MP game - \"Pantheons\" Started
 

Summary of the rules:-
2 teams of 5
Inland map Indep 5 site 50% rest default
24 hour quickhost - slowing to 48 hour quickhost when one team wants it to.

We have 2 teams sorted out & nations allocated to teams but one player has dropped so we need a replacement. He is on team B and due to play Jotunhem but I guess there is a choice of 3 nations. Check with the team.
We are good to go as soon as we get a player.

Pickles

back to original post:-

"Hi
We were talking about playing a team game a while ago & have decided to try to set one up.

The basic rules would be standard 50% site frequency, L7 Indeps & 10 HoF.
There would be 2 teams of 3 or 4 or 5 depending on interest.
The map would be a small one that fit all the positions on it – Aran probably unless there were 10 players
Victory would be when only one team had any players left. This should be easier to achieve than a standard victory.
24hr quickhost until one team wanted to slow it to 48hr

I have got one team of Myself, Aku & Boron who are all hardcore but a bit green I would say – ie played intensely but not often beyond turn 40 or so at least MP.

There are many things to be sorted out & up for discussion (including the above)

- A host
- How to choose staring locations – something slightly less random than random would be good
- How to choose nations. We have 2 principle suggestions
---- Alternate choices starting with our opponents
---- We pick our 3 and our opponents choose what they want when they see these.
- Any special rules. Possibly banning some of these nations
---- Atlantis & Ryleh as they make the map choice more complex
---- Deadly themes. Hmm not sure why but they are pain for their neighbours maybe they will ban themselves
- Anything other people hate
- Any other suggestions or requests people have
This is quite preliminary & is a discussion document as much as a game start so what do you think?


Pickles"

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Hmm Edi made a smaller Version of the Faerun map. They have starting locations predefined. Let me go find out how many provinces the smaller one is but it may still be too big.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

I'd really like to play, and Im really green as well =P
Count me in if you can (its night time now, so I'll probably be updated on all the decisions you make after I sleep, unless I will make a late-night check)

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

I've tried a 2 vs 2 multiplayer game and it was sorta fun but you need a big map I think, unless you want the game to end by turn 30. I like getting into the later turns to try out magic and summons, and find that more interesting.

I would suggest possibly a bigger map and maybe a limit on what turn attacks can begin (ex. no attacks on enemy provinces until turn 25). These are just some thoughts.

Regds,
John

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

These are radically different opinions from mine. I find the end game can become a chore & I like fighting* - the sooner the better so I personally want a relatively crowded game. In RTS I really despise no rush rules as they take away some of the tensions of the early game. I think a crowded game means that all of the tech tree is relevant not just the big end level stuff. If the game does end abruptly then at least it has not wasted a lot of time.
Of course if nooone else shares my tastes we could have a pure boomfest.

Pickles

*People not creeps

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

took the words right out of my mouth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
i agree completely with pickles

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Pickles,

The problem with your map choice is too much water plus the fact that it is not wraparound. You might get stuck in a corner and can't get out except to attack your partners. Pre selected starting spots go around this, but I kind of like random starts. The only problem is that you might be surrounded by enemies and the game becomes a 3 on 4 quickly. But that is why you have allies (HELP ME!!!!!)

A wraparound map allievates much of these concerns. So does a slightly bigger map.

I would suggest Inland is perfect for a 5 on 5 (even a 4 on 4) because wraparound maps always play much smaller than their true size. Also, Inland does not have the choke points like Eye does, thus meaning you will quickly find an enemy on the other team if you build more than one scout.

The reason you don't have the rush capability in typical FFAs is due to the fact that you could kill someone but weaken yourself so much that a third guy kills you. It makes it a much more strategic decision about when to delare war, typical of any FFA in RTS like Starcraft.

In your plan here, you always know who to attack. When you see an enemy, you are automatically at war. None of that stuff like, 'oops, I didn't mean to take that province next to your home'. Or, 'I am taking that province there, pretty please?' Nope, you kill or be killed.

That no-rush rule above to turn 25 is totally absurd, by the way. The whole point of your plan is to engage your opponent and ATTACK!

Way cool idea, pickles!

Needless to say, I like this idea a lot. I don't think I am as good as any of the three of you, but count me in anyway.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Just to give some ideas for choosing size..
Here is an excerpt from "Map Thoughts"
For a player to capture all of the provinces around his castle as a buffer and for resources, we are probably looking at.. 5? There are 17 nations (at this time) so 5*17 would be 85 provinces. Actually, if you fairly consider the land and water nations then the best map should probably be 15*5 or 75 land provinces, and 2*5 or 10 water provinces, to a total of 85.

So if 5 provinces each at 75 land and 10 water is a small map, then what would be good sized for the others? I guess anything smaller than that would be a tiny map. Plenty of desire for those since many people only want to play with 2-4 nations at a time and dont want them to be too far apart. A small (85 prov) map would be quite a game for only 2 players.


http://www.dom2minions.com/maps.shtml
It also has a link to a page where you can get random maps from tiny to epic sized. Not pretty but they are playable. (I can give some suggestions to pretty one if someone wants it)

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

once again, i completely agree. inland would work quite well if you want no R'lyeh or Atlantis

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Pickles. I would be more than happy to offer up a neutral party for map placement and map choice (even an edited .map file that better supports team play).

Give a shout if you are interested.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Just wanted to say some things before I go to sleep;
All of this is supposing I get to be in the game:
1. I'd rather have the death scale nations Banned - they'd be just as harmful to your allies.
2. Wraparound is overall better for alliances IMO.
3. I think you should just let people choose their nation in a common FFA manner, he who shouts first, gets to pick first (and in that case I'd like to try Man =P)

Feel free to call me stupid and kick me outta the game (not that Im in) I won't get offended, too much... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

I've never played team game in Dom2, but it was something I've wanted to try for quite a while. Count me in. And I agree with your view on the map size. It doesn't have to be too small, but something under 10 provinces per nations keeps it intense http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

I just thought of a couple of other things:

1. Low indies like 3 would really help to get out and fight your human opponents quickly. And you will likely not be able to use a powerful indy province as a buffer to your enemy ever. On indy level 3, any race with any pretender can mow down indies at will early on.
2. Death themes don't need to be outlawed, for your partners might just dismiss you from the team if you select AE Ermor or, even worse, Miasma C'tis. Let the teams decide what they want to allow among teammates.
3. I think the races should be assigned totally random to avoid fights between the teams for pet races. Once ready, just run a random number generator and assign races to people when the game is full. That also gets people away from their personal set strategies and makes them think a bit.

When I think of more, I will post it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

i'd be interested in getting in this game too, however the settings turn out. Just in case we end up claiming races i'd like to put a shout in for Caelum as i like them and have never played them MP.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

If when I'll be back the game hasn't started I'm interested in.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

If you guys need a host, I'll do it. If you decide to go with randomly allocated races, I'll randomly allocate the races, too.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

random races would be awesome!!
doubt many people would agree to that... everyone always *has* to play their particular race/theme [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

I would like to play, and I think Tuidjy will join as well. But as for random races, I simply have not played any of the non-human races. I would not know where to start.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

I am just adding up who has shown interest so far.

Definite:
Pickles
Aku
Boron
Agrajag
Panther
Tauren 13
JJ Colorado
alexti
cheezeneninja

Plus:
Cohen - Is out of town until about August 25, which is likely too late for him to join.
Yvelina and Tiudjy - Can't play random races? Don't worry, I have only played 4 races so far on MP and none of these past turn 25. I might get something like Mictlan or Jotunheim and be totally clueless, but so what? It's just for fun anyway. And having partners helping with suggestions would be a great way to learn a new race.

Pickles - You already seem to have enough for a 5 on 5 battle. Tauren 13 and I offer to join your team with Aku and Boron and we could have a team of five dedicated newbies. Tauren and I must be on the same team since he is my teenage son.

You could appoint Agrajag to select the opposing team since he has shown the most interest so far of the various posters on this thread.

I just reread the JJ Colorado post and he says the 25 no turn attack rule was only a sugestion. I apologize for sounding harsh in my reply to that, but I really would not be interested in a no rush rule. I used to join the starcraft no-rush games just to rush like crazy!

So far, I think that everyone is either beginner or low intermediate except maybe for cheeze and cohen. Not sure about JJ's skill level, though.

And I am impressed that people like Zen and Sheap have offered to host/ edit maps/ select races, etc., for us. It shows just how helpful the people on this forum are in general.

Cheers to all.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

This looks like it is coming together really well. I also liked the wrap around map suggestion(I think the name of the map is inland?).

For nations that are used maybe have two team captains take turns on choosing nations or something and then they can internally(their team of 5) decide who plays what nation of the 5 picks they got.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Depending on the # of participants and the number and type of teams, the map needs to be chosen after that point.

As for the Team Idea. Perhaps you could Play Emperor variety. Each team has an Emperor (King of the Panthenon) and a Panthenon cannot win if their Emperor is killed. You can place the map and positions to have guardian wings and province neighbors to have an outlet to help each of his wings.

Just an idea. Team games always present/provide interesting setups/games.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Yes, Inland. That was the one I suggested in my first post in here. It works well because it is wraparound and has very few choke points. Frequent, wide open battles are to be expected. Not good for water races, though.

And as for picking the races, what is wrong with random? It completely eliminates all arguments. Let Sheap or Zen randomly choose 5 races per side. Then let each team decide on how to allocate which race to which team player.

For example -
Dude! You know how to play Mictlan?
Um, not me. Let that other dude.
How 'bout it, dude?
Well, I would rather not! Maybe that dude over there.
Um, any you dudes care to give it a try?
Sure, I will try it, dude. Three months ago I made a pretender and played 6 turns on SP as Mictlan. I am experienced with it!
Go for it then, you're appointed! Upload that old pretender and let's get started!!!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Then you get to see both how the people are with their nations, and also how they are at teamwork - picking nations that complement one another. Ulm/Arco being a classic example, but also any nations whose mages contrast, or a nation with strong units but horrible scouting teamed with another with weak troops but great scouting / stealth (Pangaea/Caelum for flying scouts, or Ulm, Marignon, etc, for spies).


Sounds like a real fun game; hopefully it goes well, this kind of game would be a welcome change of pace for many people.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

count me in! I think this game is a brilliant idea! I'm open to playing pretty much any race as long as I get a few hours to test the hell out of it before uploading a pretender http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

oh, and I think its best if I change my name from "Alexi" to "Lex", since it might get confusing with 'Alexti' in the same game

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Two more things:
1. I think that just for the sake of order, it would be a nice idea if everyone added their team number (and perhaps their shrapnel name) to their pretender name, for easy identification and to avoid confusions.
2. If you go random - Ermor (and if we intend to use inland - Atlantis and R`lyeh as well) shuold be Banned, Im pretty sure there's no one who wants to play default Ermor and without any deathscales whatsoever (or being forced to play with a really low dominion to avoid friendly-scale-fire.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Though I do not plan to play in the game, I don't think deathscales should be Banned, just the population-killing themes. There are many nations (Abysia comes to mind of course, but they are not the only ones) that can do well with a death scale of 1 or 2 points, which even if it spreads a little, isn't really going to be the end of the world. It's really the destructive dominions and not the death scale that hurts.

Comments on the discussion
 

First more comment

Thanks to Sheap for offering to host & Zen for offering his map choosing talents I am sure we will take you both up on this. (& I was being a bit ingenuous* & relying on the Boards good nature posting like that).

I think I may have sounded a bit harsh to JJ Colorado - a bit of trash talk in there. My apologies I respect your opinion it is just not mine.

I am pretty conservative & so want a game as close as possible to the usual MP so Indep 6 & no extra rules like Zens Emperor suggestion. If this game works then we can try variations (or maybe if it doesn't work!)

I think a wrap round map has gained popular approval and a slightly larger size than my initial thoughts seems OK. In a game like this we will probably start fighting one another before clearing all the indeps unlike standard MP so the map is kind of shrunk. Also I like tough indeps as they form "terrain" that will change over the course of the game I am open to being converted though.

With the themes I do not see the need to ban death themes unles nations are given out randomly in which case banning Ermor is probably a good idea (noone has ever played BE AFAIK). Looks like the water themes are out too as the map will be pretty dry.

Pickles

*or maybe disingenuous I can never figure out which is which.

Voting Issues
 

There are a number of areas that need finalising

Choosing nations
I think there are two proposals - I am discounting FFA!

A) Random allocation to teams then free allocation to players within teams. (corolary Ermor Banned)
B) Teams alternating picks - to be picked probably by a captain but with the others input

I can live with either so choose to abstain.
I prefer the idea of choosing but it could be hard work! While random could shaft you with unbalanced sides. With 5 nations random is less likely to give an unfair match up plus there is more likelyhood of finding a nation you like.

Independent Strength

A) Low 3
B) High 7

Low will mean they get cleared quickly so allowing concentration on the other players. High means they form terrain & fit the usual MP experience.

I vote for high as this will canalise people and give more decisions - clear them or not which with L3 is not a decision. Plus low will "grow" the map size.

Score graphs
I did not mention these before (forgot)
A) On
B) Off

I do not care either way. The information is less relevant as you cannot do anything about it - you are already picking on your opponents.

Please expresss your preferences

Pickles

Set up
 

One other point - I do not know how the team members should be grouped on the map. I guess they should all be in contact with one another. This is probably less of an issue on a wrap round map. I was going to abdicate responsibilty for this to Zen who has kindly volunteered to set up positions. However if you have any opinions then please voice them.

Pickles

State of the game
 

Game summary
Rules standard except:-
Indep 3 or 7 to be decided
Site frequency 50
NB HoF 10
Map – Inland
Staling – let your team mates know your password to avoid staling
Nations – No Water nations. No Ermor if nations chosen randomly
Each team will chose a short Pantheon name
Your pretender name should include your Pantheon name
(or some other code to show teamness readily – same initial letter etc)

Team A

Pickles
Aku
Boron
The Panther
Tauren13
(probable Mark the Merciful who I have yet to ask as he has disappeared)

Team B
Agrajag
Alexti
Cheezeninja
Yvelina
Tuidjy (prob)
Lex

Did not actually express an interest but space could be made:
JJ Colorado

Interested but not around just now:
Cohen

I do not know how experienced the B team is. I know we are quite sharky newbs - if we are still newbs even - in Team A. If there are no experienced players in Team B it may be better to swap Panther & Tauren for 2 green players from there. (Mark the Merciful lives in my house so it is too much of a pain to split him from me cf Panther & Tauren)

We seem to have 6 vs 6 too which I believe would fit on Inland.

Looks like we should be good to go in a couple of days - it always amazes me how fast games get going here.

Pickles

Re: Voting Issues
 

A (It would be a lot of trouble going for B, and you might disappoint your teammates)
B {I don't care too much, Im green as a bush [Uh... You get my point (BWAH)]}
A (It won't harm gameplay, no one is going to gang up on anyone else... And its always nice to know how everyone is doing, OTOH you might wanna keep this information concealed...)


Sounds like a good idea.
Though we'd have to arrange the nations first =P



1. Just wanted to point out that for a 12 player game it is more common to have 15 HOF AFAIK, not that I mind that much, I actually like HOF 10.

2. Obviously!
BTW, there's a nice chance that I'll be away on vacation from end-september to mid-october (~1-2 weeks I think), if it means anything then its from End-Yom-Hakipurim to End-Sukot,

3. Agreed, especially since Ermor being Banned on random choices was my idea =P

4. Agreed, but please stick to RP names, no "Waffle Goodness" Pantheons please.

5. As I said, Im green as they go, my MP expirience includes only the Hard_Slog game, where I play CW Pangea, so its nothing of use to me (And the game is at turn ~30 IIRC).
I wouldnt mind being swapped or staying as is (Though Boron sounds pretty good from what Posts of his I read =P)
We should probably wait to hear from the other player as to their noobness =P

LAST EDIT: Everyone should leave their Emails for easier team communication.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

wow only 15 hours away from the board and such an overwhelming response http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

uh i loved those north vs south money maps with 10-15 minutes no rush . i always played zerg and exploited the larva-bug http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

hm i would like a map with fixed starting positions so it is like north vs south or east vs west .

karan would be cool for east vs west imho but for 10 players perhaps a bit too small .
i myself would totally prefer no rush for 20-40 turns and a lategame game but i accept all choices if the majority doesn't want this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
for a lategame i think karan / the small faerun would be good

otherwise wraparoundmap . inland would be perfect for a killing field i think http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Voting Issues
 

i vote for that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


my preferred option

i vote for scoregraphs on

Re: State of the game
 

I suppose I should qualify myself mildly-experienced with half a dozen of MP games I've played/playing.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

It's appreciated, at some point I've thought "I didn't post it!" until I've looked at the name carefully http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Of course he looks like superman & you, well don't

Pickles

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Lol, I didn't realize that there were two of you until I read the post from Lex.

Re: Voting Issues
 

i vote for this, but i would be interested in playing BE Ermor. so if anyone on the other team would like to shout out, we could go ahead and unban it. otherwise, of course, it does need to be Banned. most people seem to think it is a useless theme.

Pickles: also, if it helps balance the teams, know that i am probably one of the worst players here. i cant even beat the difficult AI.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

just a thought (everything that follows is just IMHO):
what bout 3 teams of 4? or 4 teams of 3? If there's more then just two teams, it might create alot more importance in deciding who you need to attack, like normal MP. If we had four teams, we could really roleplay this, by creating faction alliances/treaties, and good'old diplomacy isn't lost from the game, which is a big part of MP.

Anyways, just an idea.. I guess it depends on how 'straight forward' we'd like this game to be.. Two teams would be a simple and bloody clash of two great empires, whereas three or four teams would be a more drawn out, complex comflict.

In reguards to Indy strength, I've tried to think of an arguement for why we should have Indy3: Because we have to rely on military support from other nations, it would be better if there was Indy3, cos this would allow everyone to move into position where they can join a war. cos people far away from a battle front would need to forge a path around friendly kingdoms. I think we should encourage that. Especially since it would then be possible to cut off reinforcements from a particular battle front. This encourages team members to get involved (rather then justify staying out of the war because of their location. I just think that using Indy as terrain isn't as important in a team game cos you're gonna be hit from multiple directions anyways.. you can't rely on Indy to create choke points. And IMHO its much more important to have each team member control the right provinces in order to be effective at striking in unison. This means lots of provinces being used as supply lines (which might even be exchanged between team members).

What d'you think?

Re: Voting Issues
 

Aww, man! Half of the fun is beating up on a God Named "Waffle Goodness" or with a Prophet named "Chicken" and an Ice Devil named "Beer"

It lends creditibility that commercialism really has become a god in our modern age. Also let us not forget that zealots will believe anything. The holy reverend and high priest of blood, glory, and meowmix, voice of Fluffy, benevolent goddess of birds and parrots!

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

low indys would be good imo

i think the whole point of this allied game would be that as soon as you see an enemy, you are at war and have no reason not to fight, but making multiple teams would change this, thus, imo, defeating the point of the game

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

I thought about this idea of more teams of fewer people.

But even if there is only three teams, you are back to the FFA concept. In other words, you are not automatically at war with a nearby enemy because of the possiblity of the third team swooping in after a big fight and taking the spoils from both sides. You said it yourself, it is more like the usual way of playing the game.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Pickles idea was to try something different, more of a rush type concept. Hence, only two teams.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

This is what I was thinking when I suggested low indys, but you put it FAR more eloquently, Lex.

Putting 6 or 7 indys just because it is 'normal' does not make any sense to me. After all, this idea of allied play is much different than 'normal'. The idea is to fight your enemy, not the neutrals. I would think you need to clear them out quickly to establish communications with your partners.


The main purpose of high neutrals is because the basic game is an FFA and you can frequently use the indys to help your situation.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

My vote is for indy 3 because we already know who our enemies already are so we can fight them once we see them.

Two teams want to go at it as soon as possible and indy 3 will fill this nicely.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Also about the nation selection. It may be best with two captains taking turns choosing nations that way each team can try to form a theme they want or balance out their teams playstyle.

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

k, two teams then!

in order to speed up the process (if it wasn't moving fast enough already) I'd suggest having a third-party select random races for each player. Then if players don't like the race they've been randomly assigned, they can trade with their teammates. This will get the ball rolling for game hosting and start the converstations between team members reguarding playstyles and experience.

I'm all for creating "themed" teams, but we might be here till next week figuring out, post by post, what races to pick that complement our team (especially since we probably aren't experts with all the races). I personally am looking forward to playing a new race. My only request is that we decide the races soon, and then give a day to research/experiment first before uploading a pretender (so our choices are smart ones).

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

Yeah 2 teams for the reasons the Panther noted.

Random allocation to player was not an option - random allocation to teams looks favourite on current voting followed by intra team haggling.

I am just not in that much of a hurry to start to need to rush things. I will give it until about 12.00 GMT tomorrow to allow those people who posted in the middle of my night a chance to comment then we can probably set the thing up. Still seem pretty precipitous to me & there is still no rush to start until everyone is happy with their nation & pretender.

Pickles

Voting so far
 

Indeps Nations Graphs

Pickles 7 R Y
Aku 3 C -
Boron 7 C Y
Panther 3 R Y
Tauren 3 R -
????

Agrajag 7 R Y
Alexti 7 R Y
Cheezeninja3 R -
Yvelina
Lex 3 R -
Tuidjy?

Nations c= choose R = random
Here is how I believe everyone thinks - means has not expressed an opinion but has posted.
Until the others reply we cannot be sure but it looks like Random nations & graphs with indeps still to be decided. I give em 15 more hours or so.
(note I have come off the fence)

Pickles

Re: MP game - \"Pantheons\" Preliminary invite
 

I think Indep 3 will actually have the opposite effect as you will feel compelled to get them all.

But we will see - well we will see how one indep strength works out.

12 players is more than I really wanted & will surely be unwieldy but we will see how it all plays. I think if I do this again I would make sure I had arranged one team in toto then challenge people to get together another team.

hmm irrelevant musing
wibble

Pickles

Re: Voting so far
 

I prefer 2 sets of nations to be defined by a neutral party.Then each team distributing the nations between its players as it sees fit. Graphs are ok, considering that with only 2 teams they won't cause any usual problems. Not sure if indy strength will make much difference, though I probably prefer 6 or 7.