Speed Civ

[Adam Smith]

I am getting tired of wracking my brains micromanaging everything to beat some record. (You people who have tried the size five strategy know what I am talking about. ) I therefore propose a different approach: Speed Civ.

Start with a given board and everybody has a set amount of playing time, say three hours at one sitting, to meet some objective using whatever strategy they want. Goals could be highest score, AC, most civ's conquered, most cities conquered, most techs accumulated, largest treasury, all AI's contacted, whatever.

I think there are some real advantages to this approach. You would have to play on instinct instead of micromanaging to death. Luck matters somewhat, but is not the sole determining factor.

I'm open to discussion about board settings, rules, etc. Two obvious issues are how to monitor time played, and how to handicap machine speed. (I have a 100 mhz machine )

Old posters never die.
They j<spacer size=5>u<spacer size=5>s<spacer size=5>t<font point-size=9><spacer size=10>f<spacer size=10>a<spacer size=10>d<spacer size=10>e</font><spacer size=15><font point-size=8>a<spacer size=15>w<spacer size=15>a<spacer size=15>y</font>


[This message has been edited by Adam Smith (edited December 05, 2000).]

[Hermann the Lombard]

Simple...

Automate your production and automate your settlers.



Actually, you might have to do some of that, trying to figure out where it would hurt you least, and trying to figure out where and when to intervene.

Time consumption is one of my biggest complaints [correction, "is my biggest complaint"] about Civ2, and it causes me to burn out (along with the minor detail of having a life, sometimes).

[SilverDragon]

auto settlers clear forest, thoug.

------------------
Go Redskins!

Email me at
SilverDragon141@aol.com

[Rufus T. Firefly]

And automated production will build the Manhattan Project...

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[Campo]

quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith on 12-05-2000 12:40 PM I'm open to discussion about board settings, rules, etc. Two obvious issues are how to monitor time played, and how to handicap machine speed. (I have a 100 mhz machine

I like this idea. I really enjoy Civ, but the time is a killer.

I don't think machine speed would matter much for the first hour or two, but after that it might make a difference. I have a P200 and don't notice delays until there are maybe 75 cities of size 6 or larger.

I don't think there's any foolproof way to monitor time, so it would have to be the honor system. Same as the OCC games anyway.

As for game settings:

Small or at most medium map. Takes too long to reach other Civs on a big map.

7 Civs, raging hordes (gotta have those $150 rewards).

Could either set one final goal or a combination. Single goal could be: most wonders, most cities/Civs conquered, highest population, highest powergraph rating.

A combination goal could be some weighted total of the above, or maybe just final score at the 3-hour retirement point.

[Hermann the Lombard]

<<
Simple...
Automate your production and automate your settlers.
>>

I was kidding; I just typo'd by attempt to embed an appropriate smiley (and I don't know how to create the advanced ones, anyway) . . .

Automated prod & settlers do *lots* of unfortunate things!

[johnmcd]

gah! I've suggested this about three or four times and always been called a weirdo.

My record, micromanged too, is large map, diety, raging hordes, AC win in under six hours.

[Smash]

Is there a way to introduce a "clock" or "timer" via events or maybe a .bat?

[kcbob]

A variation of this might be to combine it with a "Succession game" approach. Have two or three "teams" see who can finish first. This might be easier to "judge".

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

[Scouse Gits]

I like the idea of having teams competing in a succession game, but I'm doubtful if it can be done against the clock. For that you really need everyone playing under the same roof with the same conditions applying to all players.

-----------

SG (2)

[kcbob]

Oh, I don't know, SG. I think there are about four or five of us that could combine into a team that would be so dedicated, nobody could come close to us.

*thumps chest repeatedly*

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

[Blaupanzer]

Given the ubiquity and mobility of computers, maybe you could have 3 or 4 teams/individuals compete under the same roof. All start together, the first to AC wins. Conquer games might vary too much based on the AI opponents. You could also copy the save at 4000, and then compete for the first to victory of either sort. Could be done in a day, I'll bet.