Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's a Mad Mad Scxn Game!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • La Fayette
    replied
    Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

    I don't think I'm totally inexperienced, but I'm not on the level of you (LaFayette), and the Gits... among others

    If you want competition from the AI... how about a custom map? I recall the MGE succession game a little while back that started on a 1-square island. How about a game on a world map, but starting on Greenland?

    STYOM
    1) Thank you
    Believe me, if I had a choice, I would rather be 40 years younger and need experience

    2) I was one of those who played that game, the so-called Heroic Epic. I confess it was great fun (Julius offered a nice gigamap ).

    Leave a comment:


  • Six Thousand Year Old Man
    replied
    Originally posted by La Fayette
    If we agree that the game should be both mad and educative, the old farts should be allowed to send a smilie once in a while and the level of difficulty should not be Deity +5.
    IMO a nice delay, as suggested by Julius, is fine (and I don't care playing without vet spies or with both arms tied behind my back), but the opinion of the less experienced players matters (remember Raz playing crusades ).
    I don't think I'm totally inexperienced, but I'm not on the level of you (LaFayette), and the Gits... among others

    If you want competition from the AI... how about a custom map? I recall the MGE succession game a little while back that started on a 1-square island. How about a game on a world map, but starting on Greenland? That should give the AI a decent start in a more fun way than artificially handicapping ourselves would do.

    I know I'm repeating myself, but I would prefer a no-bribe or no-howies type of 'rule' to a no-science wonders 'rule'. Without science wonders, the game can go 2 ways (and perhaps more): 1) ICS-conquest, and 2) heavy duty trade (for science bonuses). Now, this is Straybow's game, and based on recent posts, Straybow is very into trade micromanagement. We are entitled to our preferences, of course... but in the Mad game, when faced with the option of railroading some optimum trade routes, or going out and sacking some Mongol, Spanish, and Babylonian cities - I didn't have to think for 5 seconds to decide which would be more fun for me

    With some degree of cooperation among ourselves... why not dispense with rules and preset goals and just let the game take shape as it will?

    STYOM

    Leave a comment:


  • La Fayette
    replied
    If we agree that the game should be both mad and educative, the old farts should be allowed to send a smilie once in a while and the level of difficulty should not be Deity +5.
    IMO a nice delay, as suggested by Julius, is fine (and I don't care playing without vet spies or with both arms tied behind my back), but the opinion of the less experienced players matters (remember Raz playing crusades ).

    Leave a comment:


  • Straybow
    replied
    For a learning experience I think the game should be played with all options open.
    …somebody …built the GL! To avoid useless techs on the fast track to Democracy, (and to make a point) SG[1] and I destroyed the city!

    Those statements are somewhat contradictory. I think reactions like that are going a bit too far. I know I don't want to have to spend 75% of my reign undoing what the schmo before me did. I'd want some limited coordination.

    Make the reigns longer if you want more opportunity to accomplish something within your time. 20 turns would do. It would be educational, for the ICSers and the Perfectionists, if some mode of operation could balance the two? A core of developed cities for healthy non-Wonder commerce with a sprawl of lesser cities as a means of controlling the other civs' expansion.

    PS, Yes, we should include GL in the Science Wonders if said are to be excluded. I just never build it, so it didn't occur to me to list it. The point is that any of the experienced OCC players here can clobber the AI intellectually. I want the other civs to have a chance to pose a threat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Six Thousand Year Old Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Scouse Gits

    Old Farts with no manners!

    ----------------------------

    SG(2)
    I don't claim to have any manners either. I appreciate advice, naturally... but I go my own way, so far as what I'm focusing on during my turns. Which is (usually) founding more cities and improving my standing on the powergraph via conquest. That's the fun of succession games.

    I agree that a large map, and a more 'normal' AI, will probably make the game more challenging than the Mad game was.

    STYOM

    Leave a comment:


  • Scouse Gits
    replied
    Large map - no restrictions. In a succession game each player has a chance to set an agenda for 12 or so turns and it's best if there are no boundaries. I remember a game about two years ago somebody was pleased he/she had built the Great Library! To avoid useless techs on the fast track to Democracy, (and to make a point) SG[1] and I destroyed the city!

    Old Farts with no manners!

    ----------------------------

    SG(2)

    Leave a comment:


  • Straybow
    replied
    I'm against delayed starts and a ban on huts. For a learning experience I think the game should be played with all options open.

    Already ceded. OK with no Science Wonders? What about map options?

    Leave a comment:


  • Messer Niccolò
    replied
    Ok, we can try a new "Mad" game just to test if the AI was dumb or if it can't stand a bunch of mad players

    Leave a comment:


  • Scouse Gits
    replied
    I'm against delayed starts and a ban on huts. For a learning experience I think the game should be played with all options open. Let's have a little more discussion about it

    -----------------------

    SG(2)

    Leave a comment:


  • Six Thousand Year Old Man
    replied
    When I play hardcore ICS, Straybow, my cities are named SSC, 001, 002, 003, 004, etc... naming alphabetically would have more or less the same effect?

    Originally posted by Scouse Gits
    For my part I like playing on large worlds. I would like to win via spaceship for a change...it's a long time since I've built one. I have some interesting starts at 4000BC which I've never played. Anyway over to you Straybow...what do you suggest?

    ------------------

    SG(2)
    Hmmm. For me, on deity, I nearly always win by spaceship (when I win ). I win by conquest on small maps, just because there are so few cities to conquer.

    For me, a large map, spaceship game is a 'been there, done that'. Large map, conquest, is another story. I agree that we don't need to make the game too hard. We wound up with a really, really poor excuse for an AI in the Mad Game - I don't know why, but I don't think we can count on that again. I would support a rule to prevent bribing of cities, though.

    I'd really like to try an archipeligo, gigamap, conquest game, but that would require MGE or ToT, and not everyone has one or the other.

    I'll probably go along with what everyone else likes... but put me near the end of the list if we're playing crazy-no-wonders-delayed-start styles...

    STYOM

    Leave a comment:


  • Straybow
    replied
    Shall we hear from some of the less experienced Deity level players how much of a challenge they want? Don't want them to feel out of their depth. Hello, Mercatia, et al.?

    If we have a medium land mass/varied map we'll not have so much territory to explore afoot/ahoof anyway, so we can do a normal start. Large map or custom size somewhat bigger than medium (say, 60x100). But if you have an interesting start on a medium that fits the bill, SG, OK.

    No comments on my semi-alphabetical names suggestion? I would still say "no Science Wonders," ie, Cope's and Isaac's (Seti if we get that far). Gotta give the sufferin' AI a chance here. We'll leave more radical experiments for later.

    Colossus is, I'm afraid, an addiction stronger than canals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scouse Gits
    replied
    For my part I like playing on large worlds. I would like to win via spaceship for a change...it's a long time since I've built one. I have some interesting starts at 4000BC which I've never played. Anyway over to you Straybow...what do you suggest?

    ------------------

    SG(2)

    Leave a comment:


  • Messer Niccolò
    replied
    Originally posted by Scouse Gits

    I don't wish to be a spectre at a feast, but I do believe that this discussion is not going in a useful direction.


    SG[1]
    ... let's start a new game then!

    Leave a comment:


  • Scouse Gits
    replied
    Most of the suggestions above are geared to making the game considerably harder for we poor human players.

    Why?

    Those of us that regularly play at Deity already have our own 'tricks' to make the game more enjoyable for ourselves - I normally play on a large world with a small land mass and archipelagoes - suits me.

    Several of the players in the recent Mad Succession Game had never succeeded at Deity or played there infrequently. For them this sort of 'challenge' would possibly prove too much.

    I don't wish to be a spectre at a feast, but I do believe that this discussion is not going in a useful direction.

    However, StrayBow, it is your thread and I shall now bow out...

    SG[1]

    Leave a comment:


  • Straybow
    replied
    Well, considering that at 1 AD the other civs in Mad 2.42 had size 5 capitals, maybe that isn't so absurd. One possibility: do an accelerated start, remove the city, techs, and units, then save as a scenario.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X