As to claims about competition, I know. I think it'll spice up the game and that's how it also often works in real life. We'll see.

So:

The hotseat, my original proposal, or other?

Btw, dont vote for me.

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

Btw, what will be our general playing style? ICS?

BTW, what's everybody availability to play?

The whole point is dicussing on the forums the next moves. We dont have to be online in the same hours...

My thought would be sort of a competetion. Maybe ICS'ers vs Perfectionists (for an extreme example). Both teams plays the same game with the same civ concurrently. This would serve 2 purposes: 1) Competetion between the 2 teams 2) Real life games for newcomers to watch and ask questions about.

As for available times, I agree I dont think its necessary, but im available most weeknights 9pm - 2am Eastern Time Zone.

quote: Originally posted by Deity Dude on 04-12-2001 11:37 AM Another idea to speed it up a little: Maybe we could do four or five moves at a time via an IM package and post summaries here.

It will take too much time from our "internet time".

I think we should start the first game on a small map, and use only the forums. Yes, such game will take lots of time, but we dont need to hurry.

It seems to me that these games will be the preparations for identical civ3 games, which will be faster because we already gained the expirience.

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

So, who will it be, Siro or me?

Another step towards my way to world domination...

Hey... Sorry... You never heard that.

So when are we starting?

If we'll have to vote, you cannot abstain, that's how one side will always win.

quote: Originally posted by Eli on 04-13-2001 02:19 PM Ok, we're 5 and this is good. If we'll have to vote, you cannot abstain, that's how one side will always win. I suggest Deity,7,RH,Small map.

Do I start it?

I start it because this is my idea.

Hi
I have been away from home, butI think it is great that you guys are finally getting this off the ground. Only thing needed now is to organise how novices can access the map and info to see what is happening. I am not a computer boffin, maybe this is all basic stuff. would it be possible for me to get the same map and starting point so that I can compare my own game. As to everything else, I live in Thailand, would this pose problems for me getting involved?

I do like Deiy Dudes comment "My thought would be sort of a competetion. Maybe ICS'ers vs Perfectionists (for an extreme example). Both teams plays the same game with the same civ concurrently. This would serve 2 purposes: 1) Competetion between the 2 teams 2) Real life games for newcomers to watch and ask questions about."
Is this at all possible?

quote: I have been away from home, butI think it is great that you guys are finally getting this off the ground. Only thing needed now is to organise how novices can access the map and info to see what is happening. I am not a computer boffin, maybe this is all basic stuff. would it be possible for me to get the same map and starting point so that I can compare my own game. As to everything else, I live in Thailand, would this pose problems for me getting involved?

Before every move the team leader uploads the savegame for everyone(not only the team members) to see and make suggestions.

quote: I do like Deiy Dudes comment "My thought would be sort of a competetion. Maybe ICS'ers vs Perfectionists (for an extreme example). Both teams plays the same game with the same civ concurrently. This would serve 2 purposes: 1) Competetion between the 2 teams 2) Real life games for newcomers to watch and ask questions about." Is this at all possible?

IMHO we should convene and give the leader a plan and then let him play and save the game when:
a) a predetermined event happens (see below)
b) the leader, while playing, comes up with a situation that he feels changes the agreed upon gameplan.

Some predetermined events that could cause a meeting of the players could be
1) any new advance - so we could discuss what to go for next
2) anytime a city is founded - so we could discuss what to build and how to (i.e. should we rush build it)
3) when new units are produced - may not be necessary all the time.
I'm sure there are others.

I guess what im trying to avoid is my joke earlier about debating whether to move a settler one square or conveneing on 5 straight days to hit "enter" 5 straight times.

Another thought might be to elect the leader for a term instead of the whole game. It seems like the leader is gonna have alot more work than the other players so we might want to split it up.

One final thought - I really think we should consider some sort of IM package for meetings and maybe post summaries of the discussions here. Otherwise it could literally take weeks to do a single turn (ie if every player averages 2 comments about a turn before the vote on what to do, it would take 10 days before the vote, probably a day or 2 to get all 5 votes, a day to execute the agreed upon vote and repost it - and as the game gets more complicated I think people may have more then 2 comments)

Anyway thats my input, I anxiously await comments

I think it will be faster if one player moves his units, do whatever he has to do with his cities etc,...and when everything is done, he send the savegame to the next player, etc,...

At the end of the turn, the savegame is sent to the Leader who will post here what happened,...