively depend on how fast you can get one built that not having workers may seriously unbalance the game right from the start, and also there is the enormous time saving thingy.

[Azza]

I'd also like some sort of guard against razing large cities, but I'd much prefer it to be an out of game rule. Small cities should be fair game for razing IMO.

In the same vein, I think diplo checked but an agreement not to use the diplo victory is ideal.

[Robi D]

Since BUFFY has potential bugs for MP then i agree to leave it for the game.

I'm happy to have a gentlemen's agreement on not going for diplomatic victory while leaving it checked.

With the no city razing i don't think barb cities were an issue since the map was slightly crowded (which i think it should be again so you get eariler contacts with others) but if others think that barbs should be off then i have no issue since they are a non factor anyway.

Definately a working in a starting stack, and noble is default for mp games.

I can't see that its mentioned anywhere are we choosing civs or is it random

[Lt. Killer M]

I am undecided wrt city razing. Allowing it opens up some unreasonable options, but banning it removes one of the most effective options of keeping large empires in check.

[Stapel]

It looks like we are getting somewhere!

HOWEVER:
It hate to say this, but I will be in rural east butt-fuck this weekend. No internet there, not even cellphone coverage. I will be back on Monday 5 October. I would really dislike the idea of a substitue doing the opening turns. Can we live with a start on Monday.

I am undecided wrt city razing. Allowing it opens up some unreasonable options, but banning it removes one of the most effective options of keeping large empires in check.

From the last game, I remember I was quite pissed when I found out I couldn't raze a city I took from Matrix. Later on, I realised I had a great option of leaving cities as bait, without risking to lose it for good. This worked as a great feature in the war I waged with Robi D.

However, on a 16 player map, Lt might have a fair point.

I'm indifferent on it.

FWIW: I've never seen the fun of barbs. Doesn't add much to the game, imho.
What about random craphola crap? Off, I suppose?

[Indiansmoke]

I am undecided wrt city razing. Allowing it opens up some unreasonable options, but banning it removes one of the most effective options of keeping large empires in check.

Exactly! I mean if someone has infantry while I still have knights and he leaves his capital unguarded, why should I not be able to raise it and give myself a chance to get back in the game?

No city raising makes mindless expansion much more dominant as you know the city will not be raised and you can get it back....which brings me back to my point...if I get an imperialist neighbour who decides to spam nothing but settlers (especially since barbs are off) and he fills my land misplacing his cities...why do I have to be responsible for this?

Why should I not have the option to raise his misplaced cities and make my own?

[socralynnek]

Because I think, there will be no one spamming the country with useless cities.
We are not playing Civ3, so someone who spams useless cities will pay so much, that he is out of the game (especially as we will be playing No Tech Trades, so no tech gifts)

And: Especially as long as culture is low, the risk to never get back a city that one has lost is so high, that we won't see someone spamming cities unprotected.

I perwsonally think, that the advantages of "No city razing" for gameplay are higher than the disadvantages.

[Matrix]

I myself am away from thursday till wednesday, but in the weekend I'll probably have internet and Civ4 available.

I'm not afraid of the settler-spawning-bad-city-placements-tactic, because that definitely won't help towards your victory. You're just screwing it up for yourself and possibly your opponent.

I think what makes the biggest difference is the presence of water. If we're playing on an archipelago map, city razing is a must IMO. On a pangaea map I agree city razing has more advantages than disadvantages.

I sense a poll is coming up... [rolleyes]

[Wosret]

Well... azzas option sounds good, if we put a poll up that should be considered.

We can define the maximum size to a city get razed.

[Indiansmoke]

I perwsonally think, that the advantages of "No city razing" for gameplay are higher than the disadvantages.

I am a bit confused about the advantages of ths option...what exactly are they?

[socralynnek]

The advantages are IMO, to push the players to building solid empires themselves.
This helps the players who are a little behind to stay interested in the game as a bigger player can't steamroll over them as easily as before and destroy their empire in just a few turns

I guess, this might be one of the reasons why so little players quit in our pitboss games. It's because even the ones who are a little behind stay relevant in the game.

[Indiansmoke]

The advantages are IMO, to push the players to building solid empires themselves.
This helps the players who are a little behind to stay interested in the game as a bigger player can't steamroll over them as easily as before and destroy their empire in just a few turns

I guess, this might be one of the reasons why so little players quit in our pitboss games. It's because even the ones who are a little behind stay relevant in the game.

I think I understand what you mean...you mean that a bigger player cannot steam roll because he has to keep the cities and pay maintenance instead of just raising them?

If that is the point, I would have to disagree as after a point in this game when cottages are developed and the economy is stable, the more cities you get the faster you tech, maintenance costs are irrelevant after a point.

I was thinking it is quite the opposite of what you said, that a backwards player can slave an army and raze some key cities of the forward player therefore crippling him and giving himself a chance to catch up.

In any case I don't want to be the awkward voice here, I am sure you guys know what settings you want, I am glad you invited me to play here in the first place and will play with whatever rules you see fit...at the end of the day it is the same rules for everyone :D

[Shabbaman]

if we put a poll up that should be considered.

That'd make the poll monkey very happy :D

[Wosret]

sorry?

[akots]

...if I get an imperialist neighbour who decides to spam nothing but settlers (especially since barbs are off) and he fills my land misplacing his cities...

I'm already salivating at perspective of having such a joyful neighbor! That would be the most welcome turn of events!

No city razing shortens the time spent playing the game since you don't have to contemplate whether to raze it or to keep it. And if thy neighbor captures one of your cities, there is always a chance to get it back. In 15-city empire, there is little difference if a couple of cities are misplaced unless, as Matrix said, it is archipelago map and it screws the irrigation.

[IanDC]

I'd also like some sort of guard against razing large cities, but I'd much prefer it to be an out of game rule. Small cities should be fair game for razing IMO.

In the same vein, I think diplo checked but an agreement not to use the diplo victory is ideal.

I would also favour a house rule on razing linked to size.

[barbu1977]

How about:

City razing is forbidden in the event of:
- A direct naval assault.
- a city of size 6 and above.

[Beam]

I'm worried that this rule about allowing city razing of other players only in specific situations is unnecessary and will quickly become quite complex.

First of all, imo in a multiplayer game it is essentialy stupid for any player to deliberately do poor city placement as the cost will easily outweight benefit in most if not all situations.

The AI of course does a piss-poor job of city placement so basically it would be OK to allow city razing of barbarian cities no matter it's size.

The only issue left would be that a mis click when another players city is razed would require the game to be restarted.

[Shabbaman]

sorry?

Coffee mugs (http://www.civduelzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4955) ;)

I have to say I would miss the opportunity for razing cities. I always enjoy the sensation.

[Lt. Killer M]

how about this: below culture radius 3, and barb cities of any size and expansion, razing is OK. Nothing else may be razed.

[Stapel]

Please stop this silly discussion.........

Exactly! I mean if someone has infantry while I still have knights and he leaves his capital unguarded, why should I not be able to raise it and give myself a chance to get back in the game?

No city raising makes mindless expansion much more dominant as you know the city will not be raised and you can get it back....which brings me back to my point...if I get an imperialist neighbour who decides to spam nothing but settlers (especially since barbs are off) and he fills my land misplacing his cities...why do I have to be responsible for this?

Why should I not have the option to raise his misplaced cities and make my own?

Your arguement didn't make any sense in the first place and it still doesn't when you repeat it...

If your neighbour decides to waste his resources on spam settlers, you should be glad to have an utter nutcase as neighbour. Having said so, if your neighbour manages to spam your land with misplaced cities, it is fair to say you did a very very poor job yourself.

If anytime some player wants to invade my land with settlers, be very welcome [groucho] .

[Matrix]

I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC).

[Robi D]

If we don't have barbs on then their isn't an issue with their city placement.

As Stapel said earlier in the previous game with city razing off it added a bit more strategy to warfare since you could not just raze a city and move on to the next one.

Also Stapel took out three of us in the last game, if city placement had been an issue i'm sure he would be against city razing being off. Since he isn't i'm assuming he was happy with the cities he got.

[Azza]

I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC).

I think that's definitely the most important reason for having a rule against city razing.

[Stapel]

I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC).

And then what? Allow Amphibious attacks until one unit is left? People will find ways to work around any rules. I think we should keep things simple: either allow, or don't allow it.

The way I see it, disallowing city razing gives some very good extra options to the strategies we pick.
However, if this is going to be a 16 player map, not being able to burn cities might be a bit daft. That's, imho, the choice we have to make.

[NHJ]

I think I like the extra deterrent of people not exterminating me because they have to pay for my cities :p

And naval attacks can probably be countered by a navy of your own, can it not? Or, at least by having enough ships that you can at least spot the invasion fleet and move additional troops to the city where it is going, before it gets there. Naval invasions appear to be the price you pay for not having a sufficient navy of your own.

But then again, I don't have much experience with late-game multiplayer. But I would rather have a clear rule of razing either on or off, none of this in-between stuff like a maximum city level where razing is allowed, because that complicates things way too much.

[Azza]

It's almost impossible to stop a foreign navy transporting enough troops to raze a coastal city.

EG, I build 20 galleons. Lets say that you've invested considerably in your navy, and have 30 frigates. However, it's likely that you have multiple sea routes to your civ, so only half of your frigates can stop the galleons before they reach their destination. That's 15 units on the 5 remaining galleons that can still be used to raze a key city.

[Matrix]

Well, I'm fine with no city razing at all. I just wanted to extend a hand to those opposed to it.

[NHJ]

It's almost impossible to stop a foreign navy transporting enough troops to raze a coastal city.

EG, I build 20 galleons. Lets say that you've invested considerably in your navy, and have 30 frigates. However, it's likely that you have multiple sea routes to your civ, so only half of your frigates can stop the galleons before they reach their destination. That's 15 units on the 5 remaining galleons that can still be used to raze a key city.

But the hammers needed to build 20 galleons full of units is probably enough for a very sizeable land war as well. If someone is investing that much production to a single strategy, isn't it kind of normal that they would accomplish their goal? It doesn't seem to be worse than an opponent building a large cavalry army when you share a long land border with him.

Anyway, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here; I'm fine with either option.

[Wosret]

@Shabba: thanks for the explanation ^^

About city razing:

I prefer razing cities as a simple option, but it could be cool to have an off game agreement about it. At least I wouldn`t mind if its off.

One asked some posts ago... will civs be random? O_o.

[Stapel]

One asked some posts ago... will civs be random? O_o.

Well, why not? Or possibly all play with the same treats?

[Beam]

Well, why not? Or possibly all play with the same treats?

I really like the way we did it the previous MP games. The mapmaker picks the Civs and Leaders and the dice allocates those to players. And iirc the leaders that won those MP games are not among the favorites for SP games. I'd prefer to use the current procedure. And keep things KISS. :)

[akots]

I really like the way we did it the previous MP games. ...

Exactly the thing. All the games have been finished successfully, there is no need to changes the functional system.

[Azza]

But the hammers needed to build 20 galleons full of units is probably enough for a very sizeable land war as well. If someone is investing that much production to a single strategy, isn't it kind of normal that they would accomplish their goal? It doesn't seem to be worse than an opponent building a large cavalry army when you share a long land border with him.

Anyway, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here; I'm fine with either option.

Dunno, but I've seen it used very successfully in past games when it hasn't been banned.

Not that they all have to be full anyway. Use empty ones as a shield for those with units.

[Wosret]

I really like the way we did it the previous MP games. The mapmaker picks the Civs and Leaders and the dice allocates those to players. And iirc the leaders that won those MP games are not among the favorites for SP games. I'd prefer to use the current procedure. And keep things KISS. :)

Well, at first letting it random didnt make sense to me. Once we're talking about a game that can last for a long long time, and i'm actually used to play random civs only on fast vapt vupt MPs...

But as it seems, if you think it make things easy, let it be.

[Indiansmoke]

An alternative picking system to be considered is a system that has worked well both in pitboss games and in online multiplayer.

It is called unrestricted reverse pick with financial leaders banned.

It works like this.

The map maker or an admin list the players in a random order from 1 to 16.

Player 1 picks a leader first, player 2 second etc. Player 16 picks a leader last but picks a civ first and the order in picking is reversed...so player 15 picks a civ second etc.

That guarandees that we will have 16 different leaders (with no financial ones) and civs in the game and that the players who get to pick leaders last get to pick civs first, so it balances the pick process.

[Azza]

I don't really care, I just want things to get underway asap.

The waiting is the worst part.

[barbu1977]

I don't really care, I just want things to get underway asap.

The waiting is the worst part.

I'm doing this tonight

I'm sorry it's taking so long, but my PC takes about 5 minutes to generate a huge map and 2 others to load it in world builder afterwards.

Chances are that city razing and barbs will be off.

[Azza]

I'm doing this tonight

I'm sorry it's taking so long, but my PC takes about 5 minutes to generate a huge map and 2 others to load it in world builder afterwards.

Chances are that city razing and barbs will be off.

Sweet.

[barbu1977]

Still working on it...

Finding the right script is not easy for 15 and I don't want to give you guys a simple pangea map.

[Indiansmoke]

Try this script...you might like it and it could work well for this many players

http://league.civplayers.com/getFile.php?id=66

If you decide to use it, toroidal wrap I would suggest...

[barbu1977]

Thanks IndianSmoke for the link!

I HAVE USED THAT FILE TO CREATE THE MAP I SUGGEST YOU GUYS NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT GENERATE A FEW MAPS TO SEE WHAT THE MAP WILL LOOK LIKE!

- Barbs are off
- City razing is off.

A random selection has given the following Leaders:
Robi D - Washington
Killer - Lincoln
PP\Akots\Shabba - Zora Yaqob
Matrix - Wang Kan
Stapel - Suleiman
socralynnek - Saladin
Wosret - Peter
Gahamiam - Mehmed II
NHJ - Louis XIV
azzaman333 - Justinian I
Beam - Isabella
IanDC - Elizabeth
plafuss - De Gaule
Dandridge - Churchill
Idiansmoke - Catherine

And I have Alexander as an AI.

[Plattfuss]

Sounds good, thx for the work. When do we start or is it running already?

[barbu1977]

Sounds good, thx for the work. When do we start or is it running already?

I still have to get it to beam, who will be hosting. I guess he'll post the login info when he'll put it online.

[Lt. Killer M]

well, in the end I guess I will blame Canada ;)

[Indiansmoke]

Glad you liked the map :)

I think we can get another player to take over Alexander so we have no ai's in the game?

Also can you say what settings you used for the map..size, isthmus size etc?

[barbu1977]

Glad you liked the map :)

I think we can get another player to take over Alexander so we have no ai's in the game?

Also can you say what settings you used for the map..size, isthmus size etc?

The map is huge and the world is toroidal. I don't think you need anything else.

If we find another human, I would have to change the map. Alexander is the only one with a Ancient age UU and has been awarded extra units to help him against humans.

[Indiansmoke]

If we find another human, I would have to change the map. Alexander is the only one with a Ancient age UU and has been awarded extra units to help him against humans.

I would prefer another human than ai in the game. It should not be hard to find another player...do you want me to ask a few people?

[barbu1977]

I would prefer another human than ai in the game. It should not be hard to find another player...do you want me to ask a few people?

It's not up to me, but your fellow players.

I don't mind changing the map if it is required. (Editing que WB file should take care of a civ change)

[Beam]

Barbu, I PM'ed you an e-mail address. And Matrix can you start the civ alignment sequence? And if we have the 16th human player he/she will get Alexander with the normal number of units. :)

[Lt. Killer M]

I blame Canda!

it's been a long time since I played a game as Lincoln - and man the guy/civ combo so sucks in any game that has anything like 'things happening' before the modern age. YUCK!

I still lack iron working, although I go for early war, and China lazily builds stonehenge, oracle, steamrolls Japan(!) and gets into a pissing contest with the Dutch. On Noble! WTF? I have an oasis and two floodplains, my science rate is fine! OK, production sucks, but then I was out-researched as well as out-produced. By the commies! It is all Obama's fault, darn librul! So Canda IS at fault!


























;)

[barbu1977]

To respond to all of Mr. Lt. M. Killer's epigrams would take up too much room and time. I would like to address the most refractory ones, though. Let's get down to brass tacks: Killer is too ill-bred to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that he claims that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. That claim is preposterous and, to use Killer's own language, overtly crapulous. No history can justify it. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of deconstructionism. I will surely be happy to have your help in this endeavor.

(also [;)] )

[grahamiam]

Ah, good to see the complaint generator still putting out quality rants [spam3]

[Lt. Killer M]

Ha! THis will not stand! I demand that my COMPLAINTs be given EQUAL time and a fair hearing; the public has a right to see both sides of the issue debated! There is no excuse for the socialists and its constant lying and misinformation! Darwinaccepted Jesus on his deathbed, so Canda IS AT FAULT!


<<and he who takes the worst civ (3) will prevail in the bitter struggle>>

[Stapel]

So, I will play Suleiman. I honoustly can't remember when I played that character for the last time :) . But that shouldn't matter too much.

When will we start?

[Matrix]

Barbu, I PM'ed you an e-mail address. And Matrix can you start the civ alignment sequence?
What do you want me to do? http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Stapel]

What do you want me to do? http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

I am a bit puzzled too....

[Plattfuss]

I received a message from Ian that the game is up, but why isn't it announced here? Also, what are login details etc.? Kind of difficult for me to start playing without.

[socralynnek]

Ahh, sorry, we have some usual habits here at CDZ, which you can't know.

We are here in the Opponent finding forum. Once the game is about to be ready, the discussion moves to the "Open Thread Forum" for MP games, as we don't need to find opponents anymore at that stage...;-)

The game thread can be found here:
http://www.civduelzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=501

There are all details in the first post.

[Shabbaman]

I think Beam is referring to the loss of structural integrity.

[socralynnek]

I think Beam is referring to the loss of structural integrity.


As always, I think we should be able to modify the deflector shields to do the job. Otherwise we should just get rid of the warp core. And 20 mg of Innoprovalin please.

[Plattfuss]

Thanks Socralynnek

[Kaleb]

Ahh, sorry, we have some usual habits here at CDZ, which you can't know.

We are here in the Opponent finding forum. Once the game is about to be ready, the discussion moves to the "Open Thread Forum" for MP games, as we don't need to find opponents anymore at that stage...;-)

The game thread can be found here:
http://www.civduelzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=501

There are all details in the first post.That link ain't right :eek:

[socralynnek]

It seems like there is an '8' missing (damn copy and paste...)

http://www.civduelzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5018

This one works. Hopefully