Next AU course

[Dominae]

Originally posted by The pirate
how about no strategic resources in proximity to the start? have to go out of your way to rex, invade, trade for any of them.

A lot of players feel Conquests is already like this!!

[JimiD]

I know, and I have followed the discussions about it, which first got me thinking about such a game. I dont play at a high enough level to have felt the sting of the reduced resources - have always been able to get what I want one way or another, or been beaten for other reasons.

It might not be how we would all want Civ to be all the time, but it might be worth an investigation.

I did start such a game, but having rigged the map and known where to go to get what I needed, felt I was missing the point.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dominae
Huh!?

It took you ~five posts (not all of which, admittedly, were negative), including a couple after my defense of "restrictive" games, for you to half-propose we maybe could sort of redo a previous course because you heard some people wanted to do that in the past. My "flame" still stands, wherever you put it in the post order: it would be nice if you could propose stuff up front.

Perhaps you would be pleased if I would just go away. In this case, I have bad news for you. But there is always an ignore feature you could use.

The reason I'm fighting this battle, by the way, is that I dislike this approach:

"I hate that idea. Maybe you should do this instead."

Yes, it is always easier if people just shut up and agree.

If you were a more active participant in actually playing the games instead of just shooting down ideas in the "Next..." threads, I would be a bit more patient. To my knowledge, the last AU you played and posted about was either Seafaring or OCC.

One of these was the last AU course I posted about, true. After this, I started to play few courses, most of which were of the "chase the resource" type, which as you know, qualifies as "unfun" for me, so I dropped them without actually posting. Soon after, I ceased to play AU games whatsoever, because no improvement of the tendency "more difficulty at the expense of fun" was in sight, which, as I posted above, is unacceptable for me.

So I started my own series of fun scenarios, some of which (Uncle Sam and Bye bye PtW come to mind) I posted about. And I put quite some work into testing scenarios, which add strategigal choice. One of these led to the Tarzan and Jane PBEMs. Unfortunately, Firaxis' hardcoded infinite railroad movement and the ability to lump as many units at one tile as you wish (which both are the death sentence to any strategical approach) made any serious effort hopeless.

What this has to do with AU, you ask? I left AU, because the fun element was seriously at the decline. The early AU games were fun. The games at the time I left, were not. So, you ask what to do to increase popularity? My answer is, let the fun return. Believe me, it can coexist with the scholastic aspect. Others might disagree, but that is why discussions go.

Do you really hate all the ideas that AU implements?

Yea, just like because I don't like Bush, I must hate America. I must have met this approach somewhere.

Perhaps you're just not interested in Civ3 anymore. On independent grounds (including your own admissions), I believe this is the case.

Yes, this is the case, although it is probably temporary.

[Modo44]

Wow, what a beautiful flame. And still keeping it civil. Nice work.

I took the liberty to write down, I hope, most of the ideas we have right now. Im giving them smilies in order to show my personal opinion. 'Nough talk, methinks.

• PBEM turnament, 4 players, fast turns, DARs.
• PBEM with diplogame rules.
• No building wonders.
• Limit the number of structures you build (in one of the described ways).
• Play a Conquest as an AU course.
• A Veteran starts a Deity game and gives over to someone less experienced to see how he can manage.
• Must have wide spacing.
• Trying out camps.
• Replay one of the old courses (Total Forever Eternal War was specifically proposed; I'd add that the map should be changed.).
• Training for a succession game.
• Maximum (wonder) overkill game.
• Start with resources difficult to reach.
• A mix of some of the above.
• Promote Theseus to Almost-God status. Just after Nathan.

[conmcb25]

Lets do a poll

[Modo44]

Mhmmmkay, I'm on it.

Done. Here's the poll.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Perhaps you would be pleased if I would just go away. In this case, I have bad news for you. But there is always an ignore feature you could use.

I would be pleased if you were to contribute like you used to. You know, like trying to make AU something fun for you and others without just criticizing the current powers-that-be. You do not seem to care whether things actually improve or not. I guess I could apologize for displeasing you, but I know that would do nothing to increase your level of participation/contribution.

Yes, it is always easier if people just shut up and agree.

Yes, that would be easier for me. Then again, it's easier for you to criticize without taking an active role in making things better.

What this has to do with AU, you ask? I left AU, because the fun element was seriously at the decline. The early AU games were fun. The games at the time I left, were not. So, you ask what to do to increase popularity? My answer is, let the fun return. Believe me, it can coexist with the scholastic aspect. Others might disagree, but that is why discussions go.

The "early games" of AU were more fun for me, too (I was not around for the very first ones). But I attribute this to the fact that I had been playing for less time and I still had a lot to learn, not to anything intrinsic about the scnenarios themselves. Let's test this hypothesis; here are my suggestions for the next AU course:

1. You cannot build any military units.
2. You must conquer one enemy civ per military unit type (Warriors/Archers, Swordsmen/Horsemen, etc.)
3. Your map is SVC-like: poor land and resource scarce.

Wow! Talk about restrictive! Talk about artificial! Who would willingly play such a scenario today (apart for nostalgia purposes)?

These are, of course, just examples; other courses were less restrictive. But I think they show that it's not really the type of course that has caused you and I and others to slow or stop participation in AU, but something else. And my guess is that it's just the fact that the game is old hat for us now. You used to write voluminously in your AU reports, and about Archer rushes and the like. Is it really something AU is doing wrong that's stifling your interest in game's strategy (AU is, after all, a school for learning Civ3 strategy)?

In other places you've criticized Civ3 for all its shortcomings. That's your prerogative. But I fail to see how anything we're doing at AU specifically deserves criticism beyond your dislike of Civ3 in general. Again, I would like you to suggest some original and (of course) fun ideas of your own to try in AU. Your current proposal is to play an old course. Can you think of anything new? Anything that does not involve extensive modding, artificial restrictions, and is fun for newer/serious players alike? If you were to try you would find it's not so easy. And if it is easy, please share!

Yea, just like because I don't like Bush, I must hate America. I must have met this approach somewhere.

Ok...

All I was asking is you were happy with any course AU implemented in the past year and a half or so. Is the analogy: bush-courses, AU-America? I'm not getting it.

Yes, this is the case, although it is probably temporary.

Why is it temporary? Are you waiting for a super mod that will take away all your problems with Civ3? Do you think they will release another patch? In the meantime (that is, until you return to Civ3), why are you interested in AU?

[Harovan]

I really don't know why you are jumping at me, if not for personal dislike, which shows big time. I can assure you this is beginning to be mutual, and growing. The post, that got you "all in funk" was actually just disagreeing with your stance and agreeing with Nathans, nothing more. If this already makes you upset like this, there's really not much worth my time to discuss with you anymore.

The posts before contained criticism (doubt of playability of the proposed ruleset by pointing on a contradiction) along with constructive proposals (if playing a PBEM of Nathans proposed diplomatic style, play it with a tested over years ruleset). Of course this was too low to be acknowledged by you.

I can see, that Nathan makes reasonable proposals about fun games. Yours are unfun. There, my opinion. Deal with it, bye.

[Theseus]

You guys bicker like an old married couple.... The Curmudgeon and the Scary Lady with Crazy Eyes.

[Harovan]

Dominae is just sour that, while I ceased to play Civ3 for now, I still lurk in the AU forum. May be he feels this forum haunted by that long forgotten ghost somehow, who knows. But it is not personal. I lurk in every forum of this site. Don't feel haunted.

All in all, it's pushing the extremes. I don't like overly restricted games and prefer other proposals - must hate AU. I dislike Conquests - must hate Civ3. Go figure.

[Theseus]

BTW, I still launch random epic games (and I know Arrian does too)... usually I want to test an idea or strategy out, or sometimes playtest things like Nathan's Cav Mod.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Dominae is just sour that, while I ceased to play Civ3 for now, I still lurk in the AU forum. May be he feels this forum haunted by that long forgotten ghost somehow, who knows. But it is not personal.

Every time we start a new course, you come out of lurk mode, criticize the ideas because you dislike them, then retreat back into lurk mode, usually with some sort of "do whatever you want, I'll go and play games I like" comment. Well, to me, that is unproductive. It puts a dark cloud over what we're trying to do here.

I'm truly interested in what seeing AU do well, independently of my personal bias towards more difficult games. I feel you just want to get your way, or (worse) do not care either way. That is what I'm sour about. Let's have you take some responsibility for AU and see how you react when certain posters do nothing but criticize.

Ok, so let's end this. The last word is usually yours, so I promise not to say anything after your next post.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Dominae
Ok, so let's end this. The last word is usually yours, so I promise not to say anything after your next post.

That would be rather "refreshing"

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I don't really like conventional PBEM games because of a combination of three factors:

1) The risk of backstabbing.

2) The risk of a "gang up on the leader" mentality.

3) The problem of how to engage in honest diplomacy in an environment where the person I'm negotiating with and I both want to win.

I know that with many PBEM players, those kinds of elements are exactly what makes the game fun for them. But that's not the way my mind works. Real life is not defined in terms where only one civilization can win and everyone else has to lose, and for me, a civ game with more than two human players defined in such terms does not feel right.

If there are enough others out there who have a mindset similar to mine, we could provide an option of playing by a set of special rules or principles to make the game less cutthroat. I'm thinking in terms of something along the lines of the following:

1) The goal is not necessarily to win, but rather to play our civilizations like real civilizations, doing what we believe is in their best interest. Warfare is fine if it looks like the benefits outweigh the risks, but players should not atttack another civ that they've been in a good relationshiip with just because the other civ is ahead and they want to win.

2) Players are expected to keep each other apprised of how their people feel toward each other, and to act accordingly. Civs that have good relations with each other shouldn't suddenly attack without a very, very good reason for a change in attitude, while civs with hostile feelings might attack at any time. Such relations should, at least in part, reflect events in the game - for example, favorable trade arrangements would make a civilization feel better toward another civ, while a border dispute where two civs are trying to grab the same land might hurt relations. Note that if players explain the reasons for good or bad relations, other players can take those reasons into consideration in formulating their policies.

(I might add that players could contrive entirely artificial reasons to "justify" a deterioriation in relations if they really want to. But major shifts in attitude should take place over time, not in just two or three turns.)

3) Civs can, of course, seek to win the support of other civs with gifts, sales on favorable terms, or other considerations. That could be especially important if the two most prosperous civs in the game end up in a hostile rivalry, in which case each would seek allies against the other. But here, too, relationships between civs ought to play a role. Bribing a civ into a partnership or alliance against a civ it already dislikes should be relatively easy if the odds of success are good, but civs should be extremely reluctant to attack a civ they've been on good terms with for centuries even if they are given a good offer to do so.

That kind of set-up would still leave a lot of room for military action if players decide it's in their civilizations' best interest. But it would also leave room for permanent friendships and partnerships, with players able to feel like their civ was successful even if they don't officially win.

What do others think of the idea of a game defined along those lines, at least as an option for those who prefer it?

I apologize firstly for showing up to the party late. Thanks much to Sir Ralph for letting y'all know about Diplogaming and for letting me know about this thread.

nbarclay, if you (and others) are still interested in trying out the above idea for a game I strongly urge you to check out the following link:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101988

Many games have been played with precisely that intent in mind. All in Civ2 however, but I and others are very interested in exporting it to Civ3 (a bit late, yes I know). Even so, there is a lengthy and well play tested FAQ and ruleset at the above link. The DiploFAQ also has links to past games, so if you want to do an AU course on the subject you could have lots of material to study beforehand.

I'm not incredibly familiar with how the whole AU thing works, but if anyone wanted to pursue a Diplogame course like this, I would be more than happy to "teach" or guide or whatever is appropriate.

Again, the link is:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101988

Please check it out.

The FAQ is geared towards Civ2, but much of it is universal and would apply to a Civ3 PBEM. As our attempts at a Civ3-MP game have fallen apart, we might try a Civ3-PBEM Diplogame instead.

[Theseus]

Thanks for showing up, Ozzy!!

I will print out the FAQ tomorrow, read it, and see how I think it applies.

In your mind, how does the rule-set you've developed relate to Nathan's ideas as quoted in your post?

(And thanks to Sir Ralph for providing the connection.)