Playing the conquests in PBEM

Socrates · 24-10-2004, 17:03

I'd like to have input from CDZ players about the worthiness of playing the 9 conquests in PBEM. I see some are preferred to others, but you never know. We can also include the 3 warmup scenarios. Please post your opinion only if you have already played this or that conquest, either in solo or PBEM. I don't wanna hear about significant tweaks, too bad if some conquests are badly thought. Specify any small rule that would fit, and give your general opinion whenever you want. You can copy-paste the text below, stating YES or NO or nothing (whether you think it's worth a try).

Warmup scenarios :
1. Ancient Treasures
2. The Three Sisters
3. New Alliances

Conquests :
1. Mesopotamia
2. Rise of Rome
3. Fall of Rome
4. Middle Ages
5. Mesoamerica
6. Age of Discovery
7. Sengoku - Sword of the Shogun
8. Napoleonic Europe
9. WWII in the Pacific

Pastorius · 24-10-2004, 17:26

I ve played the mesopotamia scen a lot - well - relative to all the others

I think you could have some interesting turns of events if you added a no wonderbuilding variant touch to it and had all humans for the game - then it would be a rushfest - and could go quick too...

akots · 24-10-2004, 18:33

This has been extensive discussed and played at CFC by Loulong

Main conclusions:

1. Mesopotamia - greatly unbalanced but may be playable
2. RoR - balanced, great fun (playing 2 ROR games atm)
3. FoR - not suitable for MP must be extensively tweaked
4. Middle Ages - currently playing, so far extremely unbalanced
5. Mesoamerica - cool, balanced 3AI+3human (have played a game)
6. AoD - extremely unbalanced, essentially barely playable but fun
7. Sengoku - poorly balanced, must be tweaked (playing one after another died)
8. Napoleonic - very unbalanced in favor of Britain but huge fun (playing 2 games atm)
9. WWII - very unbalanced but many people play it. Don't know how though

So, the only two balanced for all human (4 human + 4 AI) is RoR which is the most popular and Mesoamerica (3 human + 3 AI)
Playable but unbalanced: Napoleonic, AoD, WWII, probably tweaked Sengoku, maybe Middle Ages
Essentially unplayable (but still played at CFC): Mesopotamia, FoR

Matrix · 24-10-2004, 21:43

Please note I edited the post.

I'm uncapable of judging a scenario's balance. I just tell if it's fun or not.

1. Mesopotamia: YES
Short and fun! It appeared to be much more fun than I thought before I started.

2. Rise of Rome: YES
My favorite scenario! 2x 1on1. At least it's not about victory points, but old fashion score.

3. Fall of Rome: YES
The ultimate warfare. You basically only have attacking units and very weak defending units. Any city losing eight cities, is eliminated. Still you win by having controlled the most victory locations, and you control these locations by having it in your territory. So the one who takes the most risk without getting eliminated wins.
When I played it, I took way too much risk and was scared to attack anyone, including the Eastern Roman empire. I lost, because they weren't eliminated (and if both empires aren't eliminated, one of them will eventually win), and if I would attack them, I would find other enemies on my way.

4. Middle Ages: NO
Second favorite scenario. When I played as Cordoba, I conquered Rome.

Imagine.

A pity the AI doesn't try to bring the grail to Jerusalem. Taht grail does make it rather easy to win when playing as England. Playing as a civ far away from Jerusalem basicaly means trying to get 30000 victory points before the Abbasids (the civ who start with owning Jerusalem) do. Though Byzantine also always does a good job!
Unsuited for multiplayer IMO, because eight civs are simply too few.

6. Age of Discovery: YES
I liked this one too! Though the last time I played it, I was still beta testing. It's only suitable for multiplayer if all humans play as either European or American civs. And even then, as European civ you need to play in the spirit of the game.

7. Sengoku - Sword of the Shogun: NO
Now here's a disappointment. It starts out as real fun, but every time I play it, I don't finish it, because it becomes boring once you're done with research. Not that the situation becomes too simple - those ninja's are really fun, though they become rather useless - but it gets too repetitive.
It might be different for multiplayer though.

Here's my Hall of Fame: http://www.straland.com/C3CHOF.html.

Pastorius · 24-10-2004, 22:04

Not found on server, it says.

Socrates · 24-10-2004, 22:23

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Paalikles

Not found on server, it says.

Come on Paali !! Matrix just made a mistake with the ending dot inside the URL ; get rid of it and it works.

Very nice sheet, Matrix ! I keep my results as well, but as text. You can visit them in my forum, I'll keep them updated each time I complete a game. What could be a nice addition to your sheet is if you briefly told us about your game, and detailed your victory, like I did.

Pastorius · 24-10-2004, 22:28

Got it to work now, and I like the effort. VERY nice.

Might inspire a guy to do the same

I am going to whip up a template, and if I can make it easy enough (I know html and css) I ll post it here so you guys can use it too.

And it appears that I ve hijacked the thread a little - so I ll create a new thread for the civ3hof template thingie when it is finished

akots · 24-10-2004, 22:40

@Matrix:

krys asked about PBEM and you described your SP experience. Though my impressions of SP games are very similar to yours. Except that Shogun I found very interesting. Played them all on Emperor and RoR on Sid as well. And in RBC SG series some as well.

Justus II · 25-10-2004, 06:11

I've only recently (past month or so) started playing PBEM, so most of my comments are on SP or SG format.

Warmups: Never tried them?
Conquests :
1. Mesopotamia - SP-Fun, quick (as mentioned). I've played as Egypt and Mycenae. I'd agree on some balance issues, might be able to make adjustments to boost civs, or assign stronger players to weaker civs?
2. Rise of Rome - One of my 2 favorite conquests. I'm currently in a PBEM (as Rome), and have played Rome SP and Macedon SG, lots of fun and fairly balanced, although Carthage is a challenge.
3. Fall of Rome - Great fun for SP/SG, played as Vandals and East Rome (with Akots for both) in SGs, and a partial game as Anglo-Saxons SP. I think PBEM could be made to work, but some of the less-balanced civs (Sassinids, Huns, maybe Celts) would have to be AI. OR, modify it to make the 2 Romes playable, and do it as a 2v2 (or whatever) with the Romes allied vs. 2-3 allied Barbarian tribes?
4. Middle Ages - My other favorite conquest, played SP as Byzantines, started one as Germans. Played in SGs as Cordova, Swedes, Turks. I understand the MP version only has 8 playable civs, so I don't know how much that affects balance, also if the Crusades make it too easy for certain civs, it could be disabled, or the number of relics reduced.
5. Mesoamerica - Played once as SG (Mayans), we played a 5CC variant, so I may not have the best picture. I can see it would be a fairly balanced setup (although Mayans in the middle would be challenging), but it seemed too easy to just 'farm' your neighbors for workers to sacrifice. For PBEM, it might be better to disable the culture victory, or increase the limit.
6. Age of Discovery - Played SG as France (Culture victory!), and just started a PBEM at CFC (Spain). Lots of fun, I can especially see the interaction during the age of Piracy will be very interesting, but definitely needs some ground rules. (We went no wars in Europe, all natives AI, a few others). Balance is a problem especially for Dutch.
7. Sengoku - Sword of the Shogun - Never played, just heard too many problems with it?
8. Napoleonic Europe - Just finished SG as Prussia, it seems the Diplomacy would make it ideal for PBEM, although there would certainly be balance problems. Might be able to establish different VP targets for each player, and score whoever came closest to (or exceeded) their target for their civ. Or even let players bid on nations, (like Empire in Arms), agreeing to some VP penalty to take the nation they choose.
9. WWII in the Pacific - Haven't played more than a couple turns, hoping to get in on one that Romeothemonk is organizing here in the Opponent Finding Forum (shameless plug

we need a couple more players!). Obviously, it's in effect a 1v4 setup for PBEM, good chance for a team to take on a strong player.

A couple general comments, just on my limited experience with PBEM:
-Most (all?) Conqest MP files default to AP on, do most of you play it that way? The two I'm in have been edited to remove it (and I'm glad), but I'd like to hear from someone who has played with it on.
-Turn order can be critical, if at all possible I think it's best to stick with the order the scenario is designed for, or make minor tweaks. It affects diplomacy (First Human usually gets to make the best deals), combat, etc. WWII obviously is a special case, but the 'default' MP file doesn't give Japan their first strike, when I looked at it. In AoD, it can affect who makes contacts first, or gets to settle certain spots. Just be careful when editing not to upset the balance that is already there.

24-10-2004, 17:03	#1
Socrates Emperor Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,946	Playing the conquests in PBEM I'd like to have input from CDZ players about the worthiness of playing the 9 conquests in PBEM. I see some are preferred to others, but you never know. We can also include the 3 warmup scenarios. Please post your opinion only if you have already played this or that conquest, either in solo or PBEM. I don't wanna hear about significant tweaks, too bad if some conquests are badly thought. Specify any small rule that would fit, and give your general opinion whenever you want. You can copy-paste the text below, stating YES or NO or nothing (whether you think it's worth a try). Warmup scenarios : 1. Ancient Treasures 2. The Three Sisters 3. New Alliances Conquests : 1. Mesopotamia 2. Rise of Rome 3. Fall of Rome 4. Middle Ages 5. Mesoamerica 6. Age of Discovery 7. Sengoku - Sword of the Shogun 8. Napoleonic Europe 9. WWII in the Pacific __________________ Sent from my Debian

24-10-2004, 17:26	#2
Pastorius Custard used tile Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Opening a can Posts: 3,158	I ve played the mesopotamia scen a lot - well - relative to all the others I think you could have some interesting turns of events if you added a no wonderbuilding variant touch to it and had all humans for the game - then it would be a rushfest - and could go quick too... __________________

24-10-2004, 18:33	#3
akots Nebuchadnezzar II Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Glover Park Posts: 4,459	This has been extensive discussed and played at CFC by Loulong Main conclusions: 1. Mesopotamia - greatly unbalanced but may be playable 2. RoR - balanced, great fun (playing 2 ROR games atm) 3. FoR - not suitable for MP must be extensively tweaked 4. Middle Ages - currently playing, so far extremely unbalanced 5. Mesoamerica - cool, balanced 3AI+3human (have played a game) 6. AoD - extremely unbalanced, essentially barely playable but fun 7. Sengoku - poorly balanced, must be tweaked (playing one after another died) 8. Napoleonic - very unbalanced in favor of Britain but huge fun (playing 2 games atm) 9. WWII - very unbalanced but many people play it. Don't know how though So, the only two balanced for all human (4 human + 4 AI) is RoR which is the most popular and Mesoamerica (3 human + 3 AI) Playable but unbalanced: Napoleonic, AoD, WWII, probably tweaked Sengoku, maybe Middle Ages Essentially unplayable (but still played at CFC): Mesopotamia, FoR __________________ Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius)

24-10-2004, 21:43	#4
Matrix Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 4,828	Please note I edited the post. I'm uncapable of judging a scenario's balance. I just tell if it's fun or not. 1. Mesopotamia: YES Short and fun! It appeared to be much more fun than I thought before I started. 2. Rise of Rome: YES My favorite scenario! 2x 1on1. At least it's not about victory points, but old fashion score. 3. Fall of Rome: YES The ultimate warfare. You basically only have attacking units and very weak defending units. Any city losing eight cities, is eliminated. Still you win by having controlled the most victory locations, and you control these locations by having it in your territory. So the one who takes the most risk without getting eliminated wins. When I played it, I took way too much risk and was scared to attack anyone, including the Eastern Roman empire. I lost, because they weren't eliminated (and if both empires aren't eliminated, one of them will eventually win), and if I would attack them, I would find other enemies on my way. 4. Middle Ages: NO Second favorite scenario. When I played as Cordoba, I conquered Rome. Imagine. A pity the AI doesn't try to bring the grail to Jerusalem. Taht grail does make it rather easy to win when playing as England. Playing as a civ far away from Jerusalem basicaly means trying to get 30000 victory points before the Abbasids (the civ who start with owning Jerusalem) do. Though Byzantine also always does a good job! Unsuited for multiplayer IMO, because eight civs are simply too few. 6. Age of Discovery: YES I liked this one too! Though the last time I played it, I was still beta testing. It's only suitable for multiplayer if all humans play as either European or American civs. And even then, as European civ you need to play in the spirit of the game. 7. Sengoku - Sword of the Shogun: NO Now here's a disappointment. It starts out as real fun, but every time I play it, I don't finish it, because it becomes boring once you're done with research. Not that the situation becomes too simple - those ninja's are really fun, though they become rather useless - but it gets too repetitive. It might be different for multiplayer though. Here's my Hall of Fame: http://www.straland.com/C3CHOF.html. __________________

24-10-2004, 22:04	#5
Pastorius Custard used tile Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Opening a can Posts: 3,158	Not found on server, it says. __________________

24-10-2004, 22:28	#7
Pastorius Custard used tile Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Opening a can Posts: 3,158	Got it to work now, and I like the effort. VERY nice. Might inspire a guy to do the same I am going to whip up a template, and if I can make it easy enough (I know html and css) I ll post it here so you guys can use it too. And it appears that I ve hijacked the thread a little - so I ll create a new thread for the civ3hof template thingie when it is finished __________________

24-10-2004, 22:40	#8
akots Nebuchadnezzar II Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Glover Park Posts: 4,459	@Matrix: krys asked about PBEM and you described your SP experience. Though my impressions of SP games are very similar to yours. Except that Shogun I found very interesting. Played them all on Emperor and RoR on Sid as well. And in RBC SG series some as well. __________________ Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius)

25-10-2004, 06:11	#9
Justus II Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Peoria, IL. Posts: 173	I've only recently (past month or so) started playing PBEM, so most of my comments are on SP or SG format. Warmups: Never tried them? Conquests : 1. Mesopotamia - SP-Fun, quick (as mentioned). I've played as Egypt and Mycenae. I'd agree on some balance issues, might be able to make adjustments to boost civs, or assign stronger players to weaker civs? 2. Rise of Rome - One of my 2 favorite conquests. I'm currently in a PBEM (as Rome), and have played Rome SP and Macedon SG, lots of fun and fairly balanced, although Carthage is a challenge. 3. Fall of Rome - Great fun for SP/SG, played as Vandals and East Rome (with Akots for both) in SGs, and a partial game as Anglo-Saxons SP. I think PBEM could be made to work, but some of the less-balanced civs (Sassinids, Huns, maybe Celts) would have to be AI. OR, modify it to make the 2 Romes playable, and do it as a 2v2 (or whatever) with the Romes allied vs. 2-3 allied Barbarian tribes? 4. Middle Ages - My other favorite conquest, played SP as Byzantines, started one as Germans. Played in SGs as Cordova, Swedes, Turks. I understand the MP version only has 8 playable civs, so I don't know how much that affects balance, also if the Crusades make it too easy for certain civs, it could be disabled, or the number of relics reduced. 5. Mesoamerica - Played once as SG (Mayans), we played a 5CC variant, so I may not have the best picture. I can see it would be a fairly balanced setup (although Mayans in the middle would be challenging), but it seemed too easy to just 'farm' your neighbors for workers to sacrifice. For PBEM, it might be better to disable the culture victory, or increase the limit. 6. Age of Discovery - Played SG as France (Culture victory!), and just started a PBEM at CFC (Spain). Lots of fun, I can especially see the interaction during the age of Piracy will be very interesting, but definitely needs some ground rules. (We went no wars in Europe, all natives AI, a few others). Balance is a problem especially for Dutch. 7. Sengoku - Sword of the Shogun - Never played, just heard too many problems with it? 8. Napoleonic Europe - Just finished SG as Prussia, it seems the Diplomacy would make it ideal for PBEM, although there would certainly be balance problems. Might be able to establish different VP targets for each player, and score whoever came closest to (or exceeded) their target for their civ. Or even let players bid on nations, (like Empire in Arms), agreeing to some VP penalty to take the nation they choose. 9. WWII in the Pacific - Haven't played more than a couple turns, hoping to get in on one that Romeothemonk is organizing here in the Opponent Finding Forum (shameless plug we need a couple more players!). Obviously, it's in effect a 1v4 setup for PBEM, good chance for a team to take on a strong player. A couple general comments, just on my limited experience with PBEM: -Most (all?) Conqest MP files default to AP on, do most of you play it that way? The two I'm in have been edited to remove it (and I'm glad), but I'd like to hear from someone who has played with it on. -Turn order can be critical, if at all possible I think it's best to stick with the order the scenario is designed for, or make minor tweaks. It affects diplomacy (First Human usually gets to make the best deals), combat, etc. WWII obviously is a special case, but the 'default' MP file doesn't give Japan their first strike, when I looked at it. In AoD, it can affect who makes contacts first, or gets to settle certain spots. Just be careful when editing not to upset the balance that is already there.