 |
|  |
 |
|
Epik
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Jun 2000 time: 00:18
|
|
Starting this Saturday at 7PM EST is fine with me.
No early kills? I am not so sure about that... The possibility of someone marching a settler into my territory and building a city next to one of my cities, is something I normally would not allow to happen.
The 3 city capture rule is acceptable. Am I correct in assuming that it is 3 per tribe. (An alliance of 2 tribes could capture 6 cities per turn)
All of the other settings are okay with me.
Is this game going to for Alpha Centauri or World Domination? I ask this because in the one MP game I played to AC, we encountered several late game bugs. Perhaps you have some other victory condition in mind, or just want to play until someone is obviously dominating the game. I do not really care which way we play it, I just want to know in advance, so I can adjust my strategy.
Last edited by Epik on 22-03-2002 at 20:24
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dank
|
|
Lets go over all of the rules before we start playing....just so there is no arguments about a rule not explained. Will there be wonders alowed? or not or just one per civ? I assume we will be doing the 3 city rule but lets just get it all in one place.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dank
|
|
Damn......I can't play this weekend.....I'm going out of town and I forgot....sorry
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
deity
|
 |
Parrot Towers, Killcare Heights, NSW, Australia
May 1999 time: 14:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Epik
Starting this Saturday at 7PM EST is fine with me.
No early kills? I am not so sure about that... The possibility of someone marching a settler into my territory and building a city next to one of my cities, is something I normally would not allow to happen. |
I guess what I meant was not the Capital and not 3 cities that might wipe out the entire civ. Let's say undefended non-Caps can be attacked, one per turn until 1000BC? Obviously units including settlers are fair game 
quote:
The 3 city capture rule is acceptable. Am I correct in assuming that it is 3 per tribe. (An alliance of 2 tribes could capture 6 cities per turn) |
That would be my understanding and intention.
quote:
All of the other settings are okay with me.
Is this game going to for Alpha Centauri or World Domination? I ask this because in the one MP game I played to AC, we encountered several late game bugs. Perhaps you have some other victory condition in mind, or just want to play until someone is obviously dominating the game. I do not really care which way we play it, I just want to know in advance, so I can adjust my strategy. |
Normal civ victory conditions apply.
IF we get to SS we'll discuss in the light of your other diplo with drake - I read that thread 
---
Wonders? I don't like Wonders dominating a game so I'd prefer no Wonders or ONE per civ.
How about one per civ?
I'm a bit anti about alliances too. In other games it tended to force the world into 2 or 3 blocs. And tech trading gets restricted to these blocs.
I may be in the minority but I think because of the way the civ engine works it may be best to have no "alliances" and no tech trading? But stealing and capture are OK.
To sum up my SUGGESTIONS:
ONE Wonder per civ
NO Alliances
NO Tech trading
ONLY capture one undefended city per turn pre 1000BC (per civ)
ONLY capture 3 cities per turn per civ thereafter
Ceding units OK BUT NO double moves
No City bribe
Unit bribe OK
All tricks acceptable in Rah Rules are OK - like IRB is OK, etc
All the cheats not accepted in Rah rules NOT OK - NO caraporting, etc
And ozzy, shut the frig up!
In HOTW 2 you started major global war by nearly annhilating Mali!
Rules ARE necesary in diplos and in fact all games, otherwise mavericks like you, sonny, have no rules to break LOL!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
deity
|
 |
Parrot Towers, Killcare Heights, NSW, Australia
May 1999 time: 14:18
|
|
Just went over the thread and summarised the consensus thus far...
Current line up:
Dangime (FJ)
Hydey [HOST] if he shows, may need a sub and a host
Epik
Berzerker
Dank (Flatlander Fox may sub)
Makeo
deity
Settings and Rules:
Customise World: Normal 50x80 Map, normal landmass, varied terrain, wet, cool, 4 billion yrs, Deity level, 7 civs, Roving Bands, Std Rules
1x1x
ONE Wonder per civ
NO Alliances
NO Tech trading
ONLY capture one undefended city per turn pre-1000BC (per civ)
ONLY capture 3 cities per turn per civ thereafter
Ceding units OK, BUT NO double moves
No City bribe
Unit bribe OK
All tricks acceptable in Rah Rules are OK - like IRB is OK, etc
All the cheats not accepted in Rah rules NOT OK - NO caraporting, etc
You can't ask another civ to go to war on someone else to avoid revolution
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Epik
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Jun 2000 time: 00:18
|
|
I am concerned that Normal Landmass and Varied Land Form could cause one or more tribe to get stuck starting on an island. When I try it, the number of islands seems to be reduced when choosing either Large Landmass or Contintents (you do not need to choose both to reduce the number of islands to an acceptable level). Also, a Large Landmass (or Continents) would give the 7 tribes more room to develop without having to go to a larger map size.
The Wet Climate seems to create more rivers, but it also creates more swamps and jungles. I would prefer the Normal Climate, but I can live with Wet, since the game seems to spread things out evenly.
If you take away alliances and tech trading, don't you also eliminate most of the diplomatic part of the game? It doesn't leave much else to negotiate. I certainly don't want to see permanent alliances develop, but I would hope that self interest would eventually cause an alliance to break up. Tech stealing agreements can be a funky because until you get spys you don't get to choose the tech. Allowing Tech Trading allows you to negotiate a price (gold or another tech). I also think that Tech Trading can keep the game going longer. At some point one player will develop a big lead and without tech trading it can get pretty hopeless for those that fall behind. When it gets hopeless for some of the players, then the game will probably collapse.
That said... I am still willing to play the game without alliances and tech trading. I would like to hear how you think the problems I mentioned can be overcome.
I like the One Wonder per Civ rule. It will be interesting to see which one people go for. Is it gonna be a problem if someone captures a Wonder City, and they already have a wonder of their own? If it is, then we should probably go with the No Wonders.
All of the other rules are acceptable to me.
It sounds like Dank and Hydey are unavailable tonight... will we start next Saturday or wait until after the Easter Holiday? I am available today, and next Saturday.
I do have a cable modem, so I could host if necessary.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
deity
|
 |
Parrot Towers, Killcare Heights, NSW, Australia
May 1999 time: 14:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Epik
I am concerned that Normal Landmass and Varied Land Form could cause one or more tribe to get stuck starting on an island. When I try it, the number of islands seems to be reduced when choosing either Large Landmass or Contintents (you do not need to choose both to reduce the number of islands to an acceptable level). Also, a Large Landmass (or Continents) would give the 7 tribes more room to develop without having to go to a larger map size. |
You may be correct, I'm not sure, but it's nice to keep some variety in the terrain and the fun in discovering islands, using them strategically, etc. But maybe your settings give the best of both worlds. If everyone agrees, try Large Landmass with Varied Landform?
quote:
The Wet Climate seems to create more rivers, but it also creates more swamps and jungles. I would prefer the Normal Climate, but I can live with Wet, since the game seems to spread things out evenly. |
All my tests with Dang's settings have producued excellent maps - wet, cool, 4 bill. Swamps don't dominate.
quote:
If you take away alliances and tech trading, don't you also eliminate most of the diplomatic part of the game? It doesn't leave much else to negotiate. I certainly don't want to see permanent alliances develop, but I would hope that self interest would eventually cause an alliance to break up. Tech stealing agreements can be a funky because until you get spys you don't get to choose the tech. Allowing Tech Trading allows you to negotiate a price (gold or another tech). I also think that Tech Trading can keep the game going longer. At some point one player will develop a big lead and without tech trading it can get pretty hopeless for those that fall behind. When it gets hopeless for some of the players, then the game will probably collapse. |
I thought about this but on balance and based on experience I think we do tend to form long term blocs. It's a bit of a security blanket I suppose.
If a civ gets a great lead I'm sure six others with spies etc can change the course of history. The game is NEVER over in my book LOL Plus SDI is OK and spies can get around that....
quote:
That said... I am still willing to play the game without alliances and tech trading. I would like to hear how you think the problems I mentioned can be overcome.
I like the One Wonder per Civ rule. It will be interesting to see which one people go for. Is it gonna be a problem if someone captures a Wonder City, and they already have a wonder of their own? If it is, then we should probably go with the No Wonders. |
I think if a civ loses a Wonder, then, oh well they lost a Wonder!! You now have two So, theoretically one civ could end up with 7 Wonders - sounds poetic, I like it!
Good points Epik and thanks. It made me think a bit!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
winzity
|
|
Sweden
Sep 1999 time: 05:18
|
|
Anybody that will play Civ 2 tonight? Welcome to ICQ me if you want one more player for this session.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|