Succession Game Proposals

[Scouse Gits]

I note that Old n Slow has mooted: "my next suggestion for a succession game was simply a D+1, B+1, & I was planning to offer it circa Christmas or the New Year."

I have been thinking about a "Cambridge Game" - the only rule being that every city of size 3 or greater must either be celebrating or have at least half of its inhabitants acting as Elvi. [Note for non-Brits: Cambridge University is light blue as opposed to Oxford - the dark blues]

We have Sore Loser's ideas on the table -- are there any more out there?

Stu

[duke o' york]

How about forcing Cambridge to build both the maritime wonders and only allowing the cities to be named after colleges? I don't know how many colleges there are, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find a list. Maybe 15 or 20 or so....
Compulsory libraries before size 3?

How about a Starbucks game? It'd have to be on an archipelago map and you're allowed two cities on your home island (Seattle) and then one for each opposition civ on their islands. These island cities would have to be well defended, or you'd have to go around and keep all your neighbours sweet. Until 1500 or so, when you have to try to buy as many other cities as possible and then take the rest by force (capitals obviously).

[Sore Loser]

From what I've read here (started posting just over a month ago, I think) the purpose of succession games is to add weird rules to enhance the challenge of the game, giving you an excuse to yell at one another when you misinterpret the current factors. These rules can be whimsical, or they can simply be severely restraining, like the Tricky Sticky game. That's why I posted my ideas here, hoping to stir interest in a different way of playing. I'm obviously disappointed that there doesn't seem to be much interest, but if that's the general notion then I'll stop trying to force them on you.

*cries a little more in his corner*

[duke o' york]

*Stop crying in that damned corner or I'll give you something to really cry about!*

We're just after new ideas to make the games fun without needing wholesale changes to the Civ 2 script, and also those that allow ample opportunity for "robust constructive criticism", improving everybody's game.

[Sore Loser]

*stops pretending to feel sorry for self, as it doesn't seem to have the desired effect*

And how do my ideas differ from the criteria of making the game fun and improving your game? What's wrong with wholesale changes anyway? I'm going to start calling you all conservatives anytime soon if I don't get a proper answer (and don't you think I don't mean it).

[Scouse Gits]

.... so?

at 56 years of age I'm entitled to be conservative!

Stu

[Sore Loser]

Generally speaking, isn't conservatism awfully boring? Not changing your mind just because it's been that way for a long time? I'm actually semi-serious. I'm very much in doubt about just about everything, and it doesn't exactly make my life easier. But I find that it keeps me curious and capable of incorporating opinions.

[Bloody Monk]

Loser,

Didn't you say in another context that you don't actually like to play the game, you just like to tinker with the rule sets???

Change for change sake is a trait more in keeping with the "let's go wave the bloody shirt" crowd. To you revolutionists everyone else must be a conservative--not that that is a bad thing.

As for your demanding an answer, perhaps you can't handle the truth. Or should I say TRUTH.

(Cue the strings and the Cartman voice)

We love THIS game; to us it is a near Holy Thing. Why else do you think IT still holds such appeal after all these years?!? A truly wise, if overly polite STYOM has said, "I'm not sure I'm interested in re-learning how to play civ with new rules, so as to participate in one succession game... sorry." I say, STOP with this Blasphemy; Return to your Catechism and the True Path!!

(Dialing back the strings from the big finish) Such radical changing of the rules has been tried--cough-CIV III-cough--and the result was distasteful. Having been previously burned, we, perhaps conservatively, say, "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

(on the off chance that your new game is exciting, engaging, and fun... )

Monk

[duke o' york]

We could have a party political Succession. Two parties play, with a member of each taking alternate turns. One party concentrates on the conservative parts of the game, going for SS landing, and the other goes for conquest. You're not allowed to break treaties though.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

How about a scenario with which we are all familiar? The WWII scenario as the Turks, for example?

Or have La Fayette and Xin Yu beaten all those scenarios to death with ridiculously fast conquest times?

[Sore Loser]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Loser,

Didn't you say in another context that you don't actually like to play the game, you just like to tinker with the rule sets???

You misunderstand slightly, I may not have been clear on this. I often enjoy tinkering MORE than I enjoy playing, but obviously tinkering with rules is only fun when I get to play with them afterwards

Change for change sake is a trait more in keeping with the "let's go wave the bloody shirt" crowd. To you revolutionists everyone else must be a conservative--not that that is a bad thing.

So you acknowledge being conservative?

As for your demanding an answer, perhaps you can't handle the truth. Or should I say TRUTH.

I know you're only being 97% serious, but I get terribly excited and lusty for blood whenever someone presents truth when discussing opinions.

We love THIS game; to us it is a near Holy Thing. Why else do you think IT still holds such appeal after all these years?!? A truly wise, if overly polite STYOM has said, "I'm not sure I'm interested in re-learning how to play civ with new rules, so as to participate in one succession game... sorry." I say, STOP with this Blasphemy; Return to your Catechism and the True Path!!

Being the son of a vicar, being labelled a heretic gets me even more excited. There's no way I'm going to shut up now

(Dialing back the strings from the big finish) Such radical changing of the rules has been tried--cough-CIV III-cough--and the result was distasteful. Having been previously burned, we, perhaps conservatively, say, "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

Ah, but something's always broken. Sometimes you just don't look hard enough to find it

(on the off chance that your new game is exciting, engaging, and fun... )

I disagree slightly that this is a new game, but I'll concede that it's a radical variant of CivII. Was CivI great? It was ground-breaking and amazing beyond imagination at the time. Could it be improved? Certainly, and we got CivII. Would you have preferred to stay with CivI?

This is getting a tad melodramatic. All I've asked for is one game, not your souls (although of course I'll take those too, if offered). I can't force anyone to have fun, or even try something out to see if it's fun, but where does that leave me? Should I simply accept the fact that my ideas are not desired by the conservatives of the world and run with the rest of the pack? I've run into this discussion numerous times before, though I must say this one is more qualified than usual.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
.... so?

at 56 years of age I'm entitled to be conservative!

Stu

Loser,

Also, 56; also conservative (mostly ), and also entitled, I wish to add, for the benifit of our obviously young friend, this old bit of wisdom...

"Wise counsel for the angst filled youth has always been, 'He who is lost should ask direction of those who know the way.'"

Or the more modern version, "Been there, done that, can show you the scars."

Monk

[Sore Loser]

But if you're conservative by heart (little to do with politics in this context), are you able to absorb new impressions as fully? Does the path you wandered on work for me? In short, are you as capable of adjustment or creativity?

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
But if you're conservative by heart (little to do with politics in this context), are you able to absorb new impressions as fully? Does the path you wandered on work for me? In short, are you as capable of adjustment or creativity?

I hope you put this quote in a bottle and look at it again in about 10 years. Then you too will

By the way, one of the great advantages of being old and stuck in my ways, and incapable of recognizing the importance of anything new is the ability to discern the difference between creativity and a needless diversion. But, clearly, that "path" does not "work for" you. Try doubting more, especially your judgements.

Enjoy your self and your game.

Monk

[Sore Loser]

*bottles the quote*

Isn't it a bit preposterous to claim to know the difference between creativity and mere diversion? As I see it, creativity is only appreciated after it has produced something, rarely while in the creative process.

Enjoy your self and your game

Thanks, but that's exactly where the problem is. Having fun by yourself is rarely much fun at all...