Ok.....seems like these are fair terms then.......lets makeit guys
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Planning a get together of Players
Collapse
X
-
If people want to work out a compromise of some sort on the issues we have been discussing, can we get a sincere and strong commitment from people that EVERYONE will promise to move as fast as possible and almost NEVER do anything except move their units when it is their turn to move?
Some folks like to go into their cities when it is their move and do things inside the city while it is their move. This often makes their move take 2 or 3 or 4 times longer than it needs to. It is usually not necessary to do anything inside your cities while it is your move (I understand that relatively uncommon exceptions exist, but more often than not, this is not the case).
It is my opinion that if we don't solve the time problem with slow moves that we will not be able to finish the game in 3 days. This issue is more important to me than all of the other things we debated combined - part of it is that I would like the game to go the distance in the time we have available and the other part is my problem.
My problem is that I end up feeling like I am going to go out of my mind waiting for people to move if it is taking way longer to move than it should. Sorry about that, but that is the psychological make up that I was born with. I don't know how to rewire my brain circuits to change that one.
If people will tinker with their cities while others are moving and thus not take very long to move, I will generally agree to many (probably not all, but the majority anyway) of the other things that they want to do for the game.
We should usually be able to do what we need to do with our cities while the other 4 guys are busy moving their units. If that does not give you enough time on occaision, just ask the guy who moves right before you to wait until you are ready before ending his turn. This way, we will probably be able to get to the space race by Sunday.
Can we agree on this one?Last edited by civ2guru; August 15, 2004, 17:00.
Comment
-
Concerning Dank's latest proposed game parameters:
Raging Hordes - Agreed.
1x1x Deity - Agreed.
Unit bribing OK - Agreed.
No city bribe - Agreed, but with the stipulation that if the AI bribes your city you can bribe the aforementioned bribed city back in self defense only. Also, we should only be able to bribe barbarian cities if the barbarians captured it from us. Other than these exceptions, all cities must be taken by force. I think that is pretty standard for at least some of us.
No unit trade - if that means no building a caravan/freight and then gifting it to another guy who then moves it back into one of your cities to establish a trade route, then definitely agreed. However, I have no problem with the gifting of other types of military units as long as it is not given back to you on the same turn in order to extend the unit's range beyond what it normally would move. I seriously doubt you will talk me into making gifts of many of my units, however. Maybe if you paid me lots of gold for the unit, I might. lol So, no camel/freight gifting, but other units gifts, why not? We are all hoping to build a space ship before anyone else, so we don't want to help the other guys so much that we mess up our chances.
No alliances - Why? They don't bother me. I have never made alliances with humans, instead prefering to stay in a state of war with them for the entire game so I can attack whenver I want to. However, why should I deny someone else the ability to ally with someone. Heck, maybe in this game I should even try it myself. I really don't know why alliances should not be allowed. Civ is supposed to be like the real world and in the real world, alliances are formed all the time. Give me a good reason why they are bad - like the reason caravan trading is bad - I bought that one quickly when it was presented to me the first time. Give me a similar reason to not allow alliances so I can accept it. I generally think we should play as "normal" as is possible barring a good reason not to.
Random map start - possible if we don't have people already screwed early in the game. I usually don't mind playing the underdog position myself more often than not, if my start is slow but I still have a chance for a comeback. However, I don't have much fun playing against someone who is obviously in a losing position - because they are not having fun playing against me, so there is not much point and it is also no challenge. Let's just go the extra mile to make certain that no one gets messed up at the start. Also, with 5 humans and 2 Ai civ's in the game, let's play on a map that gives us enough room so that we can all have a reasonable piece of land on which to start that doesn't have us starting near each other, or else someone is bound to get screwed early on.
7 Civilizations - 5 human, 2 AI - Agreed.
Perhaps we should discuss industrial sabotage, also.
Other than these stipulations, it will be Civ2 as normal, right?Last edited by civ2guru; August 17, 2004, 20:15.
Comment
-
I'd have to go with Joe on that one. Eric must die! We shall send him to his maker as my evil Hoards pillage his land and rape his women (maybe the sheep if the women are ugly). Death to the warriors of Light. Let evil rule the land!!Legalize it now!!!!!....Free the Weed!!!
Comment
Comment