 |
| |
|
|
badams52
|
 |
near the magic kingdom
May 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
No Improvement Challenge, AKA – Barbarian’s Challenge
Background:
From the “Breath of God: Only the Penitent Man Shall Pass” thread’s revival back on December 12, Catt gave fruit to the idea that the most efficient way to win (i.e. the method by which you will win most often while playing CIV with having the least possible chance of losing), would be to build nothing but units and possibly barracks. Not fully believing this to be possible, I postulated that we could create a new challenge. With deference to OCC, which is for the most part a builder’s challenge, I give to you the No Improvements/Infrastructure Challenge, which for the most part is a warmonger’s challenge.
Rules:
- No city improvement may be built, only units and (if so desired) wealth.
- When capturing a city, all sellable improvements must be sold (wonders, aqueducts, hospitals, and wonder produced improvements cannot be sold).
- All leaders created must be turned into armies or used to rush a military unit, no improvement rushing.
- Once you build your capitol city, there your palace stays.
You could think of your civilization as a barbarian tribe intent to pillage and plunder while spreading like a horde with your “uncivilized” ways. As you capture cities, you raze them, and those that you don’t raze, you destroy those unnecessary improvements like courthouses and factories that take up space and cost money to keep up. You may also notice that your tribe is akin to a Civilization II barbarian tribe but with the ability to build more than one different kind of unit and also cities.
Personally, I would change rule number 2 to read: “No cities will be captured, only razed with the exception of cities you built yourself but were later captured by another civilization” to make the rules easier to follow without changing the underlying challenge. With captured cities, the strategy of capturing wonders comes into play where capturing Sun Tzu’s gives you barracks in all your cities, the Pyramids granaries, etc. which you could not have built by yourself. But I’ve left rule #2 as is since that was the rule I began playing with for my personal NIC and have since gone to razing.
What we can hope to gain from the challenge:
Some insights I believe could be better understood would be:
- How to best use those 99% corrupted cities.
- How to fight (and win) when behind in technology the entire game.
- Usefulness of tighter city placement (for those of you like myself who still like a full 21 workable city radius for all cities).
- Learning just how far the capital influence vs. corruption reaches out.
- Usefulness of armies.
There may be other insights but for the moment that’s all I’ve got.
AU Game?
I personally am still stuck with CIV III 1.29f (it’s wife vs. PTW for me and my wife holds the trump card) making myself unable to create an AU scenario for everyone. This scenario might not be for everyone, but it is certainly a good learning challenge and one that I hope one of the AU creators will incorporate into a later AU game.
Hint for those who start:
You may already know this but if you want a cultural border without gaps in the middle, the farthest you can build a city from another is 4 tiles NE, SE, NW, or SW.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Nice challenge, badams52, and definitely something to consider for AU. One thing that you did not mention that will affect such a game more than anything else is the inability to build Aqueducts. Unless you've got access to a lot of fresh water, you're sure going to miss citizens 7-12 (much more than improvements).
Have you tried it yourself? I'll test-pilot this idea this weekend, and will post my results here.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaveMcW
|
|
Interesting concept. I've gotten bored of mind-numbing unit production and movement, but some people might find it fun.
Possible tweaks to the rules:
1. Palace jump by abandonment or leader is allowed. (Relocate to that area with rivers!)
2. All captured improvements must be sold off; if the city contains an aqueduct, hospital, or wonder it must be abandoned.
3. One harbor per continent is allowed, but that city can't build or heal ships.
Obviously you'll need to win the game before the UN is built!
Last edited by DaveMcW on 14-02-2003 at 06:50
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Here's a screenshot from a Carthaginian NIC game I just started up (see below). Things are going pretty well so far. My closest neighbors are the Vikings, which helps things a little since they typically pose no thread early on. The other (distant) neighbor is the Zulu. Since their traits are the same, I've had some good trading opportunities, including techs-for-Workers from both the Vikings and the Zulu. That set the Vikings back quite a bit, and I'm taking them over easily. Once I finish them off, the plan is to REX like mad, build some boats, and gun for Chivalry.
Industrious/Commercial is definitely the combo of choice for NIC, IMO. I'm going to use one of DaveMcW's rules, palace-jumping, since you're technically not building a Wonder when you palace-jump. Everything else is "by the book" (raze all conquered cities immediately).
I have no idea how much "staying power" I will have without improvements, but I'm game to try! Wish me luck!
Dominae
 Attachment: nic.jpg
This has been downloaded 123 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BRC
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus in Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Also, in a way this relates (I think) to Vel’s earlier discussions about the “meta-game” and “cracking the code” of how to win. I’ve always thought that he gave up a little to soon in fleshing out his ‘worldview’ of Civ3, having developed a fairly rote approach to winning typically standard games (I know, I know… HERESY!! But I’ve made this point before). It also relates to Aeson’s SVC, which I continue to consider the most sophisticated game I’ve seen. |
This is the quote that I was searching for (thanks for the help though, badams52).
Theseus, or Vel, or whoever: Can we get a little more elaboration on this and on the style of play that was developed?? Did the 'fairly rote approach to winning' resemble the technique that is being experimented with here??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
BRC, IIRC what Vel was getting at was that, on average, he knew that simply military conquest was the "no-brainer" way to win. Sure, there were games when more skill was required, but his opinion was that almost every game "felt" the same, since the major decisions were not really decisions (get Horses, get Iron, build Horsemen, Swordsmen, upgrade to Knights, wait for Cavalry, win). He was not saying that he had an algorithm for winning every game, just that games too often looked the same to him.
Before the summer, I shared his sentiment, but now I'm back trying new things and it is loads of fun. Sure, if you play the game the same way you'll eventually get bored. But I, unlike Vel, do not resent the fact that I know a good way of winning the game, and am forced not to use it to have fun (consider: ICS).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
Perhaps #2 should be changed to all cities with Great Wonders and/or structures that can't be sold must be raized to the ground. |
Bah, be a real barbarian and raze all captured cities. It does not make the game that much harder, IMO (you should have Settlers and gold aplenty - why gold? no barracks = no upgrades).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
BRC, IIRC what Vel was getting at was that, on average, he knew that simply military conquest was the "no-brainer" way to win. Sure, there were games when more skill was required, but his opinion was that almost every game "felt" the same, since the major decisions were not really decisions (get Horses, get Iron, build Horsemen, Swordsmen, upgrade to Knights, wait for Cavalry, win). He was not saying that he had an algorithm for winning every game, just that games too often looked the same to him.
Before the summer, I shared his sentiment, but now I'm back trying new things and it is loads of fun. Sure, if you play the game the same way you'll eventually get bored. But I, unlike Vel, do not resent the fact that I know a good way of winning the game, and am forced not to use it to have fun (consider: ICS). |
I think that's a very accurate description of Vel's views as well -- which prompted him to start work on Candle'bre.
And, like Dominae, I still have a lot of fun with the game, but I deliberately deviate from what I know to be "better" strategy in order to have fun (as Dom pointed out - witness ICS).
Catt 
Last edited by Catt on 15-02-2003 at 04:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
This sounds like mucho fun... but no barracks for a warmongering special??!!
|
I wish were having more fun with this, but really it gets very tedious after a while (probably has something to do with my Cavalry beeline that has left me using Galleys as transports...ugh). But as an interesting exercise, I'm glad to have done it once. You should try it sometime.
No barracks is hugely important. I would say NIC with Barracks is far easier than without; the loss of upgrading power is rough.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2003 04:58
|
