Demo Game 4 Suggestions

[duke o' york]

There has already been some discussion of how we are to approach game number 4 in another thread, but I'm starting a new thread so we don't distract from the real business of winning number 3.

Once we have enough suggestions for different ways of playing game number 4 then someone can put a poll together, but until then post your ideas and see them torn to shreds by people who disagree. Remember that it'd probably be best not to have a game too similar to those that have already been played in Demo games 1-3, but it'll be a democratic decision in the end so put forward your ideas!

[shade]

ok here we go.

I suggest this time we start from some sort of end-game situation in which the AI actually has some strength and possibility to fight us.
I have attached 2 saves of one of my last games(sorry but it was just one where I tried to tinker with the extra units so the rules.txt en units.gif included might be needed, sorry for the inconveniance)
terror2 is a save of the world of 1966 and terror the save of 1987.
What I suggest is that we start from a save like that(I don't know what ppl might have of interesting situations in their own saves-records) and we pick a suitable civ for our game(weak human or a weak AI) and then just try to survive and conquer the world.
To play this game we might consider turning back the time counter if we want to set ourselves a timelimit, but I don't think that should be an issue(except maybe for the powergraph).

Of the saves I included, the human civ might be a tad strong(purple) but we could play as the chinese or the Carthaginians.

[shade]

the carthaginians

[shade]

the chinese

[shade]

and the map

[cavebear]

Hmmm, perhaps we could play as one of the civs we defeated in a past game. We would have quite a lot of leeway in how weak we would be at the start that way.

We could choose exactly the time where the challenge seemed approriate. I think it would be interesting to see how different the game would work out. I'm curious to see how bad things have to be until we *can't* win.

[duke o' york]

This is an idea I've tried a couple of times but never had much luck with. Basically we start as a resurrected civ. We build a mighty civ of our own, and then switch to the restart of the first civ to be killed. This game is a lot easier if the barbs get one early, and is really difficult if there are plenty of islands, the AI is peaceful or if the human starts too far away to kill anyone early enough. So we'd need a volunteer to play through and build a decent civ that we can pass on to the AI. ICS and SSC are of course allowed in this "pre-turn". Then they have to set out and destroy a civ or stop playing when a civ is destroyed by the barbs or AI. The play is then switched to the reborn civ, the map view is theirs only and the game is saved as a scenario. The democracy takes over.
Comments?

[Ben Kenobi]

Saving the game as a scenario opens up the tech list, making directed research substantially easier.

When the civ respawns, why don't we strip the civ of all techs?

[shade]

Saving the game as a scenario opens up the tech list, making directed research substantially easier.
When the civ respawns, why don't we strip the civ of all techs?

maybe give us a slight chance of survival?

an other idea as startup could be: play OCC on a large map (but toggle the bloodlust-mode) and by the time the 1-city has arrived at the moment it would have won the game, we start our conquest game?

Shade

[duke o' york]

And leave a perfectly good spaceship just sat there on the launch site?

Besides, isn't that the O Sole Mio SXN?

How's about we get someone to write us a little scenario? The AI all get accelerated start-up but we don't. Whoever sets it up can give the AI civs ten or so cities each with supported units and improvements, all the techs up to (and including) Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Chivalry, Astronomy and Monotheism. (any others I forgot?) The AI civs would each get a wonder from one of the first seven and we'd get two settlers and nothing else. How does that sound?

[shade]

Originally posted by duke o' york
And leave a perfectly good spaceship just sat there on the launch site?

that is why it would be played in bloodlust mode asif it were a normal OCC game.
When this part is finnished by some poor volunteer the actual game begins.(the choice for OCC is because this would take a relative short time to start the game up(only one city to keep track of and hitting enter )

giving the AI 10 or so cities won't cut it...it will be whiped out before it even starts to become a threat.
The above situation might give us a world with some strong and bigg civs(>=50 cities) and a massive amount of units and a game that isn't finished with spears and swords for once . If we could start from a situation in wich everybody (except us) is armed to the teeth with at least artillery, armor's, fighters, rockets and Mech Inantry. Would that not be a nice change for once?

Shade

[duke o' york]

True, but when was the last game you played in which more than a couple of the AI civs actually built 50 cities?
Even in the current game, admittedly the terrain wasn't too promising, but the Greeks only managed 30 cities and no-one was even close.
I'm in favour of beginning at 4000BC, but giving the AI a massive headstart. With 10 or 15 free cities and a few free settlers then I doubt that the human player (us) would be able to close the huge tech gap and stomp the AI civs before some bright sparks started to send out decent units and/or build a SS. I forgot Gunpowder as one of the AI techs to be given free when I summarised my last idea. Each AI with 15, say, cities all guarded by musketeers and all capable of growth to size 12. Against 2 settlers. There's a challenge! There would be no early conquest because even vet crooks would have problems against vet muskets behind city walls. And by the time we got to Monotheism then where would the AI be?

[shade]

Originally posted by duke o' york
True, but when was the last game you played in which more than a couple of the AI civs actually built 50 cities?

cfr save above

[duke o' york]

Er, the Babs are closest, unless there are more off the side of the map that I can't see but you've basically got three civs with a chance of winning the game and four fillers. That is, assuming that all civs are controlled by the AI. You've only got a couple of decent-sized civs. Obviously it'd be dumb to expect 6 civs with 50 cities as the limit is 255, but there are lots more potential cities to be built in your game.
You seem to be more keen on having an evenly-matched modern war with the AI civs who are strong enough to put up a fight, whereas I still like the decision-making of the early game with regard to tech, exploration and city founding.
Why are we the only two discussing this? It's starting to look a bit spammy and someone might come along and ask us to go to the 'poly chatroom (which I can't). We need input from the other citizens of the Apolyton democracy!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I don't think I've ever seen 50+ cities out of the AI in MGE. In ToT it happens a lot. Of course, how many of us have ToT?

If we could start from a situation in wich everybody (except us) is armed to the teeth with at least artillery, armor's, fighters, rockets and Mech Inantry. Would that not be a nice change for once?

Seems kind of tedious, IMO... we'd have to stay Spotless for a long time to avoid being wiped out. Begging for tech gifts doesn't seem that much fun to me. And if we started near someone like the Mongols or Zulus, we'd probably get wiped out anyway.

A reasonable head start game would be one where each AI gets a dozen techs and a dozen Settlers. OR, as in the Sailing Succession, we start on an isolated island. To make it harder, we could ban Lighthouse or have all the AIs start with a few techs including Map Making.

[atawa]

I like starting at 4000BC but with much harder conditions:

* Give AI at least Mon and a dozen other techs and +/- 10 city's in good locations.
* Ban all wonders.
* Start on a 3-4 city island making sure we dont get to explore other islands untill after nav.

Has anyone thought about tweaking rules.txt for deity+ or massive barbs?

[Ben Kenobi]

play OCC on a large map (but toggle the bloodlust-mode) and by the time the 1-city has arrived at the moment it would have won the game, we start our conquest game?

This could be intriguing.

One city comeback. How many techs would we start with?

[shade]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This could be intriguing.

One city comeback. How many techs would we start with?

euhm the techs needed in a normal OCC to win space-race?

Er, the Babs are closest, unless there are more off the side of the map that I can't see but you've basically got three civs with a chance of winning the game and four fillers.

the big image is of the firts save(196??) in the second save both the Japanese(green) and Spanish(yellow) have just under 50 cities (IIRC)...If we would start then as Carthagians...8 cities and technological retarded(and by the second save lost half their land to the Japanese...

You seem to be more keen on having an evenly-matched modern war with the AI civs who are strong enough to put up a fight, whereas I still like the decision-making of the early game with regard to tech, exploration and city founding.

I like that too, but in the last games we kicked the AI's butt before it could even get to some decent troops.
With this in mind the option to play as a respawned civ might be beter suited.

Why are we the only two discussing this? It's starting to look a bit spammy and someone might come along and ask us to go to the 'poly chatroom (which I can't). We need input from the other citizens of the Apolyton democracy!

all have heared it...give your input

I don't think I've ever seen 50+ cities out of the AI in MGE. In ToT it happens a lot. Of course, how many of us have ToT?

all versions of civ can play 2.42 saves?(I seem to be able to get them to evolve a little...but then again I tend to be very peacefull...before I whipe them out )

Shade

[Ben Kenobi]

One more suggestion.

We could try a revolutions game. Revolutions every OEDO year, cycling through the governmental forms, in this order.

Despotism - Monarchy - Republic - Fundamentalism - Communism - Democracy.

Of course, if all you have is despotism, you revolt and form another despotic government.

It also sucks if you're a Democracy and have to revolt to Despotism.

[cavebear]

1. If we want to do something along the lines of just building 1 city and hitting enter a lot of times so the AI can build up the civs while we give them a head start, I'd be willing to do the tedious part.

2. We could play a previous game as one of the weaker civs (like the Russians when the white civ respawned after the Romans were eliminated).

3. We could further restrict our abilities (like "no RR" or "no Dips/Spies", or "not capturing cities with Wonders until 1900 AD".

4. I propose the following initial poll just to find out a basic question (to vote for 2 only):

A. Play with advanced units
B. Play with greater restrictions
C. Play a previous game as a weak civ
D. Play as 1 city until a particular year
E. Rotate governments
F. Set a fixed tax rate or limits on any part of tax rate

Other suggestions for a poll are welcome. If these seem a good start, I will set it up.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
One more suggestion.

We could try a revolutions game. Revolutions every OEDO year, cycling through the governmental forms, in this order.

There's a succession game with that rule in place. I wouldn't favour a demogame with this rule.

How about a scenario - say, WWII as the French or Spanish?

[cavebear]

Isn't there already a Demo2 Scenario site? I think we want to stay out of their territory and not get into that here.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
One more suggestion.

We could try a revolutions game. Revolutions every OEDO year, cycling through the governmental forms, in this order.

Despotism - Monarchy - Republic - Fundamentalism - Communism - Democracy.

Of course, if all you have is despotism, you revolt and form another despotic government.

It also sucks if you're a Democracy and have to revolt to Despotism.

From experience with the Silly Rules game, this certainly makes the game more difficult. But also from the Silly Rules game, I believe some other restriction is also needed - no trade, no wonders, restrictions on research, something like that.

RJM at Sleeper's

[duke o' york]

You want restrictions?

Government cycles (like Ben suggested)
One government (Monarchy's maximum city limit would make things interesting)
Alphabetical/reverse alphabetical research choices
No bribery
No building of infantry, calvary, boats (perhaps not with no bribery), planes, missiles, dips, vans.
Coastal cities can only be taken by marines
No rushbuying
Minimum/maximum treasury imposed.
Trade sliders set at the start of the game.
More happy than content (see SG's idea in the Scenario suggestions thread)
No working of specials
No settler improvements
No new cities founded after capital (not OCC)
All units must have an attack value (no dips, vans, galleons or transports)
War/peace with as many civs as possible at once
Must accept all diplomatic offers - give techs/cash/declare war
Cities can only be taken by a particular type of unit.
The President must be one over the eight while playing all of the turns.

Pick and choose between them. Or suggets more of your own. I'm sure I haven't exhausted even half of the possibilities.

[Zedd]

Why not a space race game with no camels and no tech theft. It would mean we would have to build ALOT of cities and then of course research would be a little slow so it would mean growth restrictions until demo and happy issues once there. Also I like the idea of a accelerated start up for AI civs.

edit:
That could also mean that the warmongering types would have some fun conqouring more advanced civs so that we may advance in science.

We could also require an "all tech" strategy that would require all the techs in the first column of the tech tree be researched before any in the second column.

[Ben Kenobi]

Space race without camels and tech theft is not that potent a restriction.

Now, if we started on an itty bitty island or confined between some strong AIs, then that could be interesting.

[duke o' york]

Yeah, that was how many of us played our first games, and I'm sure that most of us won. That may have been on chieftain level, but with the knowledge we now have it'd still offer little challenge.

[cavebear]

Well, would someone else like to whittle down the choices for the next game? In the preliminary poll, there were 3 votes for playing straight up and just ripping the other civs apart, 3 for playing as 1 city until a particular year, and 2 for playing with advanced units. Some other suggestions (greater restrictions, playing a previous game as a weak civ, rotating governments, and setting a permanent tax rate) got 1 vote each.

[cavebear]

Well, since no one jumped to offer alternatives, I suggest we follow the 2 top vote-getting options.

We play a 1 city game till a particular year, and we play a relatively straight-up game. We start on a small island where we cannot reach other land with Triremes.

If that seems like a good basic starting position, what other restrictions might we want, recognizing that we will be at a severe disadvantage when we meet "the rest of the world".

Maybe we should allow Trade this time, since it won't benefit us until well into the future and prohibit Diplomats/Spies to limit our knowledge of the other civs.

We might want to forbid ourselves Ironclads, since we used them so successfully in a previous game.

Let's give ourselves the freedom to use any government, since we limiting ourselves (officially or in practice) in the past two games.

Thoughts?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by cavebear
Well, since no one jumped to offer alternatives, I suggest we follow the 2 top vote-getting options.

We play a 1 city game till a particular year, and we play a relatively straight-up game. We start on a small island where we cannot reach other land with Triremes.

If that seems like a good basic starting position, what other restrictions might we want, recognizing that we will be at a severe disadvantage when we meet "the rest of the world".

Thoughts?

I think it would be more fun to give the AIs advantages than to give ourselves disadvantages.

Otherwise, starting on a small island and being limited to 1 city until, say, 1000 AD, should be a decent challenge (see the Sailing Succession game for corroboration ).