Looks like the Saka are winning so far. So how are we going to do it? Play by reign? Controling individual generals? Taking n turns each and then switching?
Looks like the Saka are winning so far. So how are we going to do it? Play by reign? Controling individual generals? Taking n turns each and then switching?
When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondsmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bound, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty. - John Ball
I'm inclined to wait for 0.8 before fixing anything in stone. One possibility is to have several different PBMs, with different factions, on-going at the same time. For example, running a Saka game and a Greek game alongside would be fine. (I have become intrigued by GiantMonkeyMan's idea of trying to decentralise the game to the level of individual Greek city states.) But you'd probably want at least 6 committed people before starting.Originally Posted by Justiciar
My instinct would be to combine playing n turns then switching with delegating battles to the player controlling individual generals. This is what we are doing in the Will of the Senate PBM and it is working well - it is a way of keeping a group of people actively involved. Alternatively, simply playing 20 turns and then switch is a reliable method and allows for good story-telling. Playing a full reign is surely out of the question given the 4TPY mod (it would be exhausting).
My plan is to wait for 0.8. Set up the most popular PBM, confirm the players' availability and then agree the logistics among them. If a simultaneous second PBM then still seems possible, I'd do the same with that.
Last edited by econ21; 08-28-2006 at 09:16.
Bookmarks