Setting up IP Games XXXVII

[War4ever]

Had to beat the Ferrets to this one, actually Rich i am surprised you let it get so big

We have the Rah rules thread, which in itself is getting bigger so i figured we could start a new ip thread and maybe discuss rule changes in the process.

my proprosal for rules changes are as follows... oh and just for the record and to justify this thread...... i will be around this weekend for civing

1) no Great Wall as we do not play with city bribe , this forces us off the tech path (if only slightly) and makes Suns more powerfull. This will give the early warmonger a greater advantage
2) no tech stealing/trading....tech must be captured via conquest..this prevents the lazy diplo in the bad 80's suits from the walk up and makes the Greal Library more viable
3)no suitcase bombs with spies/no nukes....i know we don't get to nukes often, but spies are becoming a real drain on the game ala the diplomat
4)how do people feel about the lazy caravan drop? unlike dips, caravans to other civs, especially when allowed to walk right up to a city are somewhat bothersome. I have no qualms about caravans to port ciites...but that too could be eliminated...
5) continuing games????
6)x1x1 (simul)??
those are my big woes at the moment..... feel free to post yours and/or agree/disagree with me....

oh, and don't forget to post if you want to play..after all that is what this thread is really for!!!

[Ming]

Re: Setting up IP Games XXXVII

Originally posted by War4ever
oh, and don't forget to post if you want to play..after all that is what this thread is really for!!!

Yeah... that is what this thread is for. Maybe Cold Wizard (since he seems to be the official secretary of this little group) can start a new thread with just the current rules in it. Then we can continue discussion of your proposals and others in it, while leaving this thread for it's regular purpose

[rah]

Yes please limit the discussion to

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45463

So it's easier for CW keep track of it. It's tough if you have to search 3 or 4 threads. And the potential for crossposting is also eliminated.

RAH

[markusf]

Actually if you ban tech stealing and tech trading 1x 1x simul becomes a very viable option and people will be inclined to continue the game. Having played a few of these games i can say there is basically no such thing as war at the start and everyone tries to expand.

With a semi decent map your looking at 1 hour till 1 ad.
2 hours till 1000ad. In a game with no war your looking at launching a spaceship about 4 hours into the game... Realistically with 4 players, you could launch a spaceship in about 2-3 sessions. But with no tech trading or stealing, players like me gain a massive advantage.. it would be better to just ban caras to other civs and allow trading of techs, as long as 2 players already have that tech

[rah]

But we want war.

RAH

[War4ever]

yes we want early warfare........though i do like the simul turn and x1x1 which allows for continuing games

[markusf]

Originally posted by War4ever
yes we want early warfare........though i do like the simul turn and x1x1 which allows for continuing games

early warfare sucks. I'd rather play a hour of speed civ and get to engineers and cannons, then play 6 hours and run around with crappy crusaders and knights.

[Ming]

Originally posted by markusf
early warfare sucks. I'd rather play a hour of speed civ and get to engineers and cannons, then play 6 hours and run around with crappy crusaders and knights.

And why should we let you get to engineers and cannons. Your problem with early war is that you don't build many defensive units Granted, your choice, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of that fact

[markusf]

Originally posted by Ming


And why should we let you get to engineers and cannons. Your problem with early war is that you don't build many defensive units Granted, your choice, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of that fact

Ya well, you guys ever won a war against me?

IF we are playing 1x, it doesn't matter. With 2x there is no stratagy, the only way to win is to rush with massive amounts of offensive units.. I looked at some saves from our last session. Rah stole pikes and 4 turns later he had nearly 3 pikes in every single city. Something like that just isn't possible in 1x. A military is a significant investment.. IF we are playing 1x 1x simul, 2 hours into the game we would be at cannons.. Assuming there are no super slow pokes.. Where as in 2x we would still be researching pikes..

[rah]

the difference in speed isn't 1x vs 2x, it's simul.

And if you studied those saves you would have seen that most of those pikes were quickly built from disbanding the present phalanx for the first row. That replacement technique works the same in 1x. It just takes an extra turn to fill the second rack in the smaller cities. Granted in 1x, it would probably only be 2 defenders instead of three. But then your attack forces would be a little over half the size.

RAH

[War4ever]

now now boys........ Rich i do think simul is the best way to play....its amazing how far you can get in one session and to be honest, continuing games at later stages is alot more fun....

x2 production just distorts someones lead...i think were all good enough to see that.....

but the maps we play one won't due in x1 so the settings need to be reset or someone needs to produce maps which are unseen to all and have equal starting positions...though i tend to frown upon the latter....who is to say they haven't seen that map before

[markusf]

Originally posted by rah
the difference in speed isn't 1x vs 2x, it's simul.
RAH

rah rah rah... I have played both settings extensively and the difference comes from the number of units..
2x gives huge production, this means you have huge numbers of units.. Each time you move a unit you take up time.. When building huge numbers of units you tend to use them to attack etc.. In 1x most of your resources go into building infustructure... you pretty much don't go into all our war in a 4 player game untill at least cannons.

[rah]

every game I have played simul has ended in an arguement. That's reason enough.

Saying Rah Rah Rah, just makes me think you're trying to treat me as a six year old. Not the way to get me to listen seriously.

I can handle your arogance but don't be condescending.

[Deity Dude]

i personally prefer 1x1x. (but as was pointed out the maps would have to be different)

simul is good except for 1 big problem:

quickest connection gets to attack, slower connection has to defend (not to fair when 2 horses run into each other) same thing when 2 units want to occupy the same square (ie 2 settlers both want to build on that mountain gold)

1x1x sim... that sure doesnt sound like RAH's rules.

[rah]

The difference seems to be when more units are available to attack and what era units. In all the 1x1x games, less units to attack until later in the game. I find that boring and would like to get to it early. In 2x it happens at least early enough to make it less boring. But I do understand that people get frustrated because of the use of more defensive terrain.

I've heard all the benefits of simul, and having played it and experienced them, I agree with most of them, but as I said, the arguements take the fun out of it.

RAH

And finally simul cuts into my smoke breaks.