Lightning Strikes Twice!

[Scouse Gits]

We're equipped for both - but won't playing in one compromise your performance in the other?

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[Julius Brenzaida]

Well, I'm in it. For either MGE or 2.42 with a preference for MGE. I think one should play in only one team.
And what about the old idea of ICS vs Perfectionism vs OCC. Was it Scouse Gits who talked about it ? I liked the idea. We could compete on different settings. Yes, what about the world series of Civ2 ? round 1 in a small map, round 2 on a gigamap and so on ? It could be great fun ! I'm ready to organize that !

[kcbob]

I'm MGE only.

------------------
Frodo lives!

[John-SJ]

quote: Originally posted by Julius Brenzaida on 03-23-2001 04:33 AM Well, I'm in it. For either MGE or 2.42 with a preference for MGE. I think one should play in only one team. And what about the old idea of ICS vs Perfectionism vs OCC. Was it Scouse Gits who talked about it ? I liked the idea. We could compete on different settings. Yes, what about the world series of Civ2 ? round 1 in a small map, round 2 on a gigamap and so on ? It could be great fun ! I'm ready to organize that !

Another great idea Julias, I'm up for whatever people want to do.

To be honest, I thought there would have been more response than what we've seen so far for "Lightning Strikes Twice", is this not the best time to be starting another succession game?

[DaveV]

For me, personally, it's not a good time. But I think enthusiasm for the succession game concept is dying down. I see several major flaws:
1) It only takes one or two sleazers in the rotation to turn the game into ICS. It's just too easy to sell off a lot of improvements and build a ton of cities which the perfectionists just can't bring themselves to disband. The "no ICS" games tried to address this syndrome, but they seem to have foundered. As a corollary, all of the non-OCC completed succession games have been won via conquest, which generally means a lot of military units.
2) The game is too easy! The outcome of the game hasn't been in doubt in any of the late-game rounds I've played. It's just a matter of playing out the (sometimes interminable, see item 1) turns. Even the AI Headstart game looks like it's in the "survive until bombers/howitzwers" phase now. Maybe we need some newbie players to make big mistakes the other players would have to recover from. But newbies might feel the intimidation factor of not wanting to be called out publicly for their mistakes. Or maybe a scenario is the answer...
3) People lose interest. Too much time between turns, too many units and cities (see point 1), being forced by previous rulers into an uncomfortable strategy (see point 1 again), too little challenge (see point 2), real life interruptions. Several people have remarked on the tendency of several succession games all needing attention at the same time. The lightning concept was a good remedy, keeping the game moving along and limiting the number of turns.

The lightning game was fun; it's the banter in these forums that make it enjoyable for me. But I had to pass one turn and play another abbreviated turn, so I can't sign up now.

[Scouse Gits]

Dave - I must agree with much that you have written. However, I think the succession games are interesting and fun to play - if 5 don't arrive within the same day

1) I have the notion that they reflect reality more than the average game of civ played by the single operator. Their very weakness and (perversely) their strength lie within the fact that one person is not in control. Just imagine the difference between FDR and Richard M. Nixon playing a succession game of civ! (Nixon unzips his game and posts - "didn't you think to research espionage and the microphone?) Would there still be a USA? But there is - and in real life Clinton hands over to Dubya! How different the country might be today if George Washington was allowed over a 100 turns at Uncle Sam's (real) game. I think succession play brings out the "politician" in many of us. We know our term of office is short, so we wish to leave our legacy to history. In our pixel world that might be building Leonardo's Workshop - or in the real world Middle East peace (that would be a wonder) - the difference, within the parameters applying, is the same. Sure, the sleazer will sell off the perfectionist's granaries and build a bunch of settlers - such is life. Many of us are guilty of the politician's myopia and short term thinking.

2) Most of the games have been won by conquest, but not all:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HTML/001517-5.html
Perhaps we should try "Lightning Strikes AC" and rule out conquest?

3) I believe my game has improved by playing them. You see other people's approaches to strategy - the good, the bad and the ugly. This broadens your thinking (and in my case sometimes impatience! - I'm not going to mention the factory building with a net production of one shield, or the settler on overtime building mines - which if the city ever worked would starve.) But at other times you see a brilliant solution to a problem! Most important the short time you have as ruler concentrates the mind. Now I treat all games as succession games.
a) What is my status?
b) What do I want to do?
c) How am I going to do it? Those questions focus the mind.

I hope newbies and vets alike will continue to sign up. You can learn much - and it is after all a game and fun.

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

SG(2)