 |
|  |
 |
|
FrustratedPoet
|
 |
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
Mar 2002 time: 05:23
|
|
I can imagine this scenario:
We set-up the game on December 1st and some poor team (it could be any of us) gets a terrible start position. I mean truely awful.
All they can see at the start is Tundra and mountains.
Quite understandably they complain, saying "This start is unplayable ... This'll be no fun for us ... Can we start again?"
This delays the start of play because we have to break off to discuss what to do.
Why don't we talk about this now?
It would be silly if we restarted the game several times until everyone is happy, but it would also be very unfair if a team that has put a lot of work and enthusiasm into the game (i.e. All of us) gets a start position that means they won't ever have a chance.
I propose that we set the game up a week before December 1st and everyone plays their 4000BC turn. This will be very quick because there is almost nothing to do except build your city, set Science and move your worker one square (and your scout if you have one).
This will also give everyone the chance to see their start position.
Every team should be happy to except a less-than-optimal start, of course. Anyone complaining that they don't have a cow, river, luxury and a couple of shielded grassland will not receive any sympathy I think, and for obvious reasons.
However, if somebody gets a truely awful start - and I mean REALLY bad - then they should PM all the other team leaders a screenie of it and if everyone agrees it would only be fair to start again then we can.
Of course, if the other team captains say "That's not so bad, stop being such a girl and get on with it" then the complaining team is stuck with their start.
Hopefully common sense will be used on all sides.
If we go through this process a week before the scheduled game start then we should be able to start on time with no controversies.
Any ideas, comment, criticism?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DeepO

|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002 time: 06:23
|
|
I do agree that it has to be possible to ask for a restart when it isn't looking rosy, I just oppose the idea of having to post your starting position. Besides, this is a friendly game, if the starting pos is bad, most likely we will restart, even if the others have superb starts and will likely gain less.
If we are on archipelago, more of us will suffer, and going borg can really do wonders to your research budget. You'd be suprised how fast you get map making if you need to. Plus it has another advantage: your isolation will protect you to. (I'm not deying that I'd rather have a few cows on a continent, but if it isn't too bad, you can work with it )
Maybe a rule would be that you need to be on the same landmass as at least one other player / AI, this will prevent those too isolated positions. If you're alone, it's your choice if you want to play it out (I would on a decent island), but at least everyone will agree that we are allowed to restart if there is no-one to conquer / trade with.
DeepO
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
WarriorPoet
|
|
Third party....I don't know, I'd rather believe in the honesty of random number generation....besides, whose definition of "totally screwed" would we live by?
Finally, with a third party, how could we be ensured of their impartiality? What would be the appeals process?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
WarriorPoet
|
|
How would you manage the third party situation? I say develope a small piece of code or have a tabular system ready for the third party human evaluator. Let them spy the start locations and run a numeric calculation based on terrain and resource values and distance required to find a position with at least "x" points.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:23
|
|
I don't have a problem with someone like Gramphos or Mark or someone else looking at it. There are so many steps that people could cheat, this one seems rather small to me. And i think eyeballing it should be sufficient. I mean, if its not in tundra or jungle, it should be ok. Its obvious which starts are just awful and should be restarted. Anything less than completely awful, I say play on.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
WarriorPoet
|
|
Okay AAW, I'll go with that...but what if one person is on a riven with four nearby hills with wine and on a river, and let's say there are also three cattle resources, and the other squares within city range are shield bonus grassland...meanwhile every one else started in flood plains with no hills...is this justifiable for a restart???
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|