Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

I'm fine with any map and pretty much any setting too. However I think we should consider putting the indy str up a little? think that helps limit a mad landgrab rush as we are quite a few players.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

higher indy strength is good imo.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Higher indy strength is fine, scoreBoards disabled are okay, and I vote for no mods as well... I like the balance in 2.06 the way it is (and I usually don't go for bad luck http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

Maps, I am indifferent. Wars of Orania, with victory point condition, would be playable instead of an all out Last man standing game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">6 is high enough to me, though I don't mind playing anyway. Some nations will have a much easier start at higer indie, namely Man, Marignon and other start with good missle troop. For HI nations, like Ulm, Van or Abysia http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , the early game will be tougher.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

As an impartial observer, high indy strength gives distinct atvantages to SC players and as the poster below said, certain nations who will expand at the same speed regardless of indy strength.

Starting with indy 5 can be tough enough for some races, to level the playing board lower indy strength is better.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In my experience, 5 or 6 are good, intermediate settings. Not too easy and not too hard. But every setting will favor a certain gameplay strategy. After hearing so much, King Lear should just make the call and we can adjust our strategy to it.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Well, here's the final settings for all you happy people.

Indy Strength, 6
Sites 50%
Events: Common
Hall: 15
Richness: normal'
Graphs: Off
Standard Victory

Wan, since you decided you wanted Abysia, we're slotting that to you.

So, Everyone needs to go ahead and create a pretender, and send me the file as an attachment. Go ahead and put your country name, and your name, in the title to help me sort them quickly from my mailbox.

Lear
MARKOOS at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU

[ February 03, 2004, 22:09: Message edited by: King Lear ]

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

Oh, forgot to mention, we're doing Orania.

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

One Last thing: Passwording your pretender might not be a bad idea incase one day, amidst hectic classes, I accidently send a file to someone to whom it does not belong. In a game of stratagy such intelligence could be devestating.

Four are in, we're waiting on some more!
Lear

Re: PBEM Multiplayer Game: No new positions (was "New Multiplayer Game")
 

7 are in, just a few more =)