Succession Game Proposals

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

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...

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

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?

[Bloody Monk]

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

[Scouse Gits]

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

Stu

[Sore Loser]

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*

[Old n Slow]

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.

[DaveV]

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...

[rjmatsleepers]

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

[duke o' york]

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!

[-Jrabbit]

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...

[duke o' york]

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.

[rjmatsleepers]

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

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Zenon]

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

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

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