Is there going to be a C&C3??

[bjarkekr]

Well.. As topic says.. Are we starting another game??

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Absolutely!  It won't be for a couple weeks though.  I have a lot on my plate at the moment, work-wise (The United Nations project I cited on my Facebook page, for starters).  Plus, I need to find a mod creator so we can make a custom mod to tackle our needs for CC3 (~30 players, increased usable land, hiding/removal of points, other RP enhancements).

I'll be sending out a notice to everyone currently registered on these forums when we get closer to reaching that point.  It will probably be a couple weeks at least.

[bjarkekr]

Sounds great.. Cant wait

[Niklas]

Plus, I need to find a mod creator so we can make a custom mod to tackle our needs for CC3 (~30 players, increased usable land, hiding/removal of points, other RP enhancements).

As I noted elsewhere I might be able to help with that. I wrote the (full version of the) NoScore mod used in quite a few games nowadays, so at least I know the hiding/removal of points part . For increased usable land, sounds like you'd need a custom map script (or a custom-made map?) rather than something in the mod, no? Other enhancements, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Niklas, your expertise would be highly desirable.

I've assembled the following list of features that I've gathered over the months from player feedback.  This is an opportunity, too, for ChaosCiv players to add their comments.

Niklas, would the following be possible?

Hopefully, some of the heavy lifting can be done by borrowing from existing mods which have features we like.

        Required Features

* Increase military support costs, particularly when in foreign territory (this is to reduce war focus and reflect a more realistic war cost)
* Modify production/build times to Normal speed, but keep research time at Epic (this allows more realistic build times while retaining longer-term research so units are not obsolete so quickly)
* increased land percentage with reduced tundra and ice (though we still need tundra resources like beaver, deer, silver, so maybe we could just change so all tundra is instead made into plains and yet still have those resources appear?)
* Should allow for 28 (or more) players, similar to the mod we are presently using.
* remove points display for each civ

        Desired Features

* More detailed and accurate demographic stats (such as measuring true military unit numbers, rather than vague "power".  For starters, eliminating the calculation of barracks and similar into the power stats.)
* Reduction in foreign minister intelligence--such as current techs another civ has (makes it more challenging to learn the advanced nature of another civ--though maybe this would not be desirable by players?).
* Increased map size? (though this might cause strain on everyone's computers and the connection too)

---------

        New Forum Features (this will be implemented with a few forum mods probably and I'll find someone who can do this)

* A points-based system, where each ACTIVE player (defined as posting at least once in the forums per week, for example) receives automatic votes to spend on voting up other players based on their RP for the past week. The votes expire each week and cannot be used on themselves.
* Each vote equals a point. Points are automatically tallied and a cumulative total is displayed in a table.
* Each month, top five players by RP points are tallied.
* Desired Feature:  a player's vote spending is also on display (Player X voted for Players Y and Z this week)
* Possible issue:  leader changes mean new forum members.  But if we are going on a month-by-month basis, this should be minimized.

* We could have different sorts of contests too, each month (voted on by members).  For example, Best Origination Myth, Best News Coverage, or Most Original Artwork.


Question regarding the map adjustments:  I don't know if it's possible to utilize a custom map in a Pitboss game.  Does anyone know of a way to do so?  This would help in setting up/ensuring there is adequate arable land for so many civs (though I'd be hesitant to go so far as to cherry-pick starting locations as that would be hard to keep fair).

Edit:  I think we would have to create a custom scenario perhaps? 

[Niklas]

* Increase military support costs, particularly when in foreign territory (this is to reduce war focus and reflect a more realistic war cost) Easy
* Modify production/build times to Normal speed, but keep research time at Epic (this allows more realistic build times while retaining longer-term research so units are not obsolete so quickly) Easy
* increased land percentage with reduced tundra and ice (though we still need tundra resources like beaver, deer, silver, so maybe we could just change so all tundra is instead made into plains and yet still have those resources appear?) This is a map generation issue, nothing to do with the mod. I can't help you there, ask Munro though.
* Should allow for 28 (or more) players, similar to the mod we are presently using. No idea, but should be easy to see how it's done in the 40civ mod that C&C2 used.
* remove points display for each civ Easy

        Desired Features

* More detailed and accurate demographic stats (such as measuring true military unit numbers, rather than vague "power".  For starters, eliminating the calculation of barracks and similar into the power stats.) Hard, but the hardest part would probably be to decide what the proper calculation should be, i.e. what stats to actually display.
* Reduction in foreign minister intelligence--such as current techs another civ has (makes it more challenging to learn the advanced nature of another civ--though maybe this would not be desirable by players?). If No Tech Trading is on, easy (otherwise impossible).
* Increased map size? (though this might cause strain on everyone's computers and the connection too) No idea if a mod is needed for this to work, otherwise it's again a map generation issue.

So in summary, yeah, not too tricky for most of it. The demographic stats is the trickiest. Removing power numbers for buildings (and techs?) is trivial, but if you want the calculation to be done in a completely different way it will be trickier.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Hey Niklas -- that's great!

So the "Desired Features" are probably out, and that's fine.

Would you be willing to work on a mod with the "required features" as listed? 

I will look into the map generation issue (tundra/ice reduction, map size increase).  I'm guessing we need a custom scenario for that.  If anyone reading this has a solution, please let me know.

[Munro]

Hey Niklas -- that's great!

So the "Desired Features" are probably out, and that's fine.

Would you be willing to work on a mod with the "required features" as listed? 

I will look into the map generation issue (tundra/ice reduction, map size increase).  I'm guessing we need a custom scenario for that.  If anyone reading this has a solution, please let me know.

Cap - are you saying you want a larger map than what is generated by the 'huge' setting on most map scripts?  That is probably a bad idea for performance reasons - you might find some people just aren't able to finish the game once you get to the modern era and there is a lot going on..

The other stuff is easy though.  Probably your best bet is to download one of the many custom map scripts that let you control those settings like water %, tundra %, ice % etc.  You can turn off (or severely tone down) ice, desert and tundra.  There are lots of other options too that may be useful for a MP game (like minimum separation for the teams).

The one I used for the TG 'Pitsuc' game which just started (using Niklas' mod ) was 'Full of Resources' - it should have pretty much everything you need.  http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151629

It's also perfectly possible to just edit the worldbuilder file, which is a plaintext file.  E.g. just search and replace TerrainType=TERRAIN_TUNDRA with TerrainType=TERRAIN_PLAINS (or whatever you want) for example, which will also leave all the bonus resources in place.  But a custom map script is probably the easiest way to go...

[Niklas]

Would you be willing to work on a mod with the "required features" as listed?

I managed to increase the maximum player number, wasn't hard at all. Integrating that custom dll with the NoScore mod gives everything you're asking for except the increase in maintenance costs. Fixing that is really easy, we just need to decide what we want the number to be. If you give me a number, I can have the mod completed for you tonight.

The NoScore mod not only removes the point display but also the "global" demographics screen. I.e. no demographics are visible other than graphs, assuming you have the appropriate EP allocated. You didn't explicitly ask for that, but IMO this is highly desired.

Btw, the Fog of War game at TG uses the NoScore mod on Deity level. For that game I modded the Deity level research costs to be Epic, just as you asked for this game. That game is still far from complete, just coming into the industrial ages, but I must say I really think research is coming along in exactly the speed desired for a game like this.

[Niklas]

Here's an idea that might open up more cans of worms than it's worth, but I figured I'd put it out there anyway...

Since C&C aims to promote original roleplaying, and the intention is to use a custom mod - why not let players mod their civilizations as well? There's a ton of custom leaderheads, units, buildings etc to be found in the modding section at CFC. It shouldn't be all that hard to compile the resources to customize civilizations for players in the mod we're setting up. I mean, we've all seen more Willems than we care to by now...

There are two main issues with this that I can see:

• It will increase the size of the mod significantly. It's a one-time download, but will increase the time to load the mod each time ever so slightly (unless you're starting the game with the mod directly, then it shouldn't matter). Personally this wouldn't matter to me, but some might object.
• There's the issue of balance. If players can customize their leader traits, UU and UB to synergize perfectly, some of the balance will go out of the game. If we can trust players to be a bit wise and unassuming in their choices, and perhaps have some peer review strategy in place, I think we could keep the potential problems in check.

Thoughts?

[da_Vinci]

Btw, the Fog of War game at TG uses the NoScore mod on Deity level. For that game I modded the Deity level research costs to be Epic, just as you asked for this game. That game is still far from complete, just coming into the industrial ages, but I must say I really think research is coming along in exactly the speed desired for a game like this.

Fog has tech trading on ... if Cap envisions no tech trading, then pace won't be nearly as fast (well, except maybe for Munro ...    )

dV

[IanDC]

Btw, the Fog of War game at TG uses the NoScore mod on Deity level. For that game I modded the Deity level research costs to be Epic, just as you asked for this game. That game is still far from complete, just coming into the industrial ages, but I must say I really think research is coming along in exactly the speed desired for a game like this.

I think the pace of research is pretty good in that game (it has tech trading on so it's going very fast but with it off it could be right).

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Awesome, Niklas!  Hmmm, as far as unit support costs, what do you guys think?  Twice the normal rate when a unit is in foreign territory?  Or is that too punitive?

Thanks for the lead on the custom map script.  I've toyed with it a few hours in single player, but in Pitboss it doesn't appear to offer any special options, either.  Maybe I need to update my Civ install to the current version for that to work?  You said Munro was able to get this map script to work for pitboss?

Regarding tech trading, I think we discussed in another thread (I can't seem to find right now) that we might want to go back to Tech Trading on, though keep Tech Brokering disabled. 

Ian -- I like anything that will enhance the RP element, but I wonder if implementing those features you describe would be more effort than it's worth.  And regarding balance, you're absolutely right;  in fact, that's why we didn't allow players to mix-and-match leaders and civs, as there is great potential for imbalance.  Thanks for the idea though.


Just was thinking...for our purposes, maybe we could create a custom scenario for CC3.  It would be a randomly-generated map with editing to make sure there is adequate arable land.  Though I guess we would have to assign starting locations, and even if the map is given out for everyone to review on their own, there might be qualms about who starts where and with what resources nearby.

[Munro]

Awesome, Niklas!  Hmmm, as far as unit support costs, what do you guys think?  Twice the normal rate when a unit is in foreign territory?  Or is that too punitive?

Might be the wrong approach... the short term pain will still be worth the pain if it gives you a long term edge over your smaller competitors...

Maybe increasing the 'number of cities' maintenance is the way to go (or in combination with increasing supply costs, War Weariness etc)?  To remove the incentive for 'big nations' in the first place, that leaves space for everyone to enjoy the game without too many people getting wiped out too quickly.

Thanks for the lead on the custom map script.  I've toyed with it a few hours in single player, but in Pitboss it doesn't appear to offer any special options, either.  Maybe I need to update my Civ install to the current version for that to work?  You said Munro was able to get this map script to work for pitboss?

Just setup the map who you want in single player, then hit CTRL-W to enter world builder mode (close your eyes at this point if you don't want to spoil the surprise) and save it as a worldbuiler file.  Then you can load it into pitboss as a custom scenario.

Regarding tech trading, I think we discussed in another thread (I can't seem to find right now) that we might want to go back to Tech Trading on, though keep Tech Brokering disabled. 

I'm getting a bit bored of tech trading games, TBH.  To be competitive, you pretty much have to team up early on and make a very permanent commitment to your allies.  It makes the rest of the game's diplomacy much less dynamic and ultimately less interesting and fun. 

What might be nice is to mod the game to both:

a) significantly increase the 'elastic band' effect that gives a boost for researching techs already known by others (to make it closer and more interesting for those lagging in techs)
b) increase the boost even further if you have OB with that player (which is more realistic anyway, but could also give a little bit more depth to the diplomacy).

This should make for more interesting allegiances because there's no need for alliances to be permanent, closed or equal... (sharing all techs) - people could open or close borders according to the tactical or strategic situation and without betraying any long term commitments (which are inherent to all-for-all tech sharing arrangements).

[da_Vinci]

Bernout went as far as to impose a slowly expanding city limit in his PITSUC game, and included rapid catch up with no tech trading.  Do we want to bring that to the next C&C?

dV

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Just setup the map who you want in single player, then hit CTRL-W to enter world builder mode (close your eyes at this point if you don't want to spoil the surprise) and save it as a worldbuiler file.  Then you can load it into pitboss as a custom scenario.

OK, so if that is the case I could just as well create a map from scratch (well, more or less) to manually edit out the undesirable plots.  Doing this, I would feel more comfortable in sharing it with everyone in the game beforehand--for critiquing as well as fairness since I am playing in it too.

And if we do THAT, then we would run into people of the same nationality vying to obtain the more desirable starting locations.

So with the above points made, what I would like to propose for CC3 would be a sort of new world land rush:

* everyone starts on a small island with the same number of units and a galleon or two, but no cities.  (I think this should be possible with Complete Kills enabled).
* the map (which everyone will receive beforehand) will consist of a few large continents with the tiny starter islands in a separate area. 
* the starter islands won't be devoid of resources, so if players wish to try a strategy of "conquering the old world" by planting a city and attempting to take claim the abandoned islands nearby, they can do so.  Most people will probably want to head directly for the mainlands though, since that's where the resources are.

* alternative:  instead of galleons on islands (which makes for too rapid of sea exploration early on) an option would be instead to set up the starting locations along one or both poles, with narrow land bridges connecting to the main continents.  There could still be additional continents uninhabited.

* Disadvantages of the above proposal would be:  slower startup (no advanced start).  Potential for your guys to get killed off by wild animals before you get settled (though we could offset this by providing adequate escort warriors and enough gold to support them for a few dozen turns), and more of a "land rush" mentality early on (which actually could be interesting).

If we are going to use a saved map/scenario, we'd might as well do something unique, right?  The RP could be along the lines of the Alpha Centauri game (we could be immortal beings sent to inhabit a planet--this explains why the civ leaders never die.).

This also would pretty much eliminate any bad starts since everyone starts with the same units and knowledge of the full map.

Maybe increasing the 'number of cities' maintenance is the way to go (or in combination with increasing supply costs, War Weariness etc)?

a) significantly increase the 'elastic band' effect that gives a boost for researching techs already known by others (to make it closer and more interesting for those lagging in techs)
b) increase the boost even further if you have OB with that player (which is more realistic anyway, but could also give a little bit more depth to the diplomacy).

These are insightful suggestions, Munro.  Niklas, would you envision trouble implementing any of this?

I think my main goal with Chaos and Civility is not to eliminate war altogether--that's a significant and enjoyable part of the game, after all--but to allow less emphasis on conquering thy neighbor as the "easiest" path to victory.  I also am keenly interested in seeing the game last a long time without rushing through the techs or creating situations which so often happen, where some players are left so badly in the dust it's no longer fun for them to continue.

Not trying to create a commune utopia;  just something which levels the playing field some for the casual gamers so we can enjoy more RP.

Of course, I continue to welcome ideas though.

[Munro]

If we are going to use a saved map/scenario, we'd might as well do something unique, right?  The RP could be along the lines of the Alpha Centauri game (we could be immortal beings sent to inhabit a planet--this explains why the civ leaders never die.).

This also would pretty much eliminate any bad starts since everyone starts with the same units and knowledge of the full map.

I like the RP idea but I'm not sure about having a 'known map' beforehand.   I kinda enjoy exploring the map and a bit more organic growth.  I can see the 'rush for land' idea being even more unbalancing than a random start - if two or more civs head for the same spot?  Someone gets beaten to a decent starting location, and has to settled several turns later in a less desirable position.  Since early advantage has a snowball / cumulative effect, that could leave those civs uncompetitive before they've even begun....

Maybe increasing the 'number of cities' maintenance is the way to go (or in combination with increasing supply costs, War Weariness etc)?

a) significantly increase the 'elastic band' effect that gives a boost for researching techs already known by others (to make it closer and more interesting for those lagging in techs)
b) increase the boost even further if you have OB with that player (which is more realistic anyway, but could also give a little bit more depth to the diplomacy).

These are insightful suggestions, Munro.  Niklas, would you envision trouble implementing any of this?

I'm pretty sure Niklas already did (a) in his pitsuc mod.  Looks like it's just an .xml value so easy to make it whatever we want.  (I'd be interested to see it at least 100% or 200% higher)...?

I also know there are other MODs out there which already alter the 'known civ' tech boost depending on whether you have OB, so it's probably feasible to do that too.. perhaps by merging Niklas' .xml changes with that mod (if it uses a custom .dll) or something similar...

BTW - not sure about the 'number of cities maintenance' but it looks like 'distance maintenance' is just another .xml value (so also very easy to mod):

   <Define>
      <DefineName>MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE</DefineName>
      <iDefineIntVal>25</iDefineIntVal>
   </Define>

This might be a good one to tweak as well (so small, packed empires aren't necessarily penalised as much as more extensive land grabs... this might even be better than penalizing 'number of cities' maintenance...)

Edit: I can't see anywhere in the XML where we can change the 'number of cities' maintenance, but it's easy to modify the courthouse -50% maintenance bonus.  So we could easily nerf that as well (e.g. to -25% maintenance) and either reduce the hammer cost by half, or give it some other small boost instead (+2 gold?) so that it is still balanced, but overall makes it more expensive to maintain larger empires...

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Someone gets beaten to a decent starting location, and has to settled several turns later in a less desirable position.

This could be offset by having the nearer-locations slightly less desirable than those further away.

As for the thrill of exploration, I do empathize with that.  I just would feel less inclined to create a map for a game I am playing in, if I am the only one who gets to see the map beforehand, you know?  I'd suggest that there is still plenty to be had in the way of exploring, too, since I would ensure there are continents accessible only by ocean (and we could have the starting boats be only galleys).  Sure, you could look in your map builder, but you won't know which nations ended up settling on which areas, and where the barbarians inevitably plant their roots on the new world continents.

Also, there's no denying that having a well-thought-out map with adequate "healthy" starting locations surely would be superior to the roll-of-the-dice that comes with auto-generated maps.  Even with tundra and ice removed or reduced, you still run into issues of some civs starting way too close together, even while vacuums of land remain elsewhere.  This phenomena seems to be exponential when dealing with greater quantity of players.

I could also make a point of having certain luxury resources available ONLY on certain continents.  For example, spice is available only on one, silk only on another.  The new world continent(s) (separated by ocean and thus inhabited only by barbarians until astronomy is discovered) could have one or two luxuries exclusive to it, too (and maybe a couple modern strategic resources, such as oil or aluminum).

So I would still be inclined to suggest that a custom map would be a viable option, though I remain reluctant to go that route if it's not openly shared with everyone who chooses to see it (as I want to remain fair and unbiased, particularly since I want to play, too).

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the advantages could outweigh the disadvantages, when it comes to using a custom map.  Even the one true disadvantage (no thrill of uncharted territories) is minimized since you still will want to find out who has laid claim to which portions of the lands.

Something to think about anyway?

[DribNairb]

I quite like the ideas being thrown around here and I'd be happy to play whatever the outcome. However, without trying to sound too defeatist I can think of a few potential problems (nothing insurmountable) with what's been suggested:

• If all players start in the same place and 2 head out towards the same starting location then the first player to reach it will gain a significant advantage. It could end up that the player who takes time off work to make their turn gets to settle first! Sounds a little bit unfair
• I would have thought that the advanced start mitigates most of the problems with bad starting locations? Of course, some players are always going to be worse off than others but if we omit the advanced start it's going to take several turns before players are actually doing anything other than moving a few units. I know I'd continue to play in that situation, but would everyone else (especially the newer players?)
• My gut feeling is that a map visible to everyone at the start is a bad idea since it reduces some of the unknowns and therefore some of the exploration. However, one of the problems with the last 2 games was that the stories from the other continent meant very little because I'd no idea what they were talking about. So perhaps for RP it would actually turn out much better.
• I'm all for helping players catch up, but there needs to be an advantage for the players who get techs first. We don't want the situation where it's actually better to sit and hoard your cash and then research the techs once everyone else knows them because it's much cheaper. Alternatively, one mod I played had a research 'leak' whereby I got 1 beaker for each tech other players knew that I didn't. It was deducted off each tech. I think it gave 2 beakers if you had open borders with the civ (and 0 if you hadn't met them yet). Might be worth a consideration since it means backward players get a noticeable boost and eventually get some techs for free.
• I may have mis-understood this, but are you going to hide the score for each player in the game? If so, won't civstats show that information anyway?
• I don't know about the rest of you, but I felt C&C2 ended rather quickly. With more time and planning it would have been possible to have a more interactive intercontinental war, but the endgame research went through very fast. Has anyone played the "Next War" mod which comes with BtS? It's the same basic game, but the modern era is extended with more techs/units. Of course I've no idea if it can be integrated with all the other mod changes we require but personally I think it improves the game without requiring everyone to learn a new set of rules (If memory serves there aren't any noticeable differences until way after Physics has been researched).

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Regarding the concept of creating a map, I'm not sure if we can create a custom map AND have advanced start enabled, due to the fact that the AI would then use those advanced start points.  What I could do instead, however, is to give each player a few extra starting units (each get 2-3 settlers, for example).

What I would also propose is this:

* I edit a randomized map, with the express purpose of ensuring there is viable starting positions for each player (with publicized guidelines, such as:  minimum XX spaces between players, minimum XX resources at each starting location).
* I could then either distribute a copy of the map to all players for review before we start OR distribute it only after all players have made their first turn. 
* I would specifically refrain from logging into my civ until after every other player with the same leader as I, have done so.  This would keep it a bit more fair, to extinguish any doubts that I might be selecting a preferential starting location.
* I would also add at least one "new world" unsettled continent separated by ocean, to allow for potential colonial-era developments.

I think this would still allow plenty of exploration while eliminating poor starts.  Plus, it would, as Drib alluded to, allow for maybe a bit more universally-visible roleplaying.

I would be perfectly fine with the Plenty of Resources mod, though I don't think it will work with Advanced Start (due to the AI spending the points) and if I have to go in and edit the map file anyway then I could just as easily make more specific edits (such as a new world continent and double-checking of starting location quality).  The lack of Advanced Start from using a savemap could be mitigated by giving each player the same starting units.

I may have mis-understood this, but are you going to hide the score for each player in the game? If so, won't civstats show that information anyway?

That is a very good question!  Maybe Niklas' mod simply does not post the points to civstats?

I'm all for helping players catch up, but there needs to be an advantage for the players who get techs first.

All true too, of course.  Do you think the "elastic band" of known civ researching bonuses that Munro described would be overly aggressive? 

Also:  keep in mind we are talking about having tech trading ON for CC3, though with tech brokering OFF.

[DribNairb]

Re: tech trading - even without tech brokering - we accidentally proved in C&C1 that they only way to survive was to be in a tech alliance as everyone else fell far behind. Is the idea to let a lone civ be able to still keep up in the tech race? If so, the research cost of techs will have to drop to around 50% for them.

I know the elastic band effect already exists but I don't know the mathematical mechanics behind it. I would assume that simply multiplying the existing effect a little won't cause too many problems, but if it's increased to the point where the last player (or even the 10th player) almost gets the tech for free then I can see that causing problems. If we increase it too much it might become significantly less beneficial to be the first to research a tech. That's my worry.

Having said that, it might be interesting to see how players get around the problem. It might be that the optimal path is to always be the 4th person to research something

[Munro]

Lots of interesting discussion.  Taking the various points in turn...

map:

• I'm still very unconvinced by the need for a custom map.  All the various concerns - viable start positions, fair separation of start positions etc - can be addressed with a bit of experimentation and an MP-focused mapscript (of which there are several available).  A pre-revealed map does take away some of the interest, and has other implications - what to do about hidden resources for example?  Do we reveal those as well?  How to verify (by hand) that starts are really fair without checking those too?  It starts to influence the game in sorts of undesirable ways and just isn't needed to ensure a fair start.  (Yet another option is to have an impartial 3rd party check the map beforehand - which wouldn't be too hard to find).
• Interesting point about making the early stories more relevant.  Could we all start on the same continent (e.g. terra or pangea map) or use one of the world wrap maps like Lakes (maybe with high water level to ensure naval relevance)?  It's also easy to tweak the Mod to give everyone an extra scout or two at the beginning so we really get to explore the map before the borders all start to close up to help make news from around the globe more interesting.
• These map scripts work fine with advanced starts if that's what we want.  Although this doesn't appeal to me at all.  It's a pretty new and rarely used feature whose weighting and balance has had relatively little fine tuning and game testing by the wider community (compared to the main game engine which has been tweaked and refined over several years).  As such it has the potential to be quite (and unintentionally) unbalancing.  It also takes away from what is quite a fun and important early part of the game IMHO.  Do we really need it?  If we want to speed up the start, maybe we could give people an extra settler and other units at the start (like an AI deity start) so at least we're consistent.  Also, as for people getting bored and leaving - if someone can't last the first week without getting bored (especially with 2 settlers) - are they really likely to still be around in a year anyway?  

Techs:

• The tech boost for 'known civs with this tech' is x/n, where x is the number of civs you have met (and who are still alive) with this tech, and n is the number of civs who started the game.  So if we start with say 20 players, then with the default 30% boost, each civ you know with this tech gives a 1.5% boost.  If you're the last player to researh the tech AND you have met everyone AND no-one has been eliminated yet, you get a 28.5% boost.  (Still not that significant if you're in last place).
• I haven't tried it yet but I doubt that increasing the max to 100% would be particularly unbalancing, because even being 2nd or 3rd gives only a modest boost (5 or 10%) and for most techs there is either a tangible benefit from having it earlier (access to new buildings, units, resources etc) and / or a premium for being first.  So it seems unlikely that cash hoarding will pay off that well in most cases.
• Are we dead set on playing with tech trading on?  As already noted, this just forces players to organize into rigid, early tech-trading blocs (especially with tech-brokering off since casual trades with as yet unaligned players make even less sense, since everyone in the bloc has to make an equivalent trade to avoid someone having to research it anyway).  I've been reaching the conclusion recently that this type of diplomacy isn't really that fun and certainly a lot less interesting and dynamic than tech-trading off games, where there isn't the same requirement or incentive for players to forum such early, long term and permanent alliances.  (When you're just sharing OB and the occasional war, tactical alliances can be possible alongside other strategic allegiances).  TBH, this is probably the one setting which would turn me off from participating in CC3...
• About the fast tech rate in CC2... IIRC we were playing on Noble difficultly?  Just turning up the difficulty to Deity will increase tech costs by about 30%, and so will slow down the overall pace.  If we play this one on Normal speed as well (hopefully) then we can always tweak costs higher to whatever we want, within the Mod...  
• Another reason for the fast end game in CC2 was that with Drib vassalized and the western continent consolidated amongst firm allies, there wasn't much chance of an intercontinental war anyway.  Once the result was not really any longer in question, my allies started feeding me cash and great people to speed up the space launch and intentionally avoid it dragging out...  Extra modern era units wouldn't have helped here - I still don't think there was any way to take us down at that point - it was already decided by the end of the tank era.

Also - I've now figured out how to tweak both the number of cities and the distance maintenance, (it's in the Civ4HandicapInfo.xml) so we can customize both of those (maybe +100% for each) to discourage somewhat early hostile takeovers, if desired.

BTW - the NoScore mod actually changes the fundamental score (not just hiding it) so civstats will show the same thing the game does: everyone has exactly 1 point regardless.  (The original mod gave 1 point per wonder, but I've figured out how to tweak that so it's exactly 1 point regardless, until someone reaches the end of the tech tree at which point you get 2 points).

Phew!  Sorry for the long post but in summary my vote would be for some or all of ..

• A blind map, using one of the MP-oriented mapscripts to ensure fairer starts etc
• All tech trading off
• Increasing the 'known civs with this tech' modifier to help backwards players
• Increasing tech costs to deity level or higher (via mod) if required
• Same-continent start with extra scout(s) for early exploration
• Extra-settler start if faster start is desired
• Normal speed...
• Significantly increased city maintenance (via mod) - both # of city and distance to palace (probably with related balance tweaks to e.g. Versailles hammer cost as appropriate); maybe increased WW, unit supply cost etc too..

[Viktor Ahriman]

I guess I should give my two cents .

I guess I liked CC2, but thought CC1 was better.  I am still disappointed in how it still seems that by the time we get to modern age, we have very little time to use any of those units.  We always talk about the UN treaty of no nukes, but heck, we never get the chance to see anybody get close of building a nuke.  I would like to see the next game to last far into the modern age.  I would propose that we take out the victory condition space win.  All the others can stay as nobody has come close to any of those routes to win.

My second opinion is the research issue.  I too dont like to see players get left in the dust.  I try to compare it to the real world.  If you are a loner country, then yes you may fall behind in techs.  But if you are friends with many, or a tech leader, there should be a way you can negotiate a deal for a tech, or buy a tech from that country.  Just as in todays world how techs are shared between countries.  I guess thats why I likes teck brokering.  So that way you can only trade techs that you researched.  But I agree with Drib, how do we do this without making players divide into huge alliances.  We dont want that either.  That is what happened in CC2, and it took alot away from the game.  It was still fun, but in a sense, if you didnt get into a group, you are done.  Niklas, can you maybe have teck brokering on, but to trade it to a player, its would cost x amount of money?  So if you want to trade Archery to a nation, when you select it to trade, it would automatically as for how much money the recieving nation will have to pay in order for the tech to be traded?  I dont know, just a thought.

I would like to see us getting away from these huge alliances.  I dont know how to do that.  I thinks it OK to have a few friends, but when you have 1/2 the continent against the other 1/2, thats not what we want.  I dont know.....

Viktor

[Viktor Ahriman]

No, I do not want tech trading.  We should do at least tech brokering to make it a little more difficult to trade.  Then see if we can add to the trade as I suggested above?

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Well, we did have tech trading off completely in CC2, of course, and yet it still seemed to fall into a situation of mega-alliances, pooling resources together.  I'm not sure if anything we do will truly prevent that though.  Or if we even really WANT to prevent such diplomatic strategies, since that of course provides another avenue for the roleplaying.

I think the only reason we're entertaining tech trading (with tech brokering off) is to avoid having some civs hopelessly left in the dust.  But...with a mod providing ramped-up "elastic research" as Munro described, I think we can accomplish what we want in that.  If the default is at 30%, then stepping it up to 100% would likely be the very least we could do. 

    *  A blind map, using one of the MP-oriented mapscripts to ensure fairer starts etc
  * Same-continent start with extra scout(s) for early exploration
    * Extra-settler start if faster start is desired

Are all these things possible with an existing mapscript?  Adding an extra settler would be a fair trade against the Advanced Start option, I'd agree...but I think that tweak might be available only with the Plenty of Resources mod, which requires a non-blind map (i.e. game host has to create a map save).

Maybe I am worrying too much about "fair starting locations" as the "fairness" is leveled out when Advanced Start is disabled;  if you find you have a poor starting location, it's incumbent upon you to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT early on (be it migrating your settler or warrior-rushing your neighbor).   

    * All tech trading off
    * Increasing the 'known civs with this tech' modifier to help backwards players
    * Increasing tech costs to deity level or higher (via mod) if required
    * Normal speed
    * Significantly increased city maintenance (via mod) - both # of city and distance to palace (probably with related balance tweaks to e.g. Versailles hammer cost as appropriate); maybe increased WW, unit supply cost etc too..

I agree with all of this;  normal speed for building costs and time, with epic speed research costs (which I think is what you're going for in suggesting deity difficulty?).

If I remember correctly, we could include in the mod the ability to tweak the research costs so that the game can be played on Normal speed, but the research would be more in line with Epic speed. 



I still like the idea of having a "new world" to explore and settle later, but I guess that's probably not viable without revealing the map.  Given that fact, it seems those in discussion here would rather have everyone on a large single continent (such as lakes with high water) rather than having a pre-revealed map.  So, I'll be glad to go with that route too.

[Munro]

    *  A blind map, using one of the MP-oriented mapscripts to ensure fairer starts etc
  * Same-continent start with extra scout(s) for early exploration
    * Extra-settler start if faster start is desired

Are all these things possible with an existing mapscript? 

Yes.

Adding an extra settler would be a fair trade against the Advanced Start option, I'd agree...but I think that tweak might be available only with the Plenty of Resources mod, which requires a non-blind map (i.e. game host has to create a map save).

Plenty of Resouces is a mapscript, not a mod - so you can use it with whichever mod you like or a custom mod.  It doesn't require a non-blind map either.  You can play it blind, even in MP.

I agree with all of this;  normal speed for building costs and time, with epic speed research costs (which I think is what you're going for in suggesting deity difficulty?).

If I remember correctly, we could include in the mod the ability to tweak the research costs so that the game can be played on Normal speed, but the research would be more in line with Epic speed. 

Yes.  Well, I guess it depends what you call normal really (most of the MP games I have played recently have used Deity tech costs as 'normal') but we can tweak it to be whatever we like.  Normal speed Deity is probably a good speed to have for a no-tech trading game.

I still like the idea of having a "new world" to explore and settle later, but I guess that's probably not viable without revealing the map. 

It's completely viable.  You don't have to reveal the map (why would you?)  Though we might want a rule about not playing as Portugal..

If we have a New World, do we want to tweak colony maintenance costs at all? (Up or down)? Or leave as they are?  With 'distance from palace' maintenance costs at +100% or +200% it'd be pretty much essential to save your FP for the new world (if you plan to settle there...) maybe that's helps control early expansion even more?

[bjarkekr]

So how close are we to launch??

[cougar]

I liked the game clock set at 20 hours. When it was more, it was harder to tell when to log on. Busy checking to see if it was your turn yet or not.

Grenlock.

[Niklas]

Sorry, I've had a pretty rough time of late. And for some reason I stopped getting subscription emails to this thread, so I sort of forgot.

At any rate, I should be pretty much back in business, in the process of reinstalling CIV on my newly repaired laptop, so I should be able to start working on this stuff again. I'll give some more insightful comments later tonight.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Hey Niklas!  Sounds awesome.

And I apologize to everyone for my own absence.  I've got a couple of large client projects which have kept me locked in work mode for the past couple weeks.