HOTW7 Set up thread

[OzzyKP]

Space race was in Civ2. So nothing changes really.

Usually though it just ends in massive war.

[Robert]

Of course there was a space race in civ2, but it was implemented differently.
And what's wrong with a massive war in the end? It'll be most probably alliance vs alliance vs alliance, and most probably an alliance won't start it before they're sure that they're going to lose the space race. That's most probably when one alliance already build over 60% of their SS. Then it'll be Alliance A vs Alliance B. Worst case is all alliances vs all alliances. Then it's a matter of being able to defend your key cities as long as possible. (key cities = ss building cities)

It might be close, but that's only triple pleasure.
Why not just look at how it'll be in civ4 under the current circumstances?

[MMC]

I believe the Space Race is an important part of the game... but I think there should be the option to develop it in secret (possibly making each component cost more or just simply take longer to build in order to balance it). Of course the Apollo Mission is a wonder, and as such should be announced, but the components could be done in secret.
Perhaps we could add this (as an optional game setting) to our mod to-do list.

[Robert]

That would take all the tension away.
All is then just only a shot in the dark.

[MMC]

Actually it would add a lot of tension...
If you see the the message that an enemy has built the Apollo Mission, then you don't know how quickly their going to build the components, leading to:
a) Attacking them to slow down any production they *might* be doing for the space race.
b) Spying on them to find out what they're up to. This would make spies more useful - possibly towards the level of Civ2
c) Rush building your own Apollo Mission / Components so that you don't lag behind.

[LzPrst]

I think the space race and the likely war that it causes is an ok ending. But I still believe that some form of vote + score will allow for different behaviour in the endgame. as it is now every endgame will result in a massive alliance vs alliance vs alliance war. predictable. inevitable. boring.

I feel that the vote + score will award the victory to the overall best player. not just the one who can toss up the spaceship first. I think that having the players themselves decide upon who they consider to be the winner is a step up from the SS victory. it gives more to the victor than just being the one in the most production-strong alliance.

I feel strongly for this, I think it would be a wonderful way to end the game, by summing up each players' efforts and awarding them.

another category might be suggested also, in addition to military, diplomatic and storytelling, namely Greatest Civilization. who has the most impressing empire overall at the end of the game.

[LzPrst]

it also will allow a player who isnt top dog or even part of an alliance to win. I say we try a vote at the end of HOTW5 and then discuss if it was a good way to do it.

[OzzyKP]

I agree completely Lz. We need a vote and points system.

[MMC]

How about completing the game (with all victory conditions enabled), and the winner then gets say 100 (or 1000, or whatever we can agree is fair) points added to their score as the only recognition that they won? Then we could have the vote + points system.

[The Capo]

Guys, you're reading far too much into what I'm saying.

First of all I don't care about the religion thing, I was just saying that it gives all of the faiths more vibrance if they have one guy running them. I don't care that much.

But as far as your arguments against go; I don't think "realism" should be our main concern, its the diplomacy that should be our main concern.

I think we'll have more vibrant diplomacy if each state only gets one religion, that way none will go by the wayside and we can have much more conflict surrounding them.

But again, I dont' really care that much.

[LzPrst]

well, imo if a few religions end up in the way side, so what? I think its only natural that some civs might have more than one religion and that not all those religions will be worldspanning diplomacyinfluencing religions.

it also makes alliances based on religion harder as most civs will have their own. I say we forget it. (but a 3 religion pr civ cap might not be idiotic, but unlikely necessary)

[Sabrdrak]

Well, I'm all for playing, y'know, a game of Civ 4.
Is all this talk about modding really necessary?

When I look at this whole idea, I'm seeing a lengthly and committed game going on between a group of interested individuals and thusly, elimination is avoided through diplomacy wherever possible. That way, we maintain everyone in the game and nobody gets left out of the fun. Kind of like if you're ever played tabletop Monopoly when you were a kid and you made all sorts of deals with someone when they landed on your hotel Boardwalk.

So, I guess what I'm asking, is - as concisely as possible, why do we really need anything modded?

[Prussia]

To enhance the fun of the game.

[OzzyKP]

Ok, Warlords is out. Everyone go and buy it so we can get this game going.

[Prussia]

Yeah, but do we need to wait for a custom map?