Realistic Settings: The Debate

[agharta_id]

For those who are interested in playing the most realistic game possible, and want standardized settings that everyone can use (for bragging rights, o'course), this is the thread to tread.

To begin the debate, I will submit what I, at this point, consider the most realistic settings:

Simultaneous (possibly with turned based war). Deity. Raging Hordes. 1x 1x. 100x100. 4 Billion. Continents. Large Land Masses. Huts on. Bribing on (this shall spark debate!). Wonders on. Tech steal on. Seven Civs. No chat from start (icq is fine). As many humans as possible.

Now, the debates will obviously have to be supported with testing. So everyone will have ample time to prove whether i am simply a delusional neophyte or a soothsayer. Just as, with a different spin, I will have ample time to prove whether you guys are a bunch of confused, egalitarian, post-modernist aesthetics.

Take it away folks.

[Hydey]

Why no king chat, its the best part of MP, talking SHlT to each other.

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

[belinda9]

call me a purist.
I believe in playing the game the way Sid gave it to us and this includes bribing. I think those wussies whining "no bribing" just do not want to take the thought necessary to defend themselves from diplomats. City/unit bribing is fairly rare (it IS expensive after all) but should be a viable option within a game; there are ways to protect yrself from bribery if you not too lazy to figure them out.

I also deplore this sudden and sweeping fascination with making simultaneous play the "norm" in MP play. If people would conduct their business properly under turn-based play (i.e., use yr turn for movement, then adjust yr city production, chat, etc. on others' turns) then the game runs about as fast; also speed is NOT the prime requisite of the game. Personally, I find keeping up with simul movement while trying to run diplomacy very distracting. Of course, if the main object of your 'strategy' is just to run around and kill everything you see, I guess it doesn't really make much difference. But then, if that's your idea of a good game, why not just play some shooter game like Doom?

That's my opinion, anyhow, if you're asking for it.

[Capo di tutti Capi]

I also do not like Simul.

People rant and rave about how great it is, but its impossible to conduct diplomatic discussions. You have like two seconds to talk, and with all of the pop up windows its impossible to get any type of negotiations finished before six turns pass.

Not to mention it is filled with errors and lags, the lag in Simul is worse than the one in Turn Based MP.

I do horrible on Simul turn, I refuse to play any Simul-based games anymore, unless someone specifically asks me to sub for them.

[Chaos Warrior]

don't like simultaneous either.

Kingchat rocks though, taking the piss off EyesOfNight and having a good laugh ta his intimidation attempts

[EvilProphet]

Intimidation is only needed if someone is a threat. I wasn't trying to intimidate you Chaos, I was simply telling you what you were.

[Capo di tutti Capi]

I want to add a few retorts to the charge that King Chat is undesireable.

1) It is much more difficult to manage a game without it than it is with it. Why go to ICQ when you can simply use the King Chat option in order to iron out any problems? Plus the forum is there for those that do not have ICQ, why mandate ICQ usage?

2) If you are that worried about threats, simply ignore the person. In a more joking manner, I have no idea what you are doing running a country if you can't take a little crap now and then.

3) The King Chat window is easy to minimize if you want to, and always a great thing to access when you need to access it, apologizing for accidental tresspass etc.. I could go on.

I believe that city bribing should be allowed in a game, as long as the players all realize that the main objective to playing the game is fun rather than arbitrarily being victorious. I think if victory is the simply overlying factor in why you decide to play you shouldn't play the game in the first place. I do play to win, don't get me wrong, but I play to play first. Play to win second.

As far as humans go, the more the merrier. But I am sure there are ulterior schools of thought on this issue, I like to have a lot of people involved rather than just three or two. It makes it more interesting and you don't get your arbitrary set ups: X is strong, Y and Z team up against him.

With seven its better: A is strongest, B is second, C and D are next to A. They ally to curb A's power, however B is their common enemy based on proximity. Its kinda better that way. I dunno, easier to explain one on one.

[Chaos Warrior]

I am FOR King Chat!

I only mentioned the intimidation as a good example for having a laugh.

EvilProhet - If you were really supreme, (which you probably were, but let's assume you weren't ), why did you have to show me that so bad? one day you'll lose games because you told your opponents about their weak points too obviously! In Civ2, you don't have to fear such, yet, but there will players come that are able to get certain advantages just out of showing off (or whatever) attempts like those by you. "Telling them where they are" can become dangerous for you, even if it's not, currently.

Face it - Telling me where I am can only mean to:

1. intimidate me
2. show off about your own stats

or do you know another possibility?

[Ming]

<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 agharta_id on 02-19-2001 05:09 AM</font>
To begin the debate, I will submit what I, at this point, consider the most realistic settings:

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Realistic??? Not much about the game is "realistic".

Why don't you just call it what it is... Your favorite settings... Or at what settings does my strategy work best...

The nice thing about civ is that you do have a lot of different settings you can use. The game was designed that way. People will continue to play with the options they like. And they will have to use different strategies in order to take best advantage of the options.

So please explain why we all need to agree to certain settings for "bragging rights"... And please describe how one setting is more realistic to another... other than just stating your opinion that is

[agharta_id]

<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 02-19-2001 05:20 PM</font>
Realistic??? Not much about the game is "realistic". [ASSERTION. NO EXPLANATION. Go read my responses in "A game to FINISH" or "My first ever win at multiplayer"]

Why don't you just call it what it is... Your favorite settings... Or at what settings does my strategy work best... [Again, if had you read my responses, and taken careful note of my arguments, you would not be here arguing that I am arguing for "MY" settings]

The nice thing about civ is that you do have a lot of different settings you can use. The game was designed that way. [YES AND NO. The different levels were not made to give people different possible strategies, they were meant to ease newbies and mediocre players into deity game play. As for the settings options in deity itself, yes, they were made to provide different strategies WITHIN the level you are playing. That said, though, I think those settings within levels can be standardized also.] People will continue to play with the options they like. [true] And they will have to use different strategies in order to take best advantage of the options.

So please explain why we all need to agree to certain settings for "bragging rights"...[because civ multiplayer is a competitive game; i thought this was clear?} And please describe how one setting is more realistic to another... [that is the point of this thread] other than just stating your opinion that is [those who do not read often make fools of themselves]
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

[agharta_id]

Okay! Excellent. Four responses. Let us examine them and see how much substance we have.

But first, let us dispense with those who are not serious:

Hydey posted the only message that was not serious. He supported King Chat from the beginning because "talking SHlT to each other" is the best part of civ. PTAH. If you want to talk ****, go find yerself an internet relay chat room and enjoy. The are millions of stupid people who love to waste hours upon hours "talking SHlT to each other." You could easily become one of them (or perhaps you already are!).

Anyway, enough rhetoric! To the substance!

Argument #1, Belinda9:

Belinda supports City Bribe, arguing that (1)those who do not want to play with City Bribe are too lazy to develop defensive strategies against diplomatic manipulation, and that(2)City Bribing is rare and very expensive.

Belinda supports Turn Based play, noting that (1) if players were to use the time inbetween turns properly, Turned Based play would go as fast as Simultaneous Based play, (2) that time for diplomatic matters in Turn Based play is ample, while there is no time in Simultaneous Based play, and (3) that speed is not fundamental to the game.

Argument #2, Capo di tutti Capi:

Capo supports Turned Based play because (1) diplomatic negotiations with human players in Simultaneous Play are impossible (there is not enough time),(2) during Simultaneous Based play King Chat windows become unmanageable, and (3)lag is a major destabalizing factor on Simultaneous Based play.

Argument #3, Chaos Warrior:

Chaos Warrior is against King Chat from the beginning, because it allows players to intimidate each other.

Well, there you have it. Three arguments for and against various settings. Before I sink my teeth into them, i am going to wait for others to either counter these arguments or add new arguments on different or the same settings.

cheers!

...

[absurddoctor]

I have no problems with allowing city bribing in a game. However, you stated that you were going for the most realistic game possible, and I have trouble seeing anyway in which this could be considered realistic.

I disagree that simultaneous does not save time. Simultaenous games eliminate a lot of the waiting (this is especially good for me, because if my girlfriend is anxious to use the computer, and I am waiting five minutes for it to be my turn again, I may end being stuck relenting to her ) Also, I do not see the problems in running diplomacy. If you are having trouble finding the time to do so then ask for a larger time limit for each turn. Yes, the popups can be annoying, and the fact that if you are in King chat sometimes you will suddenly be back on the game map (while still typing away madly, thus sending your units to strange places, or disbanding them, or if your lucky just telling them to do something they can't actually do) these inconveniences are worth the ability to actually finish a game (or danish a game, however you wish to look at it now)

AD

[Hydey]

<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 agharta_id on 02-19-2001 12:12 PM</font>
but first, let us dispense with those who are not serious:

Hydey posted the only message that was not serious. He supported King Chat from the beginning.
...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

King chat is a vital resourse for the MP game , used correctly it can aid greatly in comunication between allies and enemies alike, then again when your allies are unable to use ICQ for some reason I'm sure a master like yourself would still refuse to use kingchat.

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

[rah]

Apologies for a long post in advance.

Agree with Ming, the game is not realistic so instead I will post my preferences. (people that play with me can skip the whole post because they have heard me pontificate about these many times)

KING CHAT Won't play without it.
1. ICQ sometimes has problems. Starting the game is the perfect example. Does the host have techs. Without king chat, restarts take 3 times as long.
2. Civ for me is like a night out with the boys. I enjoy their company. (at least most of you) Chatting is fun.
3. It fun to tease people, and sometimes you can goad them into doing something stupid.
4. Occasional chest thumping is also fun

Simul vs Turn.
Jury is still out.
Played a couple of simul games recently and the host advantage is way to great. If the host is patient and doesn't move till all others, he can essentially move twice without anybody else being able to respond. The Aussies have the most experience and have some good ideas. Maybe a color order but with a twist. You move before the two colors after you and down the line so the purple color would move before white.

People started to play chicken and tried to move last. The outcome of this was that earlier turns were taking longer than they would without simul. Good concept but it needs some work.

And having a family, the wait in between turns can be very useful. Cook, smoke breaks, kiss the kids goodnight, or any other of the many family emergencies.


City Bribing. Don't like it. If someone gets a few kings earlier, a person that got a slow start can't protect himself. And don't say you can protect from it without money, because you can't. Dips off ships and those moved with vet pikeman (before math) can't be stopped.

Unit Bribing. Like it. Since there is a way to protect against it, I have no problems with it.

Difficulty level. Deity. The game is already too expansion oriented. Deity helps keep that in check. We do play on small worlds so a civ with only 12 cities can compete, making the happiness wonders important, but not critical. (there's always communism)

Tech Trading, Don't like it. I like to see conflict encouraged. The first two civs to meet get way to much of an advantage if they can trade techs. And if they are between the other two civs keeping them from meeting, the game is essentially over. If you can't trade techs, early meetings are more likely to result in war. As all should neighbors do.

Tech Stealing, a must. Sometimes the only way to level the field. And the strategy for timing leads to some great scenarios. (rushs to get the tech to build wonders)

2x vs 1x movement. NEVER WILL PLAY 2x movement. IT's and abortion. Catapults that can move and fire, let's be real. (opps forgot we weren't discussing realsim)
The game becomes the rush for poly and Elephants that can move 4. Some people like this, I don't. At least in 1x you can usually see whats coming. If 20 elephants are coming to attack, you'd get some warning.

2x vs 1x production. 2x, just a personal preference. I like the tempo of a 2x game. I will play 1x but greatly prefer 2x. I find myself doing stupid things in 1x due to habit.

Huts and Wonders. A must, Some claim that they unbalance the game too much. I don't agree. They add variety. And a little luck. How many times must you make changes when that barb legion appears from a hut near one of your prize cities that's currently building a wonder. Makes for some hard choices. I also enjoy the wonder races, and the decisions that must be made to go along with them. And the strategy changes that must be made when you guess wrong. For those that say it unbalances the game, I'd be willing to bet that someone that got all the good wonders, was probably going to beat you anyway.

World Size, the smaller the better, encourage interaction and conflict. Make each square of land valuable and worth fighting over. Keeps games from becoming and endless and boring contest to see how many settlers you can spit out.


Well that's all I can think of now.

RAH
I hate it when they call the RAH rules

[agharta_id]

"the game is not realistic so instead I will post my preferences"

Preferences are based on your overall experience. Every minute, every hour, and every second you live you bring information into your brain through you senses. Thus a statement is only a "preference" if you do not back it up with reasons. If you back it up reasons, it becomes an argument.

For example, this is a preference: I LIKE DEITY: and this is an argument: I LIKE DEITY BECAUSE BLAH BLAH BLAH.

An opinion, similarily, is a position where the individual has not or can not articulate the reasons why he or she defends x (a position).

For example, this is an opinion: God exists: and this is an argument: God exists because BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

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

But anyway, enough philosophical babble. Rah, that was great post. Although I think I can hack some of your points up, many will stand. But before I do that, I want many more posts. So people, post!

(off topic: carnide looks like he is going to win in our game. I am publicizing this as a preemptive strike to those who would like see my argument rejected when it is confirmed that i have lost. Let me be clear: i am primarily a philosopher, not a strategist; I am an above average builder, a pathetic general, a fairly good diplomat, a great city manager. So when i lose, neener, neener: i cut ya off at the pass.)