Interested in some hot PBEM lovin.

[Onan]

Yeah, it would have to be a 1-each mulligan rule, if we wanted that, which could mean a delay of up to a week or more getting started. Personally, I like to take what I get, even if it means I have to claw my way up out of a pit to stand on an 'even' playing field. My vote would be against one, but I'm open to whatever.

[Bonez]

I'd favor a set rule:

Illegal start = less then 4 tiles of grass within 12 square start loc (ie. all plains, swamp, desert). With 4 tiles of grass... is all you need to get a settler pump working.... if you wanted to get really picky... no river within radius as well.... that could suck tech-wise and growth wise in early game.

So when game starts you call "Illegal Start" and no matter what, pass it on and on turn 2 when we can check saves our independent moderator (which i believe we should have just in case of this situation), can check and verify. Then restart and try again. Just people calling a mulligan on each start will not only take time but could lead to an awkward situation.

[Onan]

yeah this is all starting to sound complicated. I favor the honor system and players being willing to work with what they get, unless it's really horrible and would make the game undesirable to play for them. I think this is the quickest way to get things started, and no one said civ was completely fair. That's where diplomacy comes in.

I favor the three settler start someone mentioned. This should help a bit to alleviate start land concerns as well. Alternatively, QC would be okay. I agree there is appeal to the full game, non-AP and all that, but I know how these PBEMs tend to go and I'd like to run something relatively fast moving that we're likely to carry to its conclusions.

[Avogadro]

I also favor an honor system as I dont think any of us would lie about it.

[Onan]

Checking to see if Owl is still interested, and will contact whip to see if he can get the 3-settler start .biq (or whatever it is) to Avo, so Avo can set the game up for us.

[SnowOwl]

Wow, happy seeing so many posts and ideas. I am all up to start asap. The one important thing is that all players commit to at least one a day move (max 1 every two days) otherwise game soon will become unplayable. Its not a fun making one move a week when a game is interesting.

I am ok with 3 settlers but prefer random land start meaning we wont complain on land to restart the game. What u get u should work with. I will be happy with ffa style cause this can make the game even more interested. I am ok with epic or qc just the question is how many turns we set the game to. 100 turns will mean at least 120-200 days of playing.


And all i can add is that i commit to fighting till the end no matter what.

To speed up things there is my proposal:

Epic 130 turns:
style:ffa
start with 3 settlers
map:standard
reporting: after 60th turn and after 130th
civ pick: players pick their civs but aztec, summer, celts, inca are banned

last thing: It is likely now that i may move back to europe in 1-2 months. it hasnt been decided yet but in this case may be I should start first. Let me know what u think and lets start rolling the ball

[Bonez]

I'd prefer more then 130.... ill be done nuking by 250... maybe cap it there? 130 and we will just be 10-15 turns past cav's (or i will atleast) indu is when pbems REALLY get exciting.

Dont really like the idea of banning civs either... that being the case, I would propose all ancients banned.... its not the uu that matters imo, its the timing of the GA that is most important, tech-wise.

[SnowOwl]

I am ok with 250 however it will be challenge for all to survive up to that turn ... but with ffa it will be even more interested.

As far anc civs are concerned i am really bored seeing them (aztec, summer, celts, inca) over and over again. so yes lets ban all ancient civs.

[Onan]

I prefer no turn cap as well, by 250-300 most likely the outcome will be fairly obvious and remaining players can call it if they want or agree to keep going. Btw if we can do AP in this scenario, I'd be for that in the interests of building momentum quickly.

I'm fine with banning the all-too-common ancient civs, but I think it'd be nice to keep the ones never played in MP, in case anyone wants em--namely babs, persia, rome, byzantines, whoever else I may've overlooked (not maya or egypt).

I guess this means we'll be picking civs, so go ahead and name your choice.

edit: thanks Whip for sending Avo the 3-settler start save.

[MzCiv]

" Re: Interested in some hot PBEM lovin. "

who is PBEM and is he as hot as Donkey ?

if not, can i still have some hot Donkey lovin

[Onan]

(shrug) dunno. Go ask Donkey.

[SnowOwl]

I would agree with bonez and ban all ancient civs. the reason is golden age. but saying this ... if u guys want to pick some ancient civs its ok with me too. Having variety options will make the game less predictable and more interesing.

My pick is Netherlands.

[Avogadro]

hehe nice try mr take only non ancient agri civ

[Avogadro]

Let us decide which players and in first.

1-who is playing
2-Can draw from a hat pick order (if you all trust me that is)
3-cton?
4-vp scoring or no?
5-Non-agri civs?
6-what about sdn's 8-clone scenerio can it be modified for 3 settler start? Or perhaps have all civs have every civ trait (agri,commercial,military, indu, scientific, expansionist?)

[Onan]

Okay, well, let us know if you're not in, anyone, but I was just assuming those who've posted their interest here:

Whiplash, Owl, Avogadro, Bonez, and myself

I think pick order is unnecessary unless two pick the same civ. I would go to pick order only if someone insists on a civ that's been chosen. Actually I'd be more likely to just flip a coin and then move on.

Not cton, ffa. I know 5 player ffa may be unbalanced, again, diplomacy and actually doing things like sharing resources or even making gifts is key here. I mean, we could wait for a sixth player, but then in all likelihood it would be imbalanced again, coming down to two pairs against one, and so on. So let's not try to over-manage it and just enjoy what the game brings, ey?

VP scoring is fine by me...would determine winner if a victory condition is not reached.

I agree non-agri ancients and the not the other usual suspect ancients (gypt, zulu, etc)...I think Netherlands is okay though.

Finally, I think everyone's just a little too concerned about the game being as fair as chess. It's not. That's part of the game, especially in a longer game like this. Let's just get it started instead of going into scenario modification now--I'd like to start this month.

Sound good?