Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [OOC Chat Thread]

[Robert]

So, you guys dislike my idea to close the org thread and only put really important msg here.
You guys also don't like Ozzy deleting stuff, right?

So, what do you propose to keep a healthy and clean org thread?

(posted this question in org thread first, but then it got closed so I moved it here )

[Pitboss Vikings]

what ever ozzy decides is good..

[Pitboss Vikings]

Ozzy keeps showing why youth rights are an oxymoron.!!

[Pitboss Korea]

Ozzy is proving why a lot of things are bad ideas.

BTW @ Raz; I love you man, but I have served my country, and my country is the United States.

We are a good people, and no man who has given service would deny this. Respect our sacrafice, and I respect yours.

Semper Fidelis.

Long live the United States of America.

[deity]

I think I just had a brain wave...

Why not make unused tech vouchers worth tech points at the end of the game?

We could work out an average beaker value of a voucher that translates into game score points. Just add this to the end game scores for those civs not using vouchers.

This would make them more valuable, particularly for those unable to use them all up.

It also makes you think carefully about using them.

Is this good?

Or am I being an old veteran fart that lost the plot?

[Pitboss Persia]

Do you know the ratio from beakers to IG-score ? If so, this could be done, but to be honest, i'd dislike the idea. It would further discourage charity (I hope it is clear that I am not counting on charity for myself, but maybe on giving techs later on).

And btw, if you wish to change the value of a voucher, i would only agree if my suggestion is integrated to the changes. Because your suggestion makes remaining vouchers affect the final score, and i would be harmed by this change.

Plus, it could lead to weak civs refusing charity (a tech for a voucher), thinking that the voucher may be worth more in the end. And that would completely unbalance the system as a whole.

[Pitboss Persia]

Originally posted by CyberShy


So, what do you propose to keep a healthy and clean org thread?

Ban Japan and Vikings for a while ? (just kidding)

Oh and Vikings, you may organize the Razolympics with lame games like ship races (at which only stupid people would challange you, btw), speed forest-chopping and hardcore-sittin'around. In the mean time Japan and I may play the real game : fighting to death on the open field.

Obviously the reward for playing the real game is already given by the game mechanics (great generals).

I have thought about finding an Island with just enough place to put one city each on it. This city would not build anything (no culture, no walls, no units). The city would have to be on flat land, without rivers protecting one of the flancs. Everyone places 5 (or more, the important thing is that there is the same number on both sides at the beginning of a round) units of his choice on the island, and the first to take out the others city wins the round. If there are only city-defending units left to both, it's a draw.

After a round, the city is returned to the looser who has to pay a small price (5 gold per participant), and both resuply their participating units. The winner may retreat his veterans from the island or keep them on it for the next round, as long as he only has 5 units on the island.

Good idea ?

There could even be more than two participants if we find and island big enough to do this. For obvious reasons, we can't allow creative leaders to participate (sorry greece, i know your spartans would love that game), this restriction applies to the mayans, because of stonhenge. Another method would be to have several islands for this. Let's say there are 3 participants. there would be three islands : A vs. B, B vs. C and A vs. C.

It would be a great tactics game IMHO : what units do you choose ? What promotions ? How many defenders will you use for your city, knowing that each defender means less attackers ? If there are more than two participants... would you stay back until there is only one opponent left, or pack up on one participant with others ? What about your veterans ? Would you rather abandon a loosing round in order to keep them for the next round, or would you trust them in winning the round even with numerical inferiority ?

The problem is : the participating civs need to be at war one with another, thereby preventing trade. Making peace would be equivalent to abandonning the current round.


Edit : Of course, it is possible to replace the cities by hills or forests, as long as all participants do have the same square type to defend. That wouldn't be as expansive as having a "useless" city somewhere on an island, and would allow creative leaders to participate.

[Pitboss Rome]

The Cyberain agressor has closed the org thread.

[Pitboss Portugal]

Why is the Org thread closed?

[Pitboss Japan]

Originally posted by Pitboss Persia


Ban Japan and Vikings for a while ? (just kidding)

Oh and Vikings, you may organize the Razolympics with lame games like ship races (at which only stupid people would challange you, btw), speed forest-chopping and hardcore-sittin'around. In the mean time Japan and I may play the real game : fighting to death on the open field.

Obviously the reward for playing the real game is already given by the game mechanics (great generals).

I have thought about finding an Island with just enough place to put one city each on it. This city would not build anything (no culture, no walls, no units). The city would have to be on flat land, without rivers protecting one of the flancs. Everyone places 5 (or more, the important thing is that there is the same number on both sides at the beginning of a round) units of his choice on the island, and the first to take out the others city wins the round. If there are only city-defending units left to both, it's a draw.

After a round, the city is returned to the looser who has to pay a small price (5 gold per participant), and both resuply their participating units. The winner may retreat his veterans from the island or keep them on it for the next round, as long as he only has 5 units on the island.

Good idea ?

There could even be more than two participants if we find and island big enough to do this. For obvious reasons, we can't allow creative leaders to participate (sorry greece, i know your spartans would love that game), this restriction applies to the mayans, because of stonhenge. Another method would be to have several islands for this. Let's say there are 3 participants. there would be three islands : A vs. B, B vs. C and A vs. C.

It would be a great tactics game IMHO : what units do you choose ? What promotions ? How many defenders will you use for your city, knowing that each defender means less attackers ? If there are more than two participants... would you stay back until there is only one opponent left, or pack up on one participant with others ? What about your veterans ? Would you rather abandon a loosing round in order to keep them for the next round, or would you trust them in winning the round even with numerical inferiority ?

The problem is : the participating civs need to be at war one with another, thereby preventing trade. Making peace would be equivalent to abandonning the current round.


Edit : Of course, it is possible to replace the cities by hills or forests, as long as all participants do have the same square type to defend. That wouldn't be as expansive as having a "useless" city somewhere on an island, and would allow creative leaders to participate.

do you realize how long this would all take and how much of a waist of time and resources this would be. I think we should gather 10 of our best and last one standing wins. if more ppl join we can make it into a tournament and after each fight you can replace the units you lost and if you can't after 10 turns then your disqualified. of course as a result you would get a great general but if you get a great general and you are not the victor you must give it to the winner along with 2 military units of the winner’s choosing

[Robert]

Originally posted by Pitboss Rome
The Cyberain agressor has closed the org thread.

I haven't closed the original thread.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by CyberShy


I haven't closed the original thread.

Really? Then why are both threads closed (including the original thread)?

[Pitboss Korea]

Originally posted by CyberShy
So, you guys dislike my idea to close the org thread and only put really important msg here.
You guys also don't like Ozzy deleting stuff, right?

So, what do you propose to keep a healthy and clean org thread?

(posted this question in org thread first, but then it got closed so I moved it here )

I would agree, but hardly anybody else uses these forums, so what's the point?

[MMC]

Ozzy probably closed the second thread, like he closed the first thread. Talk about oppressing the right to free speech amongst the youth (and the young at heart )...

[Pitboss Korea]

It may be my fault, I was kinda screwing with Ozzy. He deleted one of my posts, so I made a post saying that he would delete posts and he deleted that one. He may have been pissed off and closed the thread.

You moderators need to relax though, jesus its just Apolyton, its not even the best civilization site. Get out of your ivory towers. And isn't the point of these forums to interact with other civ players?