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 ?

[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 [] ) 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! [] 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