Succession Game Proposals

[Sore Loser]

How about each player having a hidden agenda? One agenda could be to reach a certain population count, another could be taking a certain city (made impenetrable to begin with, of course) and yet another could be to achieve Fundamentalism. Achieving these goals needn't end the game. Instead, they could give the player certain powers. Or each player could have two objectives, a secondary and a primary. Achieving the secondary objective gives you extra turns and means you must reveal your primary objective, achieving the primary objective lets you win.

This way, players could forge alliances and try their hand at manipulating other players into following their own plans, while making sure that your objectives aren't too obvious.

[duke o' york]

I've got Lazy to play tonight, but I'm not sure that it will work so I was thinking of starting a new SXN. Given the success people have been having recently in gifting the AI, and in a spirit of seasonal goodwill, I propose the gifting game.

Chinese roasting on an open fire
This is a working title only, as any civ could be played.
A normal game of wonderful Civ 2, but whenever you are asked to donate a little something to an enemy civ, you must give it without question. (Note on tech requests - always the first choice) Furthermore, once the capital has been settled, for every city that you found, you must "give" another to our friends all across the world. This basically means building the city to size 2 and then abandoning it without defenders so that the barbs or another civ may benefit from our largesse. We should do all we can to build Marco's so that we can spread some good cheer across the world and ensure that our gifts are all delivered on time. In order that things do not get that easy, then once Marco's has been finished, the civs must be talked to every other turn, one at a time in order. So:
(0) Marco's built!
(1) -
(2) Talk to Celts, Iron Working gifted.
(3) -
(4) Talk to Babylonians, 100g tribute paid.
(5) -
(6) Talk to Aztecs, elephant gifted.

Got that?

If anyone wants to comment on this then please do before I start a new thread for it. I'll probably copy most of this post across onto that.

[Bloody Monk]

With the holidays and the "speed" with which current SXN games are being played, perhaps it would be better to wait a bit before firing off another one. Just a thought.

Monk

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Interesting... can we exploit the goodwill generated by all the gifts (by exacting maps, tribute or gifts)?

If we are gifting every second turn and stay Spotless, the AIs may be slow at taking our abandoned cities.

Also, what happens when we run out of cash/techs/units to gift?

[duke o' york]

That's what I thought (and mentioned in another post somewhere round here), so I posted the proposal here instead in the hope that someone would say just that, rather than starting it and then seeing it disappear down the forum as people dropped out or missed their turns. We need succession quality, not quantity!

[Old n Slow]

Building a city and leaving another empty -- no growth; build two, one for us and one "available" -- sounds ok (can anyone spell ICS? -- I'm now getting into the habit of having a number of empty cities.)

Soooo what happens if we just happen to 'acquire' a city?

Contact with a civ every other turn rotates through a dozen turns -- any problem with 'gifting more', or talking more often?

[Old n Slow]

Yet another proposal in the pipeline

The Dirtys

No aqueducts (nor sewers of course) -- and if we conquer a city with one it gets sold off.

The tech plan is to rush to Steam so we can build the Eiffel Tower (our most cherished wonder) -- plan accordingly (hopefully there will be better governments and other items along the way.)

Final stipulation -- we must, absolutely must get our reputation down to atrocious and keep it there!.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Re: Yet another proposal in the pipeline

Originally posted by Old n Slow
The Dirtys

No aqueducts (nor sewers of course) -- and if we conquer a city with one it gets sold off.

The tech plan is to rush to Steam so we can build the Eiffel Tower (our most cherished wonder) -- plan accordingly (hopefully there will be better governments and other items along the way.)

Final stipulation -- we must, absolutely must get our reputation down to atrocious and keep it there!.

I like it!

No Hoover/Mass Transit/Recycling Centre/Hydro Dam/Solar Plant, and no cleaning up pollution allowed, and I'm in!

(assuming the game lasts that long....)

[Scouse Gits]

Yuk - Gits are extremely fastidious animals!

[duke o' york]

Can we have a race to global warming?
We'd need KRC to get a good early start, as much production as possible, and then factories everywhere with no mass transit in the large cities, and no pollution-reducing plants of any kind. If that hasn't got the world burning up then we'd have no option but to release the nukes!

OnS - what is the point of building the Tower if we're supposed to be at Atrocious all the time?

[-Jrabbit]

Gives us a chance to be repeatedly nasty, to keep our reputation from getting repaired.

Except for the filth, this sounds like RAR heaven... I'm in!

[Old n Slow]

The point of the tower (pun attempted) is to force us to stay atrocious.

Game to start in the new year.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Is Atrocious worse than Despicable? It's been so long since I bothered looking at my reputation, once it dropped below 'Questionable'.

Also, if we have to beeline to Atrocious immediately: As soon as we meet someone, do we have to make peace and then break the peace treaty, as opposed to not making peace in the first place?

Whatever... Count me in!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

How about Silly Rules II?

After Silly Rules I is done, of course.

The twist to this one is that the rules would be different for each player.

Rule suggestions would be solicited from the group - we'd need a set number of players for this to work, and only those players could suggest rules. We'd need about 40-80 rules. Duplicate rules would be allowed.

The first player must choose a rule - or possibly 2 - from the rule list. He and only he will abide by this rule for the rest of the game (said rule is then crossed off the list). The second player does the same, and so on. The second time through the play list, each player adds a rule (or 2) to the first rule(s), and abides by both. The end result is that everyone plays by a different set of rules, and after several passes through the playlist, the list for each person could get extensive.

Since each rule need not be unique, it would be interesting to see a game where 7 players are unable to build Wonders, but the 8th could... or 4 out of 8 being unable to use naval units... etc. No one could select the same rule twice, of course (if I'm already banned from building Settlers, I couldn't choose that rule again).

Just a thought. A more evil way to play would be to allow the preceding player to choose a rule for his successor.

[duke o' york]

That sounds downright silly!

It'd be very important to get a good start in that game, before the extra rules kick in, and things get very tough.

Can I propose that in the first round, each player suggests a new rule for themseleves, in the second a rule for their successor, and in the third a rule for their predecessor, etc. This would allow a little pay-back if someone unleashed a particularly evil rule in one turnset.