OK - I have read through the stickied posts and am familiar with the roleplaying & geopolitical elements. And I'm down with that. I like the idea of extending the gameplay beyond the game mechanics and playing out the politics. And this involves the dedication to maintain e-mail correspondence, and so on.
I'm also not the sort to quit once I've lost a city, and actually quite enjoy toughing out setbacks or bad starts.
I'm a little unclear on what 'preparation' is involved, beyond choosing a leader. I'm fairly relaxed about settings, but tend to dislike continent maps when all players on a continent ally for the duration of the game. But I tend not to mind - I like surprises, and making the best of what you're given.
And I'm also unclear, given the emphasis on 'solving problems through diplomacy', whether war actually breaks out in any of these games. Diplomacy is as much about balancing self-interests, and maintaining the threat of war, as 'solving problems'. I'd want the sort of game where alliances can be built, but also broken, if the situation demands it, and also where acts of war can be threats and parts of the diplomacy - (say pillaging a tile as a warning, or breaking off trade to show displeasure) rather than just sending 10 stacks to blitzkrieg cities or whatever. As long as acts have consistency (rather than just playing to win) then nothing should be off-limits...
Also, there is one player per civ, right?
I'm also not the sort to quit once I've lost a city, and actually quite enjoy toughing out setbacks or bad starts.
I'm a little unclear on what 'preparation' is involved, beyond choosing a leader. I'm fairly relaxed about settings, but tend to dislike continent maps when all players on a continent ally for the duration of the game. But I tend not to mind - I like surprises, and making the best of what you're given.
And I'm also unclear, given the emphasis on 'solving problems through diplomacy', whether war actually breaks out in any of these games. Diplomacy is as much about balancing self-interests, and maintaining the threat of war, as 'solving problems'. I'd want the sort of game where alliances can be built, but also broken, if the situation demands it, and also where acts of war can be threats and parts of the diplomacy - (say pillaging a tile as a warning, or breaking off trade to show displeasure) rather than just sending 10 stacks to blitzkrieg cities or whatever. As long as acts have consistency (rather than just playing to win) then nothing should be off-limits...
Also, there is one player per civ, right?
are those two traits uninteresting or just weak? I for one feel that there are a few trait combinations missing from the game, Expansive, Creative (old cyrus), Philosophical, Creative (old freddy) AND Financial, Creative (old cathy) were cut out in warlords, these traits have not been given new leaders
something to mention to firaxis perhaps? In addition Financial, Organized (washington) have also disappeared, and there are probably many other combinations (though some are of course excluded for overpowered purposes (ind\phi is one such combo).
) but were not active in the forums / pm front.
I've got lots of ideas for if I round my religions, though ^___^
Comment