 |
|  |
 |
|
Cort Haus
|
 |
London
Apr 2002 time: 05:32
|
|
Following the discussion on playstyle choices in this game, I got thinking about what options might be available for a team that were not playing to win. It might be interesting to have a game where perhaps four civs are out to win, and three out to roleplay with no interest in victory conditions. If their roleplay is either too weak or too annoying, or they're unlucky, they'll get dealt with, but if things go their way they could find themselves with more than they expected.
Some of these ideas are probably absurd, and could even be seriously bad ideas which would imbalance and wreck a game, but I thought it might be fun to mention them anyway ...
Non-Interventionists
A team could play with the policy of peaceful survival for as long as possible, undertaking no aggression, only fighting for its own self-defence, and a refusing to enter into any offensive or defensive alliance. By declaring itself a non-contender, it would be less of a target than a determined competitor.
It would, of course have to defend it's land against civs with an appreciative eye on their assets, but if it succeeded in carving itself out a role as a non-threatening trading partner, with no enemies, it could find powerful allies prepared to offer security to maintain balance.
If it doesn't work - most likely for geographical reasons - and they get squashed then so what - the team were only playing for fun anyway.
Moral Interventionists - Military
These guys don't want to win, they just want to fight and die in a blaze of glory for a just cause. A variant of the Mercenary Civ, they'll fight not for their own interests but for whoever has the best propaganda.
Moral Interventionists - Diplomatic
OCC for DG, anyone? Maybe they'd only last for 10 minutes, but this team might either try to be an in-game 'referee' - a small, neutral civ with no chance of winning who makes supposedly wise and fair pronouncements and waits to see if anyone takes any notice. More realistic could be a 'UN Civ' to intervene diplomatically, trying to encourage and broker peace deals.
Psycho Warmongers
I wouldn't want to start next to this lot. They anticipate a relatively short but bloody career, taking the 'Glory of War' a step further. For this team the future is irrelevant, and the last one in the game's a cissy who defended themselves too well.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Beta

|
 |
Prowling in a PBEM near you!
Nov 2002 time: 00:32
|
|
|
|
08-12-2003 07:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2
|  |
|
Re: Playing for fun : Opening the door to alternative play-styles
|
Tired of ads?
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Cort Haus
Some of these ideas are probably absurd, and could even be seriously bad ideas which would imbalance and wreck a game, but I thought it might be fun to mention them anyway ... |
Indeed!!!!
quote: Non-Interventionists
A team could play with the policy of peaceful survival for as long as possible, undertaking no aggression, only fighting for its own self-defence, and a refusing to enter into any offensive or defensive alliance. By declaring itself a non-contender, it would be less of a target than a determined competitor.
It would, of course have to defend it's land against civs with an appreciative eye on their assets, but if it succeeded in carving itself out a role as a non-threatening trading partner, with no enemies, it could find powerful allies prepared to offer security to maintain balance.
If it doesn't work - most likely for geographical reasons - and they get squashed then so what - the team were only playing for fun anyway. |
Uh .... Lego?
quote: Moral Interventionists - Military
These guys don't want to win, they just want to fight and die in a blaze of glory for a just cause. A variant of the Mercenary Civ, they'll fight not for their own interests but for whoever has the best propaganda. |
Uh ....Vox?
quote: Moral Interventionists - Diplomatic
OCC for DG, anyone? Maybe they'd only last for 10 minutes,. |
Uh ...Lux?
quote: Psycho Warmongers
I wouldn't want to start next to this lot. They anticipate a relatively short but bloody career, taking the 'Glory of War' a step further. For this team the future is irrelevant, and the last one in the game's a cissy who defended themselves too well. |
GoW or ND. Take your choice.

|
|
|  |
 |
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002 time: 22:32
|
|
Where the bloody hell is the mercenary concept?
Hell you include a 'variant' but not the original?
As for GoW, some of us are more psycho than others on the team...
woe be unto you all if all of us psycho's gain full control.
Last edited by UnOrthOdOx on 09-12-2003 at 01:44
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hot_Enamel
|
 |
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002 time: 14:32
|
|
<--- I'm with Stupid
Last edited by Hot_Enamel on 09-12-2003 at 09:00
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002 time: 22:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Cort Haus
Yeeah! thanks, MZ! 
This is what I was hoping people would post about - teams who decide on a playstyle that doesn't include victory aspirations. Are those the guys that put up an ad hiring their workers too? Not the ******* Chinese again, surely! |
Sorry, I was talking about the merc team over there earlier, Court Hous, which I founded.
We are not giving a second thought to winning that game for we will win every time we are hired and complete a contract. Gold is our god, and the all mighty dollar rules.
Yeah, we offered our workers, and the 'assisted palace move', but we have many other ideas we are tinkering with as well.
Come join in the fun, and see if you can help us overcome the many challenges, most prominent of which MZ points out in making the other teams believe it's not the biggest piece of propoganda ever.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|