Mikes and Bachs

[agharta_id]

It is odd, doncha think? As i go along, making my sarcastic comments and witty replies, I am indirectly defending MILO. I find this very odd.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by agharta_id (edited March 11, 2001).]</font>

[Nap Bonaparte]

I strongly disagree with the premise of this thread. Mikes and Bachs are not destabilizing to this game. Especially at Deity level, HG can be more important early on in a game. Later on, Adams and SoL can certainly offset Mikes and Bachs. Growth is the most important aspect of Civ and Pyramids is the greatest vehicle for growth in the game.....even without the happy wonders.

Finally, if you have allowed your opponents to build Mikes and Bachs for you, you can easily capture them with Lighthouse/Sun Tzu. Lighthouse will also allow you to build up an early system of transoceanic trade routes which will also help to offset the happy wonders. But if you allow your opponents to build all the wonders, then you are indeed SoL.

[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 Nap Bonaparte on 03-11-2001 02:46 PM</font>
I strongly disagree with the premise of this thread. Mikes and Bachs are not destabilizing to this game. Especially at Deity level, HG can be more important early on in a game. Later on, Adams and SoL can certainly offset Mikes and Bachs. Growth is the most important aspect of Civ and Pyramids is the greatest vehicle for growth in the game.....even without the happy wonders.

Finally, if you have allowed your opponents to build Mikes and Bachs for you, you can easily capture them with Lighthouse/Sun Tzu. Lighthouse will also allow you to build up an early system of transoceanic trade routes which will also help to offset the happy wonders. But if you allow your opponents to build all the wonders, then you are indeed SoL.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Finally! Someone who attacks the arguement and not the person! I will respond later, for i am busy now.

[Crustacian]

It's your attitude Agharta not you as a person. i.e.:judgemental, narrow minded, and inconsistant or as one comment said "hypocritical".

It is your picking and choosing what you will and will not answer of peoples comments under the false guise of claiming they are irrelavant when they are not<----you still lamely have not answered Berserker very relative point for example. Many times you have done this type of thing and it is weak argumentation.

You were not by any means the first to consider +'s & -'s of limiting the happy wonders. You look up the posts when you have time.

If you were only arguing, you would not start the slamming tones that to me are what your name means.

[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 Crustacian on 03-11-2001 03:42 PM</font>
It's your attitude Agharta not you as a person. i.e.:judgemental, narrow minded, and inconsistant or as one comment said "hypocritical".

It is your picking and choosing what you will and will not answer of peoples comments under the false guise of claiming they are irrelavant when they are not<----you still lamely have not answered Berserker very relative point for example. Many times you have done this type of thing and it is weak argumentation.

You were not by any means the first to consider +'s & -'s of limiting the happy wonders. You look up the posts when you have time.

If you were only arguing, you would not start the slamming tones that to me are what your name means.


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

If I do not address a point, say "agharta, you did not address such and such a point." ... unfortunately, i did address his point. I clearly argued that diplomats are unstoppable because of the happy wonder flaw. READ THE DAMN THREAD!

[markusf]

I was in dem, and bribing all your empty cities, all you had to do was capture one city back or steal tech and go to dem... guess that is to hard for u to do. I suggest you go back to playing AI, maybe that way you can actually win. And if you remember right i only attacked you after you got mouthy and built the oracle (omg is that a happy wonder? thought you said you would never build a happy wonder?) which we agreed not to build, because i forgot to expire it in my rules.txt

Good luck trying to find 3 players who will play on a 100*100 map, by the time you find the other person the game is over

[War4ever]

<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 markusf on 03-11-2001 06:36 PM</font>


Good luck trying to find 3 players who will play on a 100*100 map, by the time you find the other person the game is over


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

i was just recently in a game with three others and i do believe on a tiny map i hadn't met one of my competition before we quit ..... we had played for five hours.......and i had uncovered more of the map than anyone else..... granted it wasnt' simul but that is still rare.

a large map i can see usefull if seven players and everyone is going to play say an all nighter game for like 10 -15 hours straight..... god only knows.... someone won't show up to continue therefore a game with no contact would suck.....

small maps are great for four people..... there is action, growth, and things speed along... simul or not.

[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 Nap Bonaparte on 03-11-2001 02:46 PM</font>
I strongly disagree with the premise of this thread. Mikes and Bachs are not destabilizing to this game. Especially at Deity level, HG can be more important early on in a game. Later on, Adams and SoL can certainly offset Mikes and Bachs. Growth is the most important aspect of Civ and Pyramids is the greatest vehicle for growth in the game.....even without the happy wonders.

Finally, if you have allowed your opponents to build Mikes and Bachs for you, you can easily capture them with Lighthouse/Sun Tzu. Lighthouse will also allow you to build up an early system of transoceanic trade routes which will also help to offset the happy wonders. But if you allow your opponents to build all the wonders, then you are indeed SoL.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>


before i respond to this: what is SoL?

[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 markusf on 03-11-2001 06:36 PM</font>
I was in dem, and bribing all your empty cities, all you had to do was capture one city back or steal tech and go to dem... guess that is to hard for u to do. I suggest you go back to playing AI, maybe that way you can actually win. And if you remember right i only attacked you after you got mouthy and built the oracle (omg is that a happy wonder? thought you said you would never build a happy wonder?) which we agreed not to build, because i forgot to expire it in my rules.txt [ad hominem]

Good luck trying to find 3 players who will play on a 100*100 map, by the time you find the other person the game is over [assertion]


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

[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 War4ever on 03-11-2001 10:30 PM</font>
i was just recently in a game with three others and i do believe on a tiny map i hadn't met one of my competition before we quit ..... we had played for five hours.......and i had uncovered more of the map than anyone else..... granted it wasnt' simul but that is still rare.

a large map i can see usefull if seven players and everyone is going to play say an all nighter game for like 10 -15 hours straight..... god only knows.... someone won't show up to continue therefore a game with no contact would suck.....

small maps are great for four people..... there is action, growth, and things speed along... simul or not.


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

I can only conclude that you were exploring the map wrong, or you were very unlucky.

Here are my suggestions: 7 and 6 player games: 100x100; 5 and 4 player games: 90x90; 3 player games: 80x80; 2 player games: 70x70.

and: find players who are reliable and play 7 civ whenever you 3 or less players (ie 3 humans and 4 ais)

[War4ever]

<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 03-11-2001 11:39 PM</font>
I can only conclude that you were exploring the map wrong, or you were very unlucky.

Here are my suggestions: 7 and 6 player games: 100x100; 5 and 4 player games: 90x90; 3 player games: 80x80; 2 player games: 70x70.

and: find players who are reliable and play 7 civ whenever you 3 or less players (ie 3 humans and 4 ais)


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

sometimes you just get unlucky.... as it was..... the other civ was obviously not in the running....

I don't like your map sizes.... unrealistic....... history isn't without confrontation....... besides all civs need a visable rival...

4-5 players.... small map
5-6 players ... add slightly
6-7 players.... add again..... up to a large map of course.... but in reality i doubt 100 x100 is necessary.... too many cities on the board.... remember the fiasco with giga maps? 7 people hit that 255 max limit right quick

[absurddoctor]

Hmm, somehow everything I typed in earlier today, (well, now yesterday morning actually) didn't make it into the post. I had made a bunch of comments on risk. Oh well, I just got home from work and I'm too tired to attempt to remember what it was I had to say. I'm sure it was quite important and insightful though


<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>&lt;font size=1&gt;Originally posted by agharta_id on 03-10-2001 08:00 PM&lt;/font&gt;
Good evening,

I just finished playing a game with Markus and Ophidity, and I must say i am unimpressed. Their "strategy" consists of building as many happy wonders as possible, attaining "the republic" advance as fast as possible, jacking up the luxury rate under the republic, and, when they have enough cash in their coffers, win the game by bribing civilizations without happy wonders and warring against those without. Those without happy wonders are doomed to lose.

No WONDER (pun intented) they want to play without wonders, without city bribe, and on king level. The happy wonders destabalize the game, the diplomats are unstoppable when one player has two or more of the happy wonders, and king allows for greater military action and the use of wonders.

This has to be the lamest "strategy" i have ever seen. Well, okay, not the lamest; I have played RISK many times, and know that the Indonesia "strategy" debalances the game ...

Now, Risk is obviously a flawed game: it is based largely on luck, the country and continental borders are far too simplistic (allowing for Indonesia and North American to dominate), and the "production" factor, ie turning in cards, while creating a certain level of excitement, turns the game into a "who gets the cards first". These flaws are fundamentals that can not be changed. Any rules you add, you still have RISK.

Fortunately, civ is different. The inherent flaws, mikes without expiration and bachs without expiration, can be cleaned up quite simply. Limit mikes and bachs.

This is my suggestion:

Mikes expires with the corporation (the rise of secularism) and Bach's expires with electronics (the rise of secular toys).

Limit these, and the game becomes much more stable, much more skilled based, and less lame.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by absurddoctor (edited March 13, 2001).]</font>

[Berzerker]

Sol is Statue of Liberty