1. Goldfinger0303
2. DemonRHK
3. Vecna
4. Steephie22
5. Guak
6. Yoyoyozo
7. Ogion
8. ChippeRock
9. eliwhitney
10. captainmeme
11. TheBritishGent
12. VashtaNeurotic

12 is a good number. Allows us to be flexible.

So, if we do 4 player maps, I propose our maps be between 4 corners, inland sea, oval, and pangea. If we do 6 players, I would say the same, minus 4 corners. Do we agree with that?

As for the other settings, Strategic Balance, 4 billion years old, everything else in the middle range. I would argue for simultaneous turns over hybrid, simply because a 20 turn war in hybrid can easily draw on for almost 2 hours, which is unacceptable.

As for pitboss vs regular hosting, I would be okay with going pitboss (but not a "true" pitboss with separate hosting) so that if a player has connection issues, the AI doesn't take over and mess things up for them. But these games are very much intended to be completed in 1-3 sittings of several hours at a time.

Finally, quick combat and quick animations will be on, as well as promotion saving. Policy saving will be discontinued, and there are no raging barbarians.

The main issue to work out, imo, is scoring. There are two possibilities, imo. (barring 1v1s...I don't like those)

1) Bracket style, 4 player games, the winner of each moving on to the finals and there being two consolation games with the winners going to the finals (making the finals a 5 player game).

2) A more open scoring system, where players can arrange games among themselves (so long as it is only between players in the tournament and at least 3 players and they notify me). Winner gets 1 point, losers get 0 (or if there is a concede to an alliance, the alliance splits the 1 point). You log those, and then play another game. There will be a scoreboard with the players who have the highest average score. After a month, I'll arrange a game among the top 4-6 players on the board and we declare a victor. If we want to, we can start from scratch after that.