 |
|
rjmatsleepers
|
|
I think he means the rules.txt file. If so here it is (I'm pretty sure this is an unmodified version).
RJM at Sleeper's
 Attachment: rules.zip
This has been downloaded 2 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elephant
|
|
Phila PA
Aug 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
Read the Dips&Spies thread in the Great Library. There's something about stealing only one tech from any one city. Have you stolen from that city before?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zenon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Is there an accepted list of default rules?? I do not believe I have ever seen such a thing. Prose discussing no-no's yes, but no actual list. Was this a decided thing from back in the very old days?? |
I would like to ask the same question. Is there a set of game rules for this tournament other than no black clicking or helper programs? What about cheats and tricks like those listed in Ming´s thread?
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...=&threadid=2243
Certainly most if not all of them should be banned. Same is true for the list of CFC for GOTMS, which I find quite good (with the exception of allowing caravan rehoming of cause).
http://forums.civfanatics.com/print...238&perpage=100
Zenon
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rjmatsleepers
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by germanos
Buying units 'per row' is often called "incremental rushbuying" and it is an old technique that is used extensively in PBEM's (and in any SP i play as well). There might be house-rules against it in some games.
|
The above was from another thread. I have always assumed that incremental rush buying was OK. Do we have any house rules on the subject?
RJM at Sleeper's
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elephant
|
|
Phila PA
Aug 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
Gads, I hope not - if that is a no-no, we should toss most of the games here. If you're going to get picky about that, why not rule out ship chains and precharging settlers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
geofelt
|
|
Neptune Beach,Florida,USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
As to cities with wonders. Make it a rule that it can not be bribed or captured. I intend to do just that. You can check with F7 to see if a prospective capture has one. Since this is a fast spaceship win objective, conquest of all cities is not necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
8 cities would have been just fine with me for this game!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zenon
|
|
Well, thinking about this again it may indeed be time to consider the changes to ELG playing style in the last 18 months. The robust approach was very successful first on large maps, then on medium maps were it broke all former records. Solo, you finally even succeeded to break your own 615 AD record with an ICS-like approach. Now we had a small map with difficult conditions and again the robust approach turned out to be more effective. I have been one of the advocates of the style for a long time and while it was a very challenging and a lot of fun to explore the ways to make it more effective I never intended to push the classic ELG style aside. Those games are probably even more demanding in terms of strategy and some of the best games ever played belong to this style. Some players like Monk have expressed their feeling that it is a pity that classic style ELG´s are somewhat in the background, now. I agree.
May be we should think of the classic lean style vs. the robust approach as of 2 different categories. We allready have an extra category of ELG, the One City Challenge. One simple rule would allow us to make a difference between lean and robust: don´t build more than 8 cities before 1 AD. We would then have 3 categories and each player could choose what he likes best:
1. OCC (OCC Rules)
2. Classic ELG (not more than 8 cities before 1 AD)
3. Open ELG (no restrictions)
What do you think?
Zenon
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
I was kidding in my post above, since you were able to prove that robust without wonders could achieve 2 tech turns (and succeed again in blowing away my own landing date with one that was much better! Congrats again on your truly marvelous game). My errant pre-game assumption was that happiness problems would prevent this.
In general, I always prefer games where there are the fewest restrictions on the players, allowing the optimal strategy to prevail. However, it has also seemed to be the case that in any type of game (except OCC), whether the game be conquest, EL, or MP; that an intensive ICS-like strategy works best. This doesn't bother me personally, but I do dislike having to micro-manage more than a dozen or so cities.
This was one reason why OCC was (and still is) so popular among players. It takes away ICS, while still presenting a challenge in city management.
My own idea for a fresh approach that would limit ICS is this:
Use the regular EL rules, but add the following:
1) You may only found two cities.
2) The only way to add more cities will be to capture them from the AI or the barbarians.
Now with two cities, you'll want one as your SSC as in OCC or regular EL games, but a second one will help remove some of the problems we encountered with OCC games, such as the lack of trading opportunities. With fewer cities to manage, games will not become tedious ICS affairs.
Now with only two cities, there will be many questions players will have to ask:
1) When and where should that second city be placed? Two cities early will almost double early production, but a remote colony later may be better for trade.
2) Will it be worthwhile bribing or capturing AI cities, and if so, how many would be optimal? Too much conquest may divert resources and slow down tech progress.
I think an approach like this may offer the most variety in player strategies, while theoretically placing no limit on the total number of cities. It will take a game or two to test this out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rjmatsleepers
|
|
Hi guys,
Only 1 week to go and so far only 2 entries posted. Are there some finished games out there that haven't been entered yet? Are there some nearly finished games that just need a final push?
The whole Zulu nation is waiting to find it's place in history.
RJM at Sleeper's
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
RJM,
I also needed your reminder!
Zenon,
Your English is fine, and your play is better!
I agree with what you said, and we'll see what is offered for the next tournament.
Maybe Markos will opt for the 2 city idea or some other restriction limiting the use of ICS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bloody Monk
|
 |
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
Zenon,
I am a great admirer of your accomplishments and refinements to the original style of EL play. From solo's original plan emphasizing early Republic to my suggestion to delay for a longer time in Monarchy (and building MPE and Mike's) to your very robust approaches, I have greatly enjoyed playing these games. I think my taking of pain pills has diminished my ability to follow and replicate your games and for that I feel very sad. Being able to beat the trade-off between more settlers/cities or more camels is something I have yet to master, so I am left with a great feeling of awe about your results.
I say those things because I don't think I am an advocate of any particular style, at this point. As long as it is interesting and fun, I find it to be a worthwile experience. Now as to the attractiveness of the current idea about a two-city game, I wonder if the answer is not found already in your first paragraph. This current game was a very interesting challenge (and I tried to inspire fence-sitters to jump in), but, as you say, it is only the old EL gang who have participated.
So, my contribution to this discussion is to ask that we try not to make the games too restrictive, or so restrictive that other folk decide not to play. I was an advocate of posting the original save in classic 2.42 form so that more folk could be involved, and while I realize that a Civ2 renaissance is unlikely, I would like to rekindle as much interest as possible. I wonder if a two city game will have that kind of broad appeal.
Before we go there, perhaps a conquest game is in order. There seemed to be a lively interest in that kind of game last time. It would also give us a chance for some discussions about theories, strats for early conquest (EC) games like we previously had about EL games.
An idea you expressed a few posts earlier has great appeal to me. By having sub-categories for the game (OCC, etc) folk could have more choices about how to proceed. The problem (if it is a problem) is that there seems to be not enough participants for many partitions to make sense...but if we are having fun that may not matter.
Monk 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
I submitted the save, and the system says it's there, but for some reason it can not be accessed through the HOF. However, another copy was attached to my game results in the spoiler thread. You may download it from there for now.
I agree very much with Monk about not having tournament games that are too restrictive. It's much better to have wide participation in these, I think. Maybe some separate, but unofficial games with more restrictions are in order for players wanting to specialize. Anyone may post a start, a set of rules, and then others may join in if they are interested.
Personally, I was ready for another conquest game in September, since the first tournament got me interested in conquest strategies. I didn't mind switching to spaceship, but am sure others did mind not having conquest as an alternative.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-09-2004 10:23
)
|