 |
|
belinda9
|
|
Nashville, TN USA
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
Sorry if you overvalued the comment -- I realized after I saw it in print it didn't come out exactly the same without the tone of voice,
I base that comment SOLELY on the assumption/insistance that the Americas be "left open" for colonization by the other powers (Euro, Asian, etc etc) rather than having 'real' (ie, human-run)civs placed there also...as you yourself stated it, the "colonial" aspect.
That's all
Last edited by belinda9 on 03-09-2001 at 03:16
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
belinda9
|
|
Nashville, TN USA
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
OK I know this is probably a waste of time, but here goes anyway.
This is a case for using a non-known-world map
I know everyone says they like to use a world map because then "everyone knows where you're talking about"
But to me, that's just the point -- where's the imagination in that?
Maybe it's just because the exploration and 'uncovering of the black' is my absolute favorite part of the game, but I just think it takes something out of it when everyone already knows where everything is when they first boot up the game.
You know you're in Europe and if you go south you'll hit the Med and if you go west you'll hit the Atlantic and if you sail off that way you'll find America
My contention is that it changes the fundamental element of diplomacy when YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS! If you always use a world map, you're always essentially replaying the same game over and over.
With an unknown map (and it doesn't even have to be random -- you can get someone to make it for you), it's way different. If you run into another civ, you don't know where they actually are in relation to you: you could be right smack up against them or they could not have a city for 1/2 a continent away. Would this not affect how you initially deal with them as opposed to if you know right off the bat where they're from and about where in the world they are? Are you not necessarily going to go for Mapmaking if you don't even know when (or if) you'll ever hit a coast, as opposed to knowing up front that there will be a race for America?
Isn't always playing on a world map essentially just recreating the same history over and over with only minor variations?
And if you're just reading the posts, I would think it would engage the imagination some to try to visualize what thay're talking about instead of immediately being able to know that the Romans are fussing with the Arabs over the Suez Canal. You post maps anyhow.
Also, the trading of maps becomes a much more important aspect of diplomacy, especially early in game. If I've explored alot, my maps might be worth two techs to you. It can become a trade commodity.
OK so I've never actually been able to get in on a diplo game from the get-go. And I'm not getting Civ3 anytime soon because I'd have to upgrade my computer to do so and I'm not doing that in the foreseeable future. But if Civ3 ain't having an MP capability anyhow, and someone wanted to do another Civ2 diplo game, I personally would love to see, JUST ONCE, one that wasn't another replay of the history of the known world.
Just food for thought
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frank Johnson
|
 |
Houston, TX
Jan 1970
time: 23:15
|
|
If you are trying to have large numbers of people play, recruit large numbers of interested players, even if some are new. Try a team method, maybe have 2-3 players available for each slot. Then players could swap off each week, or back each other up to fill empty time blocks. If this is unrealistic, then at least collect a list from each player of what player(s) they would like to sub for them if it comes down to it. Nothing stomps on a Diplo game more than a questionable sub out. Besides that, there should be a creed amongst the players, specificly the subs, to play their hearts out no matter what, and follow what the owner would like most (if they provided that info), at least for the first session.
Other possible ways of making NA and SA less quickly colonizable include, tweaking the map to make the terrain in the new world a bit more hostile than maybe even historicly it was. This would make resources in the new world harder to develop.
Civs or barbarians in this places are possible, but controling them to make them do what is desired, limit the first racers to the new world...may be difficult. Maybe you could make the natives more hostile to those with larger colonies or military presences in the new world.
A combination is probably best, you arrive in the new world to find it a hostile place, only to have the best parts inhabited by hordes of natives......its probably the most accurate.....
Want to stunt the growth of these native civs? One way would be to deny them the ability to remove forests, jungles, etc. SO they cannon develop much.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2001 03:05
|