New PBEM - Rise of Rome Conquest

[anarres]

I am ok with no AP and no palace jump and no coast blockades on non-mountain and non-hill tiles.

[digger760]

I remember you....and our 4 player PBEM with Crocadile and Sir Eric died shortly after you left..your replacement player was not reliable at all

It took you a whole year to get a new PC!!!

[Black_Waltz]

I know! Internet, how I missed you. :-p Sorry to hear about the Crocodile PBEM. I had so many plans worked out. *grins*

Anyway, I checked out Deity... Bloody hell. Tech costs seem astronomical and the happiness curbing quite... Restrictive. Keep in mind though that I have never even played a Deity game before... I'm just taking my first steps into Monarch. :-p

Anyway, I realise that most of your are extremly well practised at the game and to ask you to go much lower would probably mean you would lose intrest. But if we could drop the difficulty a notch I would be indebted. Barring that, some hints on how to survive on Deity would be nice. :-p

*blushes and feels like a newbie again*

[Socrates]

Black_Waltz, happiness on Deity is the same as on Emperor : you get one content citizen and after that they're unhappy. On Monarch and Regent you get just 2 content citizens. Also, techs' costs seem huge, but if you know this conquest, you know that we usually research all of them by the half of the game at least ; on my solo game on Deity this is what happened. Deity tech cost would allow us to struggle for getting better units and governments for a good part of the game, which I think is nice. As Carthage you'd only face... the Egyptians as AIs (more civs if you want !), so Deity shouldn't be a problem for you.

I agree on no palace jump and usual exploits listed in RBCiv (like ship chaining : NO). Google if you don't know them. About abandoning other cities I don't know... Why couldn't we abandon the capital then ? Let's say no abandoning one's own cities, but captured ones are OK. Agree ?

About placing units on coastal tiles, I like the idea to not intentionnally occupy flat tiles. All tiles but hills, mountains and volcanoes shouldn't be permanently occupied by military units (workers or settlers are OK, because I think you can land and capture them immediately). We also should not move our defensive units back and forth on a couple of stretch of land (eg. we shouldn't put units on the southern flat coast on turn n, and then put them on the northern flat coast on turn n+1, this would be considered like permanently occupying flat tiles). Agree on that ?

Locked war ? We can't make peace, even between humans ? At least we can't make ingame peace ? The rest is up to each one of us.

[Black_Waltz]

Ok. I'll view this as my introduction to Deity level. Throwing me in at the deep end but should be rather fun. *grins manically*

As for the workers/settlers on costal tiles. I've never heard of them being captured upon disembarking from ships. I was under the impression that such a move was still classed as 'attacking' and thus could not be done with a unit that does not have amphibeous attacking ability.

Oh yes. And another thing. With PBEM's on combat orientated mods it can sometimes be hard to keep track of battles since the defending side does not see how his units fared. Should we make it so that we have to post combat results against other humans in the open thread? The only problem I see with this is of course this would then alert other players of military weakness.

Anyway, is everyone ok to start this on Friday evening?

[anarres]

To make this more realistic I'd much rather prefer that NO deals or even private contact are allowed between nations locked in war.

The whole idea is NOT to make it easy on Rome, who have by far the best position.

[Black_Waltz]

quote:Originally posted by anarres

To make this more realistic I'd much rather prefer that NO deals or even private contact are allowed between nations locked in war.

The whole idea is NOT to make it easy on Rome, who have by far the best position.

*noddles* I would be fine with that. Those uppity Romans will feel the wrath of my gialnt mammals of doom! Mwhahahaha!

*clears throat*

But seriously that would fit well with my idea of the game. There is a kind of... Tenseness knowing that at any time your neighbour could attack. And since in the single player game you could not make peace, the same should be extended in the multiplayer. So no unoffical contacts between Carthage/Rome and Macedon/Persia, as long as everyone agrees.

[Socrates]

I find anar's idea great : I won't contact Black_Waltz for ingame chatting, and the same goes for anar and Stapel. I'll check for workers and settlers, we must remember that those conquests are "half-C3C-like", they were designed during the development. For example I see no reason not to give archers their defensive bombardment ability, they're so weak already... Anyway we'll play like it was intended. I already fear the odd production thingie to happen again all the time (for example, sometimes you change a farmer to an entertainer, and you get more shields !!! ).

[akots]

Also, limiting abandoning of cities adds greatly to the enjoyment and playability of this game. And limited trades and alliances with AI during the first 10 turns are a must to have. But I think Deity is a bit too much. Rome would not survive for long in this case since Rome will be in constant wars with either Goth or Celts. IMO, Emperor or maximum Demigod would be sufficient for the balance. Carthage is completely safe form the AI and Scyth is the only threat to Macedon whereas Egypt is the only threat to Persia and Scyth are a minor threat. Carthage would obviously try to keep alliance against Rome with Goth/Celts but if Macedon manages to make alliance with Egypt against Persia and Persia allies Scyth against Macedon (but not in reversed order), this can be somewhat balanced. Optimal balance is apparently achieved on Emperor in these cases. But it is your call.

[Stapel]

Akots,
Do you propose that abandoning cities should be banned completely?