Pairs challenge match

[Parasite]

Slynky and I have impressed each other with our playing styles. We decided it would be fun to play together on a team. We hearby issue a challenge to any two who are like minded. Rules are this.

Two players will be a pair. They will win or not as a team. It is kind of like an expanded KOTH match. Trading tech, swapping planets, partnership treaties, and communication outside of the game will all be allowed. The map may need to be hand done to allow a fair start.

Possible set up...
Single world start (two per pair)
3000 points race
No intel
48 hour turns (last upload at times)
Single pair of opponents.
Any adjustment or modifications will be considered.

We were thinking of a Pair on Pair match, but if there is interest, we could possibly do a "Pairs II" with multiple pairs. It does look like the first "Pairs" game is still active, but it has been on indefinite hold for several years. It was hugely fun when I played in that game.

[douglas]

I'm interested, and my newly addicted roommate is agreeable. I suggest good homeworlds and banning either the entire Religious trait or just the Talisman.

Assuming manual placement to ensure fairness, how close together will teammates start?

[Parasite]

We could start in the same system. Would that be OK, or would you like moving ships to find each other? I am kind of a newbie at making a map for PBW especially one that has manual placement. It might be bad for one of us to do it anyway.

I am OK with good homeworlds and banning Religious.

We welcome you and your roommate. My Email is "dan" DOT "stockelman" at "lennoxintl" DOTcom. Note there is no E in intl, and Lennox is another Lennox than the computer people.

[Slynky]

Typically, in games like these, the teammates need to take the same atmos/colony type. That leaves the 2 other colony types open for research or capture (hehe).

Tech trading is usually a given/must as it shows teamwork and that's what the team challenge is all about.

We can usually find someone to set up a map. I'd say a medium size and starting positions can be side by side or further away if you like.

Also, note, it's common for team member to give passwords to each other merely to say time. Otherwise, all the same info could be passed in "longhand" and giving passwords is nothing more than a way to make it easier.

Just my input on the deal.

[Parasite]

I made a game - Pairs II It may need to be deleted or redone for someone to do the map. I agree on the colony tech, but would like to have different breather types to start. This also gives a possibility of having four different types of breathers. Description below.

Would anyone volunteer to make a map, or generate one. Just put the two homeworlds in the same system and we will

Ready for the first TOTH match? Teams on the heap. Two teams, four starting worlds and win by reliance on another and not on their destruction.

Starting resources: 20000
Starting planets: 1
Home planet value: Good
Score display: Allied
Technology level: Low
Racial points: 3000
Quadrant size: Medium
Event frequency: Low
Event severity: High
Technology cost: Medium
Victory conditions: Last team or partial team
Maximum units: 5000
Maximum ships: 5000
Other game settings: Two teams of two players fight it out. Expect to start in the same system as your teammate. Team members must take the same colony type, but can breath different atmospheres. Religious tech is not allowed.

[douglas]

Looks good, though you forgot to mention no intel. I'll wait for Slynky to join to make things slightly easier for the map maker.

[Slynky]

I'm not real keen on the limit of 5,000 units.

I second the "no intel".

Map type? Spiral or "that other" choice where it just zigzags here and there (not at home, so can't look for the name).

Does event frequency low mean "no events"? (gosh, I'm stupid)

And, what about warp openers and closers? I don't mind stellar manip but maybe we want to have a gentleman's agreement not to use those two. *shrug*

[Parasite]

I put No Intel in the description.

No one has said anything about Stellar Manip. I am willing eather way.

Is a 5000 limit too low or too high. I just remember that that was a max when you made a game up. How about ship limits? Is 5000 too high?

Low freq means more than none. I usually play with the default of Low Catistrafic, but thought people might not want that in a PBW game so I turned it down to high. It is just to have some strange things happening we might not expect.

[PvK]

Might want to use my balance mod...

[douglas]

Team 2 is ready. The shipset I'm using isn't on PBW yet, apparently. It is the Derajil (http://www.astempire.net/NASY/nasy/Derajil/Derajil.htm), one of Atrocities' shipsets for the Race to SEV tournament.

How about a gentleman's agreement to only use warp openers if your team already has a colony on both sides of the new warp point? Closers get the same restriction plus a requirement to leave at least two routes into your side's territory and never completely isolate any section of the galaxy from the rest.

[Slynky]

I'm a bit behind, I guess, but I was waiting till all parameters were finalized.

[Slynky]

Uploaded empire.

Since Parasite created the game, I'm thinking the only person with rights would be Geo to override and be able to make the game.

To set a few things to rest:

I'm thinking we need to forget stellar manip. While I think the proposed rule has merits, it might cause a situation where the opposing team wonders if a link was created between to systems that were colonized (or if it was colonized after the link was made). Though, I imagine by the time stellar manip was around and an opener was made, every system would be inhabited by someone.

So, I'm not steadfast on this one if someone wants to play it that way.

20,000 and 20,000 units/ships.

Any way to swap tech or anything between partners is fine.

Another suggestion since at least one player (my partner) is not fully satisfied with the Balance Mod...and I DO need to make him happy. We can go with standard game map OR use one of the FQM mods. Those are nice and still random. If we want to use it, then we can decide on which one when we get someone to set the game up.

Cheers!

[douglas]

The main thing I don't like about warp openers is the sheer chaos that opening warp points directly to core enemy systems can cause, making effective strategy almost impossible beyond trying to ensure the destruction is mutual. I wouldn't miss the ability to speed up travel within my own empire too much if we just banned warp manipulation completely, though, but I think the rest of stellar manipulation should be left in. All the other offensive stellar manipulations are counterable with reasonably low investment.

Direct tech trading should definitely be allowed, as that's a major part of team play.

For the map, how about FQM Standard Paradise?

[Slynky]

douglas said:
The main thing I don't like about warp openers is the sheer chaos that opening warp points directly to core enemy systems can cause, making effective strategy almost impossible beyond trying to ensure the destruction is mutual. I wouldn't miss the ability to speed up travel within my own empire too much if we just banned warp manipulation completely, though, but I think the rest of stellar manipulation should be left in. All the other offensive stellar manipulations are counterable with reasonably low investment.

Direct tech trading should definitely be allowed, as that's a major part of team play.

For the map, how about FQM Standard Paradise?

I think FQM SP is fine and Stellar is fine but no openers and closers.

Parasite is not available this weekend, but the game can get started anytime we find someone to do a map.

Let's recap to make it easy:

No intel;
No Religious;
No openers/closers;

Starting resources: 20000
Starting planets: 1
Home planet value: Good
Score display: Allied
Technology level: Low
Racial points: 3000
Quadrant size: Medium
Event frequency: Low
Event severity: High
Technology cost: Medium
Victory conditions: Last team or partial team
Maximum units: 20000
Maximum ships: 20000

Have I missed anything?

[Slynky]

Any chance of someone creating this game for us?

[Slynky]

Slynky said:
Any chance of someone creating this game for us?

*polite bump*