MP: Doedicurus - Introductory CBM (PBEM, Llamaserver) - Upload Pretenders :)

[Janlm]

i vote for super easy research... actually i'd prefer to have it all from turn 2 or 3.

[konming]

I like difficult research. And please no graph off. It only benefits strong players and sometimes cheaters go wild in games with no graph.

[slayers_ai]

Originally Posted by konming

I like difficult research. And please no graph off. It only benefits strong players and sometimes cheaters go wild in games with no graph.

I'd like to second this

[rabelais]

I think graphs off would be a terrible mistake, max info is good for a newb game this size.... If someone is kicking ***, remember to ask them how they did it later?

Are we doing standard magic site concentrations and gold/resources/supplies? I'll be using normal troops as far as the eye can see, so I'd love a gold/resource boost, but that's just naked self-interest. For that matter I have a lot of nature magic lets make supplies 50% or whatever the minimum is...

More seriously, I also tend to play with independents at 9... is that contraindicated in MP?

[Gregstrom]

Bother. I seem to have come across an unexpected problem. Llamaserver doesn't have Faerun available as a game map, and while you can upload .map files you can't upload .tgas.

I'll drop a pm in Llamabeast's direction, and if things go well we may be able to start uploading pretenders over the weekend.

I am planning on using the adventure version of the map, by the way.

Settings so far agreed on are:
Difficult Research
45 VP victory condition
Graphs On

[Edi]

Greg, I just uploaded a new version of the map files on my webspace. They incorporate all of the fixes we have talked about and there's a separate borders map file which makes it easier for you to redo marking the seas as nostart. While you're waiting for llamabeast to upload the map to the server, you might as well go ahead and get a better version of the map to play on.

[Nikelaos]

Originally Posted by rabelais

I think graphs off would be a terrible mistake, max info is good for a newb game this size.... If someone is kicking ***, remember to ask them how they did it later?

Are we doing standard magic site concentrations and gold/resources/supplies? I'll be using normal troops as far as the eye can see, so I'd love a gold/resource boost, but that's just naked self-interest. For that matter I have a lot of nature magic lets make supplies 50% or whatever the minimum is...

More seriously, I also tend to play with independents at 9... is that contraindicated in MP?

I find graphs on a pretty good idea, it makes people have to think and try not to expand to quickly or risk getting ganged up on.

gold/resources boost would affect everyone though a high resource lvl makes high resource nations pretty damn powerful because they only need a small bulk for it to cut down through any number of lighter armed troops, whilst gold tends to favour nations such as shinuyama who have troops such as the obakemonowho cost quite a bit in gold for a unit but have a tiny resource cost (aka 1), going to extremes will only disadvantage nations in the middle with middle resource and middle gold value troops rather than high resource/low gold or vice versa. so let's keep that standard.

taking low supplies tends to favour nature nations who can feed their troops just by having a mage there so that unbalances things too - better leave that standard.

independants at 9 is harsh for some nations, nations not strong early game will almost certainly lose because at the best of times they can't expand fast. Bogarus (LA - so not in this) is probably the best example, all their units are either chaff or overpriced or both but their mages are better than a vast majority of early age nations (in general early age = good magic but bad troops, late age is bad magic but good troops and middle age is somewhere in between), bogarus' mages mean they have a more competent mid game and a powerful late game but they would never reach that far with independants at 9 because they couldn't sustain enough early game expansion to survive.

with such a large amount of players there will be nations from all over the spectrum playing and independants at 9 will automaticly nigh-impossible for those late age nations to win.
Again i believe standard would be fairest.

[Edi]

Indies 9 is a bad idea if you intend to get the game off the ground quickly. The standard indies 5 is ridiculously low. I have always played my SP games on indies 7 and that's a level where you do need to put in some thought as to where you go and what you do and awake SCs need to be slightly more careful or they can end up hurt.

[konming]

Other than research difficult, HoF 15, and rename on, I think all else should be set to default. We have full 23 nations and we do not want radical settings to kill off some nations automatically.

As it is, rush nations have an advantage (many provinces, wide open land, and difficult research), we should not make them any easier by jacking up gold or indy strength.

[Nikelaos]

Originally Posted by konming

Other than research difficult, HoF 15, and rename on, I think all else should be set to default. We have full 23 nations and we do not want radical settings to kill off some nations automatically.

As it is, rush nations have an advantage (many provinces, wide open land, and difficult research), we should not make them any easier by jacking up gold or indy strength.

kudos you have brains,

also we want the independant strength relatively low anyway in such a big game so it doesn't take so long waiting for people to prepare that bit more in order to take provinces, and as you should know by now the higher the independant strength the bigger the advantage for those rush nations who already have a big advantage because mid game shall be coming late due to large map and difficult research.