|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 18, 2006 15:44:06 GMT -5
I'm trying to round up a large group of players for an epic Warlords PitBoss game.
This thread has been moved. It will be continued here: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=egames&thread=1154321278&page=1
go there to sign up for the game!
From the readme file for those who don't know:'Participating in a PitBoss game is simple. Join the game like you would any other; select a PitBoss game in the LAN or Internet lobby, or connect directly to a known IP Address. Aside from the indication in the ‘PB’ column of the lobbies, the fact that the game is being run by The PitBoss should be completely invisible to you when joining. Once you are in the game, however, Civilization IV may play a bit differently from classic multiplayer games. If all participants are currently logged into the game, it will play exactly the same as a classic Civilization IV multiplayer game. You are free to move as soon as it is your turn, you are free to chat to the other players, you are free to conquer the world! However, the most important difference when playing a PitBoss game is that all other participants may not always be logged in. If you are engaged in a PitBoss game, and another player logs out, you are free to make your move if it is your turn. Afterwards, the game is on hold until that player logs back in and makes his move. You are free to study the map. You can even manage cities and change technologies. But you cannot move your units until all other players finish their turns, and your turn is again active.' For the rest of the readme file, go to: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=pspga&action=display&thread=1144988772This thread has been moved. It will be continued here: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=egames&thread=1154321278&page=1 go there to sign up for this game!
|
|
|
Post by conquistador45 on Jul 19, 2006 7:02:37 GMT -5
I have been looking to get involved in a PB game.
I would be available to play as follows: Weekdays- 7am - 8am and 10pm -1am Weekends- 7am - 1am
Times are eastern......I`m in western Canada, (pacific time). Thx
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 20, 2006 9:21:33 GMT -5
Im in!!
and conqi, i have never used pitboss before but the way it works is everyone has 24 hours to play there save so avalible times not important. (i think)
if we doing it pit boss the number of players does not effect the game, so a huge pitposs game of like 16 players would be f-ing brilliant. But you know i think it would be a nice idea to wait until warlords.
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 20, 2006 16:01:22 GMT -5
and conqi, i have never used pitboss before but the way it works is everyone has 24 hours to play there save so avalible times not important. (i think) Actually, you can only log in and make moves when the host is logged in. So times are important unless I decide to leave my computer on 24/7, which I may if enough people in different time zones sign up.
|
|
|
Post by IanDC on Jul 21, 2006 10:34:32 GMT -5
I'd be interested in trying this as well.
Located in the UK -
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 21, 2006 11:14:46 GMT -5
I m doing a pitboss atm and it s much better as pbm imo - no relaods
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 21, 2006 13:21:17 GMT -5
Ok, Elizabeth and Isabella are now taken. Things are staring to take shape, we'll be playing on a huge map, probably continents, and I would like raging barbs if nobody has any objections. For those of you who haven't tried it, it's not that much more difficult if you develop your military. I've tried it on SP and I like it. It adds experience points to your early units so if you have an early war you are somewhat battle-hardened.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 21, 2006 20:06:56 GMT -5
Huge map? OK im out!
Will only only on standard with 8 large with 12 and huge with 18!!
These maps are easily big enough
Also ranging barbs make the game unbelievablly dull, civ is about empire building not mindlessly killing barbs.
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 22, 2006 12:07:02 GMT -5
It's a given that we are not going to start a huge map with four players, dude. Obviously, the map size will ultimately be determined by the number of players. And I was just throwing the raging barbs out there to see if anyone was paying attention. Just my way of reminding everyone to state what settings you want. And don't overreact and quit if something is a deal-breaker for you. We're still in the early formation of the game and I'm flexible. It's all good.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 22, 2006 15:39:07 GMT -5
pitboss is 10x faster to handle as pbm and no reloads and u can go on if some1 is afk if u set a turnclock - thats the main pro i think
|
|
|
Post by thectrain on Jul 23, 2006 4:10:15 GMT -5
I agree I think continents is the way to go and the map should be as big as appropriately possible. At least, I definitely want a map where I can sail around the world and search for undiscovered land, preferably with oil! If any other map fits that criteria (and doesn't isolate us like archipelegos) that's cool with me. And I've never played raging barbs so I don't have an opinion; I guess it could be a fine line between them being so frequent they get in the way of the game or them just keeping a player on their toes.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 23, 2006 9:46:18 GMT -5
i guess custom conts would be the way to go, 3 per island, if we get 6 players, on small map with low sea level maybe?
custom cont maps are pretty big
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 24, 2006 14:48:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Jul 24, 2006 16:40:11 GMT -5
Ok. I'm very interested. Though I'm not crystal clear on how this works.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 24, 2006 17:27:30 GMT -5
OK if we can have multiple leaders i would like to test ghandi out but if not i guess ill take Qin
|
|
stin
Settler
Posts: 39
|
Post by stin on Jul 25, 2006 2:29:21 GMT -5
I would like to give it a go. Can I take Catherine?
|
|
stin
Settler
Posts: 39
|
Post by stin on Jul 26, 2006 12:55:34 GMT -5
I would prefer a non ladder game for my 1st try at PB. Therefore I dont mind non ladders playing and I prefer cton style as FFA can screw some players who dont get an alliance going.
I will get WL when it comes out here in UK at the weekend so best to play that. Will be a good way to learn.
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Jul 26, 2006 19:05:24 GMT -5
Cton is no tech trading and always war with eveyone (no alliances). Cton is also random civs but that isn't always the case.
Cton is not an acronym btw. Cton is a player who used to play in the Civ3 ladder who had this game style named after her.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 26, 2006 20:28:39 GMT -5
I hate too much democracy, just set some rules up and get this flying, although i think it would be a good idea to do it in warlords.
I can image in a month no one will play vanilla civ, and i dont wanna think back to remember what was the best tactic when i used to play 2 months ago!
Cton or FFA both work for me, im a super diplomat and a master cton- ... person!
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 26, 2006 20:58:35 GMT -5
No tech trading makes it so you have less knowledge as to how far advanced other civs are. Being able to trade technologies is realistic so I kinda like it.
I think if two players share all their techs with each other to team up against another without a Permanent Alliance first, they do so at their own risk. When one "pseudo-teammate" (without a Perm Alliance, Defense Pact, etc.) betrays the other, which they will eventually, they may be in for a rude awakening.
Over the centuries of history, wars have been fought by various coalitions of forces, many of which had an unfair advantage, for example the coalition of the willing vs. Iraq in the recent Iraq war. Some people were in favor of the invasion, though most were not.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right or necessary to gang up on the player with the highest ladder rank or otherwise best reputation outside the current game, but it should be expected and natural for players to gang up on the highest scorer or strongest military in the current game only.
In my humble opinion, the cton style as described doesn't fully prevent gangbangs. As long as players can communicate with each other through chat and they send their forces where they please, "always war" doesn't ensure the game will be fair. It only makes it easier to backstab your former allies when the time comes. ;D Exactly how much thought did cton put into her playing style in terms realism and effectiveness, may I ask?
Given that I feel alliances are gonna form anyhow, why not opt for the depth of realism that the creator designed and intended with all the diplomatic options allowed? In addition, the only way we can fully experiment the full experience of Warlords is allow Vassal States, which would not be permitted in a cton.
As your humble moderator and host, I will personally hold myself accountable for the fairness of this game. I realize that as I am also playing I cannot be considered by all to be completely neutral, but I will pledge my short lived reputation in this august group on my impartiality. If any players are found to be ganging up on a civilization because its controller is of high rank or repute, they will be kicked form the game. [as of the Warlords expansion, the above lengthy speech is rendered moot]
In any event, if during the game you see civs ganging up on another and this upsets you, please join the underdog in the fight, just like in real life! Besides, if this is not going to be an official ladder game for purposes of scoring, then the points made above are moot. I welcome any counterpoints offered.
|
|