25-10-2003 23:48									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'd settle for seeing the Seriously Tricky game get finished. We're so close!

As for why I play sxn games, there is so much I have learned, especially with trading in the no-science game to get 1 discovery a turn, just from trade.

Never would have thought that possible.

I have enjoyed the jousts with the other gamers, critiques of my strategy, especially with my poor start in the Tricky game with city placement.

	26-10-2003 02:55									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Stu, STYOM,

Thanks much gentlemen for your kindness and encouragement. You are all a bulwark against this, hopefully temporary, seige.

Monk

	26-10-2003 19:13									#33
	Quick question: Increase Your PM Length

The game I'm trying to set up (the island start) requires me to cheat to remove techs. For some reason, on a natural start, we keep getting 9 starting techs! Surely the location can't be that bad...

Anyway, I seem to recall that if I save the game as a scenario, the big 'CHEAT MODE' message won't be plastered all over the Civ Score screen. So how exactly do I do that? I've tried starting the game normally, cheating to remove techs at 4000 BC, then saving as .scn (MGE saves as savegame.scn.sav ) then removing the .sav and starting the savegame.scn as a scenario... but the message is still there.

I know I should probably ask in the SL forum, but a quick search of that forum didn't reveal a thread about this issue. Anyone know the answer? If not, I won't worry about it, and just save it with the cheat message there.

	26-10-2003 21:35									#34
	Re: Quick question: Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man The game I'm trying to set up (the island start) requires me to cheat to remove techs. For some reason, on a natural start, we keep getting 9 starting techs! Surely the location can't be that bad...

(Macho Man Savage voice mode) Ouuu Yeaaah!!

If the game thinks that start deserves a NINE tech bonus then it must be wicked indeed!! Hope you can solve the "problem," if it really is one. We have played SXN games with cheat mode on before, IIRC.

What may be another consideration is that the "marker" may still be set for nine starting techs, even after you remove them. Would not that effect the ongoing research tech costs number???

As long as it doesn't make research easier. I've had too many pain pills to think it through.

Monk

	26-10-2003 22:33									#35
	Tired of ads?

Nope, starting techs have no effect on research costs - techs gained via diplomacy or huts do, of course.

So they're totally free (as opposed to merely free, as in the marketing ploy 'receive this free gift when you overpay for our principal product' ).

I don't think it (cheat mode warning) is a huge problem... but for future reference, I'd like to know how the problem is avoided, if anyone knows. Obviously scenario designers have a way around it (when I play a scenario, it doesn't say 'Cheat Mode' )

	26-10-2003 22:37									#36
	Re: Re: Quick question: Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Bloody Monk As long as it doesn't make research easier. I've had too many pain pills to think it through.

Come to think of it, setting the game up as a scenario will open up the tech tree - meaning Monarchy could be researched fourth, avoiding the need for an off-tech. So maybe I should forget about setting it up as a scenario, in the interests of not making research easier

	26-10-2003 23:07									#37
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man Nope, starting techs have no effect on research costs - techs gained via diplomacy or huts do, of course.

Yes, that much I remember. My question stated more fully is, if the game thinks we should have nine techs, then, will the first nine techs we get just fill those slots so that they are, in effect, still "free", with no effect on tech costs???

Probably, I am overthinking this...and by we I mean the players + the peanut gallery.

Monk

	27-10-2003 12:38									#38
	Suffering from ads?

Nine techs will not increase the number of beakers required.

Our 10th tech will still cost the same amount as our 1st tech. So if the game thinks we deserve a nine tech bonus, we must have a truly horrid start, given that we will get our 10th tech for the same cost as the first.

	27-10-2003 12:57									#39
	Inflate your Upload Space

In the cheat menu - there is the option "Save as Scenario" this does the trick...
But it does open the tech tree

Stu

	27-10-2003 16:27									#40
	Support Apolyton

If you're going to get nine free techs when you start the game then I don't think you should worry about the direct path to Monarchy because that will probably be one of the nine. Is 4000BC an Oedo year? It ought to be.

	27-10-2003 17:53									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Okay, I'll keep my proposal out of this thread. I, too, appreciate the tact with which this discussion has been conducted. I understand and respect your opinions, although I still disagree. I hope that my ideas on a more conventional game will be considered instead:

1) Trade allowed with own or allied cities only, and only if the commodity is in demand
2) Starting out on a continent with most of the AI, meaning that you need to explore or conquer in order to expand
3) Tribute or gifts may not be received from the AI
4) Map sharing is not allowed
5) You may not use Caravans to help Wonder construction along, and you may not start on a Wonder before you have the required tech (ie. start on a different one, then switch)
6) Difficulty level +2 with Riot Factor set to 18 and Unrest Factor set to 9

	27-10-2003 20:45									#42
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

STYOM,

Go ahead and save it as a scenario -- I don't think that the "free" ride to Monarchy is all THAT significant. what might be significant is the extra hut popping that causes us to blow two extra tech rounds.

Of course as compensation to the free tech option, it wouldn't surprise me if you just went ahead & removed all the huts.

	27-10-2003 21:15									#43
	Tired of ads?

More evil than removing the huts would be to prevent the players from opening them. Then at least the AI would have a chance of getting good things out of huts.

	28-10-2003 10:31									#44
	Suffering from ads?

Thanks for the tip SG[1]... I didn't think of that.

Huts will be a non issue in all likelihood.

It's late tonight; I'll probably re-do the start as a scenario (no huts, open tech tree) and post the save tomorrow night, since there seems to be some interest

	06-11-2003 06:46									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I am still pretty new to succession games, and have done more lurking then posting, and more posting then playing (Scorched Earth).

However, I had a thought on a future Succession game that I would like opinions on.

How about a game in which Luxuries must always be at max (i.e. under a democracy 100% luxuries ; under despotism 60% luxuries etc ). With whatever percentage remains, the Taxes and Science rate would use. Obviously, the representative governments would suffer a significant disadvantage, (though they would grow quicker ), and the high luxury rate would largely be wasted (with little if any benefit over a certain percentage).

What say you all? Would this be enough of a restriction or would further restrictions be required? (and if so.....any suggestions?)

	06-11-2003 09:30									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Seems like a starting point for a succession game, Sparrowhawk.

The handicap would be a significant one in Despotism and Monarchy only, IMO - the very early stages of the game. Once cities hit size 5, I would think Xinning for tax and science would make up for the required high luxuries.

Once the game reached the Republic stage, I think it could be an easy win - 20% for cash to keep rushbuying Caravans, and the rest luxuries. Huge city growth, and probably huge cash and beaker payoffs from 'van delivery. Or from Xinning. Or both.

Interesting side effects would result. Markets would be much more valuable in quelling unrest than Temples!

If you wanted to make it really hard, you'd have to eliminate some of the work-arounds - like forcing all citizens to work tiles, for example (no specialists until size 20). Or banning Caravans. THAT would be hard.

Or you might force the players to use certain governments only...

	06-11-2003 10:26									#47
	Tired of ads?

Someone should design a FAQ for creating succession games - there's a lot of knowledge and ideas contained in this thread

There seems to be 2 ways to build a 'challenge' into a succession: either create rules that the players must follow, to make the game harder (e.g. despo&democracy only permitted governments, no foot troops, 0% science requirement) or change the environment to make the game harder (give the AIs a tech head start, adjust their AI attitudes negatively, put the players on the pole to start).

Which kind of approach does everyone like better? Personally, I think the rule sets were getting kind of extreme (moving all those units in the no Settlers game made me wish I had never started it ) and that's why I started the 'Second Sailing' game (minimal ruleset, but lots of environmental handicaps).

Any thoughts?

	06-11-2003 11:45									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

STYOM,

Back in the Day, there was a cigarette jingle which, with a small variation, went "It's not how 'hard' you make it but how you make it 'hard'.

In that 2nd Sailing thread I made a similar point to yours. No matter the approach to setting up the game, the gameplay HAS to be fun. Otherwise, what's the point??

Most of these games have been very interesting to play or to watch. Very creative. But the crew have become so skilled that, as SG[1] lamented, the outcome is never in doubt. What is left is to create interesting problems to be solved. Eventually, it may come down to doing "whatever" within a set time limit.

Since we can't make the AI smarter, one approach is to disallow the kind of strategies that the AI doesn't attempt or do well. So, no SSC, no use of vans for WOW building, limits on which WOW can be built-or captured, some kind of limit on trade, limits on city bribing, limits on gov't choices, are some ideas. Putting rule limits with the environment factors you mentioned can make for many fun and interesting games.

I think SXN games will be around a long time.

Monk

	06-11-2003 13:37									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I like it Sparrow - kind of similar to the original idea I posted at the start of this thread...

Stu

	06-11-2003 17:56									#50
	Support Apolyton

I think self-imposed rules fall into two categories:
1) Those meant to limit powerful strategies by making them less useful or completely remove them, such as restraints on what governments you can use and when
2) Those meant to create "unnatural" barriers for the player to overcome, such as the movement restraints of the Silly Rules game or SH's suggestion above

The distinction might not always be entirely clear. With the first kind of rules, the game essentially stays the same, requiring a reevaluation of your strategies. With the second kind, the game is fundamentally changed.

While running the risk of being called a hypocrite, I must say I prefer the first type. I think I'm too conservative to ever enjoy a game in which my unit movement was restricted in an "unnatural" way, whatever that is.

Or, you can change rules.txt.... *ducks*

	07-11-2003 02:12									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Two thoughts --

1) A Sxn game brings about its own set of challenges and delights as the players bring a mix of skills and priorities into the game (note the latest adventures in tech with Sail) Maybe we can capitalize on that -- have half of the Sxn players strive for Alpha and half go for conquest -- note the differing tech incentives, wonder activities, and unit movements (not to mention diplomacy) especially in the end game. Hmmmm I like it.

2) Second thought is simply different environments and different constraints open the mind for different thoughts -- a delightful exercise. I’ll be doing this as long as the folks around here let me.

	07-11-2003 02:31									#52
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Old n Slow have half of the Sxn players strive for Alpha and half go for conquest

I suspect such a game would not be much fun for the Alpha players:
1) Alpha player carefully nurtures his cities, building sparkling new improvements and WLTPD population growth.
2) Conquest player sells improvements, spams out settlers, switches to Communism, produces lots of military.

Not that *I* would ever do such a thing, but there are lots of amoral ICSers around...

	07-11-2003 10:56									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DaveV I suspect such a game would not be much fun for the Alpha players: 1) Alpha player carefully nurtures his cities, building sparkling new improvements and WLTPD population growth. 2) Conquest player sells improvements, spams out settlers, switches to Communism, produces lots of military. Not that *I* would ever do such a thing, but there are lots of amoral ICSers around...

Perhaps we could have a rule that prevents selling hapiness improvements or any improvements in the SSC.

And another rule that our reputation must stay spotless .

After that, the biggest problem would be the government form - AC players revolting to democracy and conquest players taking us back to fundamentalism.

Would we alternate conquest and AC players, or let each group have a run of 2 or 3 players?

RJM at Sleeper's

	07-11-2003 15:12									#54
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

As long as you had a couple of players on the same side playing one after the other then this would be possible. You'd need eight to have a decent game and then it would begin: Conq (1), Conq (2), Alpha (1), Alpha (2), Conq (3),.... etc. This way at least the players would have some chance of getting a small run together before the other team took over and possibly ruined all their plans.
I'd imagine that cooperation would be valuable - up to a certain point!

	07-11-2003 19:44									#55
	Put an end to popups!

I think the conquest team would easily romp across the globe LONG before an AC run could be mounted.

But it does sound like fun...

	07-11-2003 20:02									#56
	Put an end to popups!

Not if their precious crusaders were disbanded into caravans to build wonders.....
This seems like a good idea, but it'll need work. The ruleset would make or break this game, depending upon how difficult it made it for the conquering heroes - too difficult and it would be pointless, too easy and the same is true.

	08-11-2003 11:31									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Put me down as an AC player.

Suggested rule #1. No white goods in nominated SSC to be sold prior to discovery of fusion power (if we get that far).

RJM at Sleeper's

	08-11-2003 14:33									#58
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Make me a conquest player. No city may support fewer than two units, so no disbanding all the units when we go to Demo just to quell unrest.

	08-11-2003 15:09									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Old n Slow 1) A Sxn game brings about its own set of challenges and delights as the players bring a mix of skills and priorities into the game (note the latest adventures in tech with Sail) Maybe we can capitalize on that -- have half of the Sxn players strive for Alpha and half go for conquest -- note the differing tech incentives, wonder activities, and unit movements (not to mention diplomacy) especially in the end game. Hmmmm I like it.

An excellent idea! But I also think that esp. the AC Players would have a hard time. To set up rules that prevent the players from spoiling the other game completely is probably very difficult (and complicated) and I am afraid that it could be more frustrating than delightful.

How about starting 2 games on the same map. One game for an AC landing team and one game for a conquest team. We would just have to set up some rules that give both efforts equal chances, in other words making the conquest a bit more difficult. (actually both attempts should be difficult). The team with the earliest finish is the winner (so you finally have a chance to loose a game).

Zenon

	08-11-2003 19:24									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

2 games from the same start, I like that idea.

IIRC there was a lot of debate in the no science game on whether to go Fundy or Republic (only 1 government change was allowed), and it was proposed that we split into 2 teams, and see which choice was 'better' that way.

(which never happened, and we won in Republic)

Sign me up