 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
* In my experience with another game, 1-2 is absolutely idiotic. It's a hell of a lot more hassle than it's really worth. I'll live with it if I have to, but I'll warn you it's a pain in the a--. It sounds great on paper, but in practice it causes nothing but headaches. Face it, human players are going to exchange maplike information in one way or another and you might as well just let them trade maps. The area where this rule has caused the most headaches has been border agreements. For PBEM play, border agreements, almost of necessity, involve sending someone information of "I won't cross this tile, this tile, this tile, etc." You could require people to spell these issues out in words rather than making a map, but then you're just creating extra work for the same impact. If you think that if it has the same impact, it still breaks the rule, how on earth are you supposed to agree to a border??? Afterall, it wouldn't have been terribly hard for two primitive cultures to at least agree not to cross X river or X mountain range or X forest, even if they didn't have literal MAPS of the landscape.
Now, if you want to bar the trading of mini-maps or map information of internal territory likely not to have been explored by another player, that could be workable (and what the game I mention above eventually ended up making the rule since the original one just wasn't workable). Barring ALL trading of maps or even maplike information, however, is just going to create headaches.
* While I've never had to suffer under 1-3, I'm going to assume that it's a similar issue. Sounds great on paper in terms of staying with the "spirit of the game", but does little more than pointlessly create more hassle with extra rules than the "improved gameplay" is worth (and I'm not one who believes it actually IMPROVES gameplay...).
* 2-2 seems too restrictive to me. Granted, not being this strict would require you to specify out under what cases city gifting is ok and under what cases it is not, but there are some fairly clear cases where it would be ok... the issue is not so much whether a city gift occurs as a result of ending a war (as this restriction would allow), but that the city gift is PERMANENT and does not cause unit warping or other exploits. As far as I'm concerned, city gifting (effectively ceding territory) is fine as long as the gifts are *intended to be permanent*. I'd be willing to have an honor code on that one.
* 2-2-1, however, is a no brainer (good rule  ). I hate unit warping.
* 4-1 is fine by me, though I know some people don't like allowing naval chains.
Last edited by Arnelos on 27-04-2004 at 12:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:35
|
|
1.2 I'd basically agree with you on, if for no other reason than I'm not really in this for roleplaying (for that I have Morrowind .
1.3 I agree it's not really possible to enforce except in extreme cases, but I think it's important nonetheless. I don't think any of us are going to try to cheat, and this includes making deals out of the game, but nonetheless I think we should spell that out so people don't do something without thinking about it.
2.2 I think is along the same lines as 1.3 - no gifting cities because it's unreasonable for a civ to actually do that, except illegitimate reasons. There's no reason to gift a city to someone that doesn't involve either losing a war (obvious) or wanting to benefit that person over someone else, often as a result of losing a war with a third party. I think a lot of people have probably been frustrated, if I make my guess right, with the "Monopoly" effect -- if you've ever played with a family you know what I'm talking about, which is when you're dominating the game, and about to drive someone out of the game, when they suddenly sell all of their property to a third person for $1, instead of going bankrupt and giving it to you (and making you even more likely to win). This could easily happen in Civ3 ...tho my lack of experience means I've never seen it.
4.1, naval chains, I am fine with allowing, I generally don't use them (in SP games, since I've not had the chance in MP) but in the scheme of things I don't see them as being any different from using a remount on horseback ... and again only really objectionable as a roleplaying feature, since they're something we could all do (and can easily prevent by having a halfway decent navy).
My two cents. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2004 03:57
|