Demo Game 4 Suggestions

[duke o' york]

There has already been some discussion of how we are to approach game number 4 in another thread, but I'm starting a new thread so we don't distract from the real business of winning number 3.

Once we have enough suggestions for different ways of playing game number 4 then someone can put a poll together, but until then post your ideas and see them torn to shreds by people who disagree. Remember that it'd probably be best not to have a game too similar to those that have already been played in Demo games 1-3, but it'll be a democratic decision in the end so put forward your ideas!

[shade]

maybe a first idea

ok here we go.

I suggest this time we start from some sort of end-game situation in which the AI actually has some strength and possibility to fight us.
I have attached 2 saves of one of my last games(sorry but it was just one where I tried to tinker with the extra units so the rules.txt en units.gif included might be needed, sorry for the inconveniance)
terror2 is a save of the world of 1966 and terror the save of 1987.
What I suggest is that we start from a save like that(I don't know what ppl might have of interesting situations in their own saves-records) and we pick a suitable civ for our game(weak human or a weak AI) and then just try to survive and conquer the world.
To play this game we might consider turning back the time counter if we want to set ourselves a timelimit, but I don't think that should be an issue(except maybe for the powergraph).

Of the saves I included, the human civ might be a tad strong(purple) but we could play as the chinese or the Carthaginians.

[shade]

the carthaginians

[shade]

the chinese

[shade]

and the map

[cavebear]

Hmmm, perhaps we could play as one of the civs we defeated in a past game. We would have quite a lot of leeway in how weak we would be at the start that way.

We could choose exactly the time where the challenge seemed approriate. I think it would be interesting to see how different the game would work out. I'm curious to see how bad things have to be until we *can't* win.

[duke o' york]

This is an idea I've tried a couple of times but never had much luck with. Basically we start as a resurrected civ. We build a mighty civ of our own, and then switch to the restart of the first civ to be killed. This game is a lot easier if the barbs get one early, and is really difficult if there are plenty of islands, the AI is peaceful or if the human starts too far away to kill anyone early enough. So we'd need a volunteer to play through and build a decent civ that we can pass on to the AI. ICS and SSC are of course allowed in this "pre-turn". Then they have to set out and destroy a civ or stop playing when a civ is destroyed by the barbs or AI. The play is then switched to the reborn civ, the map view is theirs only and the game is saved as a scenario. The democracy takes over.
Comments?

[Ben Kenobi]

Saving the game as a scenario opens up the tech list, making directed research substantially easier.

When the civ respawns, why don't we strip the civ of all techs?

[shade]

Saving the game as a scenario opens up the tech list, making directed research substantially easier.
When the civ respawns, why don't we strip the civ of all techs?

maybe give us a slight chance of survival?

an other idea as startup could be: play OCC on a large map (but toggle the bloodlust-mode) and by the time the 1-city has arrived at the moment it would have won the game, we start our conquest game?

Shade

[duke o' york]

And leave a perfectly good spaceship just sat there on the launch site?

Besides, isn't that the O Sole Mio SXN?

How's about we get someone to write us a little scenario? The AI all get accelerated start-up but we don't. Whoever sets it up can give the AI civs ten or so cities each with supported units and improvements, all the techs up to (and including) Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Chivalry, Astronomy and Monotheism. (any others I forgot?) The AI civs would each get a wonder from one of the first seven and we'd get two settlers and nothing else. How does that sound?

[shade]

Originally posted by duke o' york
And leave a perfectly good spaceship just sat there on the launch site?

that is why it would be played in bloodlust mode asif it were a normal OCC game.
When this part is finnished by some poor volunteer the actual game begins.(the choice for OCC is because this would take a relative short time to start the game up(only one city to keep track of and hitting enter )

giving the AI 10 or so cities won't cut it...it will be whiped out before it even starts to become a threat.
The above situation might give us a world with some strong and bigg civs(>=50 cities) and a massive amount of units and a game that isn't finished with spears and swords for once . If we could start from a situation in wich everybody (except us) is armed to the teeth with at least artillery, armor's, fighters, rockets and Mech Inantry. Would that not be a nice change for once?

Shade

[duke o' york]

True, but when was the last game you played in which more than a couple of the AI civs actually built 50 cities?
Even in the current game, admittedly the terrain wasn't too promising, but the Greeks only managed 30 cities and no-one was even close.
I'm in favour of beginning at 4000BC, but giving the AI a massive headstart. With 10 or 15 free cities and a few free settlers then I doubt that the human player (us) would be able to close the huge tech gap and stomp the AI civs before some bright sparks started to send out decent units and/or build a SS. I forgot Gunpowder as one of the AI techs to be given free when I summarised my last idea. Each AI with 15, say, cities all guarded by musketeers and all capable of growth to size 12. Against 2 settlers. There's a challenge! There would be no early conquest because even vet crooks would have problems against vet muskets behind city walls. And by the time we got to Monotheism then where would the AI be?

[shade]

Originally posted by duke o' york
True, but when was the last game you played in which more than a couple of the AI civs actually built 50 cities?

cfr save above

[duke o' york]

Er, the Babs are closest, unless there are more off the side of the map that I can't see but you've basically got three civs with a chance of winning the game and four fillers. That is, assuming that all civs are controlled by the AI. You've only got a couple of decent-sized civs. Obviously it'd be dumb to expect 6 civs with 50 cities as the limit is 255, but there are lots more potential cities to be built in your game.
You seem to be more keen on having an evenly-matched modern war with the AI civs who are strong enough to put up a fight, whereas I still like the decision-making of the early game with regard to tech, exploration and city founding.
Why are we the only two discussing this? It's starting to look a bit spammy and someone might come along and ask us to go to the 'poly chatroom (which I can't). We need input from the other citizens of the Apolyton democracy!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I don't think I've ever seen 50+ cities out of the AI in MGE. In ToT it happens a lot. Of course, how many of us have ToT?

If we could start from a situation in wich everybody (except us) is armed to the teeth with at least artillery, armor's, fighters, rockets and Mech Inantry. Would that not be a nice change for once?

Seems kind of tedious, IMO... we'd have to stay Spotless for a long time to avoid being wiped out. Begging for tech gifts doesn't seem that much fun to me. And if we started near someone like the Mongols or Zulus, we'd probably get wiped out anyway.

A reasonable head start game would be one where each AI gets a dozen techs and a dozen Settlers. OR, as in the Sailing Succession, we start on an isolated island. To make it harder, we could ban Lighthouse or have all the AIs start with a few techs including Map Making.