Announcement

**DaveV** · February 20, 2001, 14:26

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by rah on 02-20-2001 09:22 AM</font>
Makes for some hard choices.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

To me, that's the beauty of this game. To be faced with a choice of several equally viable options, then making your choice and living with the consequences (very existentialist). I agree heartily with nearly everything RAH said, except for 2x production. I think that setting lessens the tough choices in the game: since irrigation, roads, bridges, and mining are relatively less important, they become less attractive as a choice.

In the end, though, this is a game, and I play it to have fun. Arguing about settings is futile; it comes down to personal preference. Finding a game with attractive settings and congenial but ruthless fellow players is still the most fun I've had on a computer.

About AIs in MP games: I'll loosely quote from memory something I read somewhere on this site. What is an AI? For a beginning player, a threat; for a middling player, a distraction; for an experienced player, nothing; for an expert player, a bag of techs and money there for the taking. A very good player will benefit greatly from AI neighbors, milking them for game-breaking amounts of tribute and grabbing their cities and wonders.

**rah** · February 20, 2001, 14:49

Damn, all I wanted to do was state my opinion without anyone thinking I thought them inferior if they didn't agree........I guess I should know better than to expect that at Apolyton. But I thought that was reserved for the OTF. Alas, due to lazyness, I will bow down to the superior arguments presented and change my statements to..........

If you don't play by my rules, you're insignificant trash. You probably have no clue of the true essence of that game. And you probably use the reset key when you play by yourself. Anyone that thinks they're right and I'm wrong, can suck on my Chaney. Bring on all your worthless arguements and I'll systematically destroy not only them but your self esteem.

Now back to rational.....

Great quote Dave
"for an experienced player, nothing; for an expert player, a bag of techs and money there for the taking."

Another absolute truth

When we play we allow no AIs for just that reason. If a player "QUITS" because he is scum, and we continue with an AI, we use the "must refuse all AI contact rule" which usually results in eventual war.(unless your senate sucks)

RAH
RAH rules rock.
"Testicles" The other white meat.

**Ming** · February 20, 2001, 15:50

agharta_id

While you seem long on words... you haven't provided any real content to support your "preferences".

You talk about rational, but you provide no facts or opinions on why your settings should be prefered over any other. You just stated what they are... Period.
And then you blast away at people for not doing something you haven't done yet either

So before you post another long winded comment that has nothing to do with the thread, why don't you provide us with your opinions on the settings...

We call that a discussion...

**rah** · February 20, 2001, 16:00

Awwwww, come on mingie,

We're just having a little fun. And I did list my reasons and he even acknowledged that fact. And I don't need my little bro's help defending myself here.

RAH
Just a slow day at work.

**Ming** · February 20, 2001, 17:27

Well Rah...
I'm just having fun too... isn't that what gaming is all about

And, believe me when I say my post was in no means in defense of you... Your problem to deal with, plus, you didn't seem to really need any help.

But, agharta_id does just state what his opinion of the best settings is, and provides no argument to support them. While there is some indication that he was avoiding it just to get the discussion rolling, he has not yet provided any discussion on why his settings are more realistic (an interesting term at best here).

All I'm asking is that he cuts back on the "you are wrong crap" and actually discusses the subject that he himself started. I'm very interested in why he believes the way he does, and how other people feel on the subject. That's all I'm looking for in this thread...

**agharta_id** · February 20, 2001, 17:32

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Ming on 02-20-2001 04:27 PM</font>
Well Rah...
I'm just having fun too... isn't that what gaming is all about

And, believe me when I say my post was in no means in defense of you... Your problem to deal with, plus, you didn't seem to really need any help.

But, agharta_id does just state what his opinion of the best settings is, and provides no argument to support them. While there is some indication that he was avoiding it just to get the discussion rolling, he has not yet provided any discussion on why his settings are more realistic (an interesting term at best here).

All I'm asking is that he cuts back on the "you are wrong crap" and actually discusses the subject that he himself started. I'm very interested in why he believes the way he does, and how other people feel on the subject. That's all I'm looking for in this thread...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Read the thread: A game to FINISH.

**agharta_id** · February 20, 2001, 17:33

and, yes, i am withholding my arguments so others can voice their arguments.

**War4ever** · February 20, 2001, 20:26

Ok i will give it a shot........

I prefer Deity! Why? Its harder. The barbs attack at a greater strength, riot factor is more difficult, and in general, things just take longer to accomplish.

Raging Hordes..... I like barb kings Not too mention, lots of barbs before your set up can be a headache..... every once in ahwile those are good for you.

x1x1....... this is how i learned to play....i love it... it adds more decisions to the game.... you can't just drop cities anywhere... you have to look primarily for growth most of the time

x2x1 is fun, cranking units , wonders , caravans, and improvements is a joy. One can really go to war in x2 production with ease........plus one can get alot further into the game science wise as things are almost doubled up

x2x2 hate it..... nothing like units coming from the otherside of the world and still being able to attack your cities...... out of the blue no less

I find these types of games too fast for my liking and too much a seek and destroy game..... if i want that i will play a better search and destroy game like AOE

Small worlds...... i like contact, conflict, and hopefully control..... a smaller world provides me with these options without the game dragging for too long. Small world means quicker turns..... time is at a premium for all...

Simul.... i like it depending on connections and who i am playing...... for instance..... i will do simul with Carnide, Markus, and others.........

I do prefer turn based though.... allows me to get other things done around the house , or surf the web, or ...... well you get my drift.....

In no way do i state these as must terms for me to play, they are just things i prefer.......

2 B perfectly honest.... its my playing partners i prefer the most..... and with different partners come
different settings......

No city bribe...... its too cheap, and even cheaper to bribe back, causing tech to change hands far too rapidly and IMO not realistic...... maybe if only one city was bribed...... but not when you bribe a whole F****** empire

Dont like wonder sharing or caravan gifting either, and if you don't know why then obviously you havn't played enough civ...........

I am sure there are other things i could comment on but for now thats it

**agharta_id** · February 20, 2001, 21:31

those "other things" will be teased out as others post ...

**rah** · February 21, 2001, 01:21

"Rah, you more or less add the preference **** at the beginning of your posts so that you do not offend the inferior."

As you say, my preferences evolved through experience. My reasons are My reasons. It is not an argument, it is a statement of fact from my perspective. Someone that has different reasons isn't inferior, just different. I respect differences. And guess what? You can "HACK" all you want, there is a very very small chance that you will change my opinion. Too much experience has gone into what I already believe to think that one sentence, no matter how cleverly worded, will have any impact.

But anyway, enough philosophical babble, I love hearing what everyone else's preferences are and any reasons they may have for having them. Keep up the good work. Maybe someone will say something that might eventually influence me.

There is no ultimate truth, just concensus.
Too much variety here for concensus.

RAH
Lord of the Ferrets
and slow today at work

Edited for excessive babbling.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by rah (edited February 20, 2001).]</font>

**agharta_id** · February 21, 2001, 01:45

Never argue with a relativist.

So I will not. But I will list the consequences of relativism:

1. Science is a waste of time: there are no absolute truths!

2. Philosophy is a waste of time: there are no absolute truths!

3. The Indian male who expects his wife to be burnt alive on his funeral pyre, the Chinese male who forces his wife to get abortion because the fetus is a girl, and the radical (and irrational) feminist who "believes" that men are inherently (there are many more examples: the Kanas school board) evil are all justified in their beliefs, because, and remember, this is what you just said: there are no absolute truths!

The mind is useless, the majority rule. Consensus is the name of the game.

I am sure those 100 hundred million male Indians, those 1.2 billion Chinese, and those highly active clusters of radical feminists (opposed to liberal and marxist feminists) would be happy to form a consensus through "diversity" "their reasons" "their opinions" and not rationality. Those who have irrational beliefs usually do. All they need is a bit of dependence, a lot of fear, violence, and they have won.

The witch hunters and the McCarthyites forced their beliefs on others without rational basis; by using fear tactics and mindless rhetoric they formed a consensus. A consensus, with mccarthyism, that still lasts today.

Sorry, no thanks.

I will stick with the rational. The consensus is a congealing of oppression, suppression, ignorance, irrationality, and bias. In short, irrational.

ciao baby.

Announcement

Realistic Settings: The Debate

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment