As Zigeuner noted the potential for ganging up is the only major problem to overcome with this arrangement. *thinking cap on* hmm...

On the ships, I agree 'naming stuff' in general adds to a game. The situation dictated otherwise in Alphaland though unfortunately. As the naval arena was the biggest chasm between us, I for one during my tenure decided naming our ships wasn't really worth the effort. It's not nice to name with great pride a new ship and then stare at it while it remains in port to avoid being sunk (after an initial victory or not!). And it's just come to light that some of Alpha didn't know how to rename our ships  I guess the combination goes a long way to providing an explaination!

Edit: Oh and yes alphan ships were slipping port to port, this and them not being thought name-worthy until they'd proven themselves was no coincidence!!

I see. The queue I read was waiting in line for a dictatorship at the time the game ended impressed on me the 'overflowing' as apposed to just brimming nature. I don't think we ever had a queue, fertile ground for an election for sure!!  It still does seem probably enough for three teams to me at the moment as between the two teams I'm sure we always had atleast one extra person willing to jump in at any given moment, with a rotation. I think it's worth it for what it would add to the game, as I can't see us slipping below the magic number with evenly spread teams after a pre-game discussion to ascertain availabilities 'n stuff!

Maybe we can only really judge it for sure after that discussion is held?

History mod was just an idea . . .

I have a special affection for huge Terra maps, with 3 human teams and 7 or 9 AI . . .

Weren't you gone for half the game!

3 teams would be awesome but I'm dubious still.  At Civiilized we had a thing called an Mgame.  It was probably the most fun I'd had in any of these "Dgame" models.  The most important person in the game, who had been reliable and had put a ton of work into the game, dropped off the face of the... well, internet and didn't return.  The game was dead and we were all feeling a bit frustrated.  Real life happens and it has to take priority but we have to realize this from the begining.  Team Omega had a few dry spells also.  There were about two months when only one of the players (though different) could play.  We could have lost it right there but someone's life freed up just enough for just enough time that we squeezed in the "terms".  I'd consider 3 teams if there were 3 "reliable" players per team.

Ganging up.  This is the key to victory, both against AI and humans.  It's much harder with humans though because you can be stabbed at any moment.  I think we'd find it's much harder to trust the team you're buddying up with than one might think.  Perhaps if there was a way to turn off espionage, this would work even better.  At least eliminate the Great Wall.  Anyway, the key is to a) make sure you're not the one being picked on and b) make sure you pick on the right team.  You've got to make sure you don't stand out early as the "winner" otherwise the smaller teams have a vested interest in bringing you down to size and if you're too small it may be too easy to pick on you.  I have no problems with this. 

Scip that's beginning to sound a little bit like a certain pbem However, the diplomacy was fascinating, and I wouldn't object to a terran map. Unless you started in Iceland or something. Or Norway

I also agree with just about everything jerm says above. I thought 3 teams of 3 might work well too. Can't see why you'd need to turn off espionage though - it's simply one particular weapon in one's arsenal and it's not that powerful (as you'll remember from one of our pbem's Mr jerm )

In effect, what this map script does is insure that, the whole planet is not fully settled by the early Middle Ages. Instead, there will be a "New World" somewhere out there, of unknown size, quality, etc., (and probably teeming with "barbarian tribes") to be explored, settled, and exploited.

These maps tend to allow for major changes the nature of any game between the Medieval and Renaissance and later. They effectively make it possible for societies which are lagging behind through the Ancient, Classical and Middle Ages to leap ahead (e.g., just like England did in real life) by focusing on overseas exploration and colonization. They also enable Age of Colonialism type wars which other map scripts tend to mute. In short, IMO, the best map to play for a long-term game that is interesting and follows real life historical flucations more.

I was in a PBEM over at CivFanatics that Locus and vonC and a bunch of guys who only hangout at CivFanatics were in. We had a total of about 7 or 8 guys in that game, and it went on for (IIRC) OVER TWO YEARS! We allies eventually took big enough bites out of the Commies that they conceded . . .

That was an exceptionally devoted crew, which was in large part a function of the mod we were playing El Justo's "The Cold War Deluxe 1.5" for C3C. That PBEM revealed a lot of basic problems in how the mod was set up that EJ and his crew have been working on for a year or more and have implemented into a totally revised version of the mod, think it is 1.6 or something . . .

Anyway, point being: big complex maps can be quite fun _IF_ you have devoted players, and IF (in the instance of a random map) you do not have one team winding up on a desert island type of imbalance. Because of how well they have the editor and pit-boss stuff set up now, if we have a neutral third party generate the game for us, then if after a few turns a human team wants to petition to the Umpire that their location sucks, the Ump can open the entire map, peruse it and see if there does seem to be any problems. If there are, then some slight modifications can easily be made by the person who has admin password for the file(s).

I also don't know why it would be necessary for the teams to stick any particular ethic or govt?? Why not just make it a "Team PBEM" in which a handful of guys for each team pass off turns sort of like a Dynasty game. This can ameliorate the burnout and lag times that occur because of real life. I would say if there are 3 to 5 guys for each team it should work fine?

My vote would be make EVERYTHING completely random, except Large Terra map, balanced resources, three human player slots, and the rest AI, Prince difficulty against AI, all victories enabled, Tech brokering off, Permanent Alliances OFF, and make it start in Classical with the pre-set amount of advanced start points.

With a Terra map, you are sure to get interesting Age of Exploration/naval/privateering and then later on Colonialism types of stuff. Based on a couple PBEMs I was in where we had some of this going on, I think it would be amazingly fun to play global cat-n-mouse with fellow humans in this way.

As far as the teaming up against one another stuff: I'd say just let it play out and see what happens. Leave Espionage ON! That is a big part of the new fun in BTS! In my experience, if two human players are not locked into an alliance in which they share victory, any alliance they form will be tenuous and usually short-lived.

As for the rest, I agree with you, though with the "New World" concept the choice of civ would be pretty damn crucial and (potentially) a source of cries of "foul".

I was just thinking because it may not be so easy to hide one's intentions to one's ally, making it harder to stab him in the back.  Not sure it's such a bad thing though.