Realistic Settings: The Debate

agharta_id · February 19, 2001, 06:09

For those who are interested in playing the most realistic game possible, and want standardized settings that everyone can use (for bragging rights, o'course), this is the thread to tread.

To begin the debate, I will submit what I, at this point, consider the most realistic settings:

Simultaneous (possibly with turned based war). Deity. Raging Hordes. 1x 1x. 100x100. 4 Billion. Continents. Large Land Masses. Huts on. Bribing on (this shall spark debate!). Wonders on. Tech steal on. Seven Civs. No chat from start (icq is fine). As many humans as possible.

Now, the debates will obviously have to be supported with testing. So everyone will have ample time to prove whether i am simply a delusional neophyte or a soothsayer. Just as, with a different spin, I will have ample time to prove whether you guys are a bunch of confused, egalitarian, post-modernist aesthetics.

Take it away folks.

Hydey · February 19, 2001, 07:50

Why no king chat, its the best part of MP, talking SHlT to each other.

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

belinda9 · February 19, 2001, 09:41

call me a purist.
I believe in playing the game the way Sid gave it to us and this includes bribing. I think those wussies whining "no bribing" just do not want to take the thought necessary to defend themselves from diplomats. City/unit bribing is fairly rare (it IS expensive after all) but should be a viable option within a game; there are ways to protect yrself from bribery if you not too lazy to figure them out.

I also deplore this sudden and sweeping fascination with making simultaneous play the "norm" in MP play. If people would conduct their business properly under turn-based play (i.e., use yr turn for movement, then adjust yr city production, chat, etc. on others' turns) then the game runs about as fast; also speed is NOT the prime requisite of the game. Personally, I find keeping up with simul movement while trying to run diplomacy very distracting. Of course, if the main object of your 'strategy' is just to run around and kill everything you see, I guess it doesn't really make much difference. But then, if that's your idea of a good game, why not just play some shooter game like Doom?

That's my opinion, anyhow, if you're asking for it.

Capo di tutti Capi · February 19, 2001, 10:10

I also do not like Simul.

People rant and rave about how great it is, but its impossible to conduct diplomatic discussions. You have like two seconds to talk, and with all of the pop up windows its impossible to get any type of negotiations finished before six turns pass.

Not to mention it is filled with errors and lags, the lag in Simul is worse than the one in Turn Based MP.

I do horrible on Simul turn, I refuse to play any Simul-based games anymore, unless someone specifically asks me to sub for them.

February 19, 2001, 11:36

don't like simultaneous either.

Kingchat rocks though, taking the piss off EyesOfNight and having a good laugh ta his intimidation attempts

February 19, 2001, 11:56

Intimidation is only needed if someone is a threat. I wasn't trying to intimidate you Chaos, I was simply telling you what you were.

Capo di tutti Capi · February 19, 2001, 14:05

I want to add a few retorts to the charge that King Chat is undesireable.

1) It is much more difficult to manage a game without it than it is with it. Why go to ICQ when you can simply use the King Chat option in order to iron out any problems? Plus the forum is there for those that do not have ICQ, why mandate ICQ usage?

2) If you are that worried about threats, simply ignore the person. In a more joking manner, I have no idea what you are doing running a country if you can't take a little crap now and then.

3) The King Chat window is easy to minimize if you want to, and always a great thing to access when you need to access it, apologizing for accidental tresspass etc.. I could go on.

I believe that city bribing should be allowed in a game, as long as the players all realize that the main objective to playing the game is fun rather than arbitrarily being victorious. I think if victory is the simply overlying factor in why you decide to play you shouldn't play the game in the first place. I do play to win, don't get me wrong, but I play to play first. Play to win second.

As far as humans go, the more the merrier. But I am sure there are ulterior schools of thought on this issue, I like to have a lot of people involved rather than just three or two. It makes it more interesting and you don't get your arbitrary set ups: X is strong, Y and Z team up against him.

With seven its better: A is strongest, B is second, C and D are next to A. They ally to curb A's power, however B is their common enemy based on proximity. Its kinda better that way. I dunno, easier to explain one on one.

February 19, 2001, 16:34

I am FOR King Chat!

I only mentioned the intimidation as a good example for having a laugh.

EvilProhet - If you were really supreme, (which you probably were, but let's assume you weren't

), why did you have to show me that so bad? one day you'll lose games because you told your opponents about their weak points too obviously! In Civ2, you don't have to fear such, yet, but there will players come that are able to get certain advantages just out of showing off (or whatever) attempts like those by you. "Telling them where they are" can become dangerous for you, even if it's not, currently.

Face it - Telling me where I am can only mean to:

1. intimidate me
2. show off about your own stats

or do you know another possibility?

Ming · February 19, 2001, 18:20

<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 02-19-2001 05:09 AM</font>
To begin the debate, I will submit what I, at this point, consider the most realistic settings:

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

Realistic??? Not much about the game is "realistic".

Why don't you just call it what it is... Your favorite settings... Or at what settings does my strategy work best...

The nice thing about civ is that you do have a lot of different settings you can use. The game was designed that way. People will continue to play with the options they like. And they will have to use different strategies in order to take best advantage of the options.

So please explain why we all need to agree to certain settings for "bragging rights"... And please describe how one setting is more realistic to another... other than just stating your opinion that is

agharta_id · February 19, 2001, 19:52

<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 Ming on 02-19-2001 05:20 PM</font>
Realistic??? Not much about the game is "realistic". [ASSERTION. NO EXPLANATION. Go read my responses in "A game to FINISH" or "My first ever win at multiplayer"]

Why don't you just call it what it is... Your favorite settings... Or at what settings does my strategy work best... [Again, if had you read my responses, and taken careful note of my arguments, you would not be here arguing that I am arguing for "MY" settings]

The nice thing about civ is that you do have a lot of different settings you can use. The game was designed that way. [YES AND NO. The different levels were not made to give people different possible strategies, they were meant to ease newbies and mediocre players into deity game play. As for the settings options in deity itself, yes, they were made to provide different strategies WITHIN the level you are playing. That said, though, I think those settings within levels can be standardized also.] People will continue to play with the options they like. [true] And they will have to use different strategies in order to take best advantage of the options.

So please explain why we all need to agree to certain settings for "bragging rights"...[because civ multiplayer is a competitive game; i thought this was clear?} And please describe how one setting is more realistic to another... [that is the point of this thread] other than just stating your opinion that is

[those who do not read often make fools of themselves]
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

agharta_id · February 20, 2001, 01:12

Okay! Excellent. Four responses. Let us examine them and see how much substance we have.

But first, let us dispense with those who are not serious:

Hydey posted the only message that was not serious. He supported King Chat from the beginning because "talking SHlT to each other" is the best part of civ. PTAH. If you want to talk ****, go find yerself an internet relay chat room and enjoy. The are millions of stupid people who love to waste hours upon hours "talking SHlT to each other." You could easily become one of them (or perhaps you already are!).

Anyway, enough rhetoric! To the substance!

Argument #1, Belinda9:

Belinda supports City Bribe, arguing that (1)those who do not want to play with City Bribe are too lazy to develop defensive strategies against diplomatic manipulation, and that(2)City Bribing is rare and very expensive.

Belinda supports Turn Based play, noting that (1) if players were to use the time inbetween turns properly, Turned Based play would go as fast as Simultaneous Based play, (2) that time for diplomatic matters in Turn Based play is ample, while there is no time in Simultaneous Based play, and (3) that speed is not fundamental to the game.

Argument #2, Capo di tutti Capi:

Capo supports Turned Based play because (1) diplomatic negotiations with human players in Simultaneous Play are impossible (there is not enough time),(2) during Simultaneous Based play King Chat windows become unmanageable, and (3)lag is a major destabalizing factor on Simultaneous Based play.

Argument #3, Chaos Warrior:

Chaos Warrior is against King Chat from the beginning, because it allows players to intimidate each other.

Well, there you have it. Three arguments for and against various settings. Before I sink my teeth into them, i am going to wait for others to either counter these arguments or add new arguments on different or the same settings.

cheers!

...

absurddoctor · February 20, 2001, 01:38

I have no problems with allowing city bribing in a game. However, you stated that you were going for the most realistic game possible, and I have trouble seeing anyway in which this could be considered realistic.

I disagree that simultaneous does not save time. Simultaenous games eliminate a lot of the waiting (this is especially good for me, because if my girlfriend is anxious to use the computer, and I am waiting five minutes for it to be my turn again, I may end being stuck relenting to her

) Also, I do not see the problems in running diplomacy. If you are having trouble finding the time to do so then ask for a larger time limit for each turn. Yes, the popups can be annoying, and the fact that if you are in King chat sometimes you will suddenly be back on the game map (while still typing away madly, thus sending your units to strange places, or disbanding them, or if your lucky just telling them to do something they can't actually do) these inconveniences are worth the ability to actually finish a game (or danish a game, however you wish to look at it now)

AD

Hydey · February 20, 2001, 06:37

<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 02-19-2001 12:12 PM</font>
but first, let us dispense with those who are not serious:

Hydey posted the only message that was not serious. He supported King Chat from the beginning.
...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

King chat is a vital resourse for the MP game , used correctly it can aid greatly in comunication between allies and enemies alike, then again when your allies are unable to use ICQ for some reason I'm sure a master like yourself would still refuse to use kingchat.

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

rah · February 20, 2001, 10:22

Apologies for a long post in advance.

Agree with Ming, the game is not realistic so instead I will post my preferences. (people that play with me can skip the whole post because they have heard me pontificate about these many times)

KING CHAT Won't play without it.
1. ICQ sometimes has problems. Starting the game is the perfect example. Does the host have techs. Without king chat, restarts take 3 times as long.
2. Civ for me is like a night out with the boys. I enjoy their company. (at least most of you) Chatting is fun.
3. It fun to tease people, and sometimes you can goad them into doing something stupid.
4. Occasional chest thumping is also fun

Simul vs Turn.
Jury is still out.
Played a couple of simul games recently and the host advantage is way to great. If the host is patient and doesn't move till all others, he can essentially move twice without anybody else being able to respond. The Aussies have the most experience and have some good ideas. Maybe a color order but with a twist. You move before the two colors after you and down the line so the purple color would move before white.

People started to play chicken and tried to move last. The outcome of this was that earlier turns were taking longer than they would without simul. Good concept but it needs some work.

And having a family, the wait in between turns can be very useful. Cook, smoke breaks, kiss the kids goodnight, or any other of the many family emergencies.

City Bribing. Don't like it. If someone gets a few kings earlier, a person that got a slow start can't protect himself. And don't say you can protect from it without money, because you can't. Dips off ships and those moved with vet pikeman (before math) can't be stopped.

Unit Bribing. Like it. Since there is a way to protect against it, I have no problems with it.

Difficulty level. Deity. The game is already too expansion oriented. Deity helps keep that in check. We do play on small worlds so a civ with only 12 cities can compete, making the happiness wonders important, but not critical. (there's always communism)

Tech Trading, Don't like it. I like to see conflict encouraged. The first two civs to meet get way to much of an advantage if they can trade techs. And if they are between the other two civs keeping them from meeting, the game is essentially over. If you can't trade techs, early meetings are more likely to result in war. As all should neighbors do.

Tech Stealing, a must. Sometimes the only way to level the field. And the strategy for timing leads to some great scenarios. (rushs to get the tech to build wonders)

2x vs 1x movement. NEVER WILL PLAY 2x movement. IT's and abortion. Catapults that can move and fire, let's be real. (opps forgot we weren't discussing realsim)
The game becomes the rush for poly and Elephants that can move 4. Some people like this, I don't. At least in 1x you can usually see whats coming. If 20 elephants are coming to attack, you'd get some warning.

2x vs 1x production. 2x, just a personal preference. I like the tempo of a 2x game. I will play 1x but greatly prefer 2x. I find myself doing stupid things in 1x due to habit.

Huts and Wonders. A must, Some claim that they unbalance the game too much. I don't agree. They add variety. And a little luck. How many times must you make changes when that barb legion appears from a hut near one of your prize cities that's currently building a wonder. Makes for some hard choices. I also enjoy the wonder races, and the decisions that must be made to go along with them. And the strategy changes that must be made when you guess wrong. For those that say it unbalances the game, I'd be willing to bet that someone that got all the good wonders, was probably going to beat you anyway.

World Size, the smaller the better, encourage interaction and conflict. Make each square of land valuable and worth fighting over. Keeps games from becoming and endless and boring contest to see how many settlers you can spit out.

Well that's all I can think of now.

RAH
I hate it when they call the RAH rules

agharta_id · February 20, 2001, 12:21

"the game is not realistic so instead I will post my preferences"

Preferences are based on your overall experience. Every minute, every hour, and every second you live you bring information into your brain through you senses. Thus a statement is only a "preference" if you do not back it up with reasons. If you back it up reasons, it becomes an argument.

For example, this is a preference: I LIKE DEITY: and this is an argument: I LIKE DEITY BECAUSE BLAH BLAH BLAH.

An opinion, similarily, is a position where the individual has not or can not articulate the reasons why he or she defends x (a position).

For example, this is an opinion: God exists: and this is an argument: God exists because BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Rah, you more or less add the preference **** at the beginning of your posts so that you do not offend the inferior.

But anyway, enough philosophical babble. Rah, that was great post. Although I think I can hack some of your points up, many will stand. But before I do that, I want many more posts. So people, post!

(off topic: carnide looks like he is going to win in our game. I am publicizing this as a preemptive strike to those who would like see my argument rejected when it is confirmed that i have lost. Let me be clear: i am primarily a philosopher, not a strategist; I am an above average builder, a pathetic general, a fairly good diplomat, a great city manager. So when i lose, neener, neener: i cut ya off at the pass.)

DaveV · February 20, 2001, 14:26

<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 rah on 02-20-2001 09:22 AM</font>
Makes for some hard choices.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

To me, that's the beauty of this game. To be faced with a choice of several equally viable options, then making your choice and living with the consequences (very existentialist). I agree heartily with nearly everything RAH said, except for 2x production. I think that setting lessens the tough choices in the game: since irrigation, roads, bridges, and mining are relatively less important, they become less attractive as a choice.

In the end, though, this is a game, and I play it to have fun. Arguing about settings is futile; it comes down to personal preference. Finding a game with attractive settings and congenial but ruthless fellow players is still the most fun I've had on a computer.

About AIs in MP games: I'll loosely quote from memory something I read somewhere on this site. What is an AI? For a beginning player, a threat; for a middling player, a distraction; for an experienced player, nothing; for an expert player, a bag of techs and money there for the taking. A very good player will benefit greatly from AI neighbors, milking them for game-breaking amounts of tribute and grabbing their cities and wonders.

rah · February 20, 2001, 14:49

Damn, all I wanted to do was state my opinion without anyone thinking I thought them inferior if they didn't agree........I guess I should know better than to expect that at Apolyton. But I thought that was reserved for the OTF. Alas, due to lazyness, I will bow down to the superior arguments presented and change my statements to..........

If you don't play by my rules, you're insignificant trash. You probably have no clue of the true essence of that game. And you probably use the reset key when you play by yourself. Anyone that thinks they're right and I'm wrong, can suck on my Chaney. Bring on all your worthless arguements and I'll systematically destroy not only them but your self esteem.

Now back to rational.....

Great quote Dave
"for an experienced player, nothing; for an expert player, a bag of techs and money there for the taking."

Another absolute truth

When we play we allow no AIs for just that reason. If a player "QUITS" because he is scum, and we continue with an AI, we use the "must refuse all AI contact rule" which usually results in eventual war.(unless your senate sucks)

RAH

RAH rules rock.
"Testicles" The other white meat.

Ming · February 20, 2001, 15:50

agharta_id

While you seem long on words... you haven't provided any real content to support your "preferences".

You talk about rational, but you provide no facts or opinions on why your settings should be prefered over any other. You just stated what they are... Period.
And then you blast away at people for not doing something you haven't done yet either

So before you post another long winded comment that has nothing to do with the thread, why don't you provide us with your opinions on the settings...

We call that a discussion...

rah · February 20, 2001, 16:00

Awwwww, come on mingie,

We're just having a little fun. And I did list my reasons and he even acknowledged that fact. And I don't need my little bro's help defending myself here.

RAH
Just a slow day at work.

Ming · February 20, 2001, 17:27

Well Rah...
I'm just having fun too... isn't that what gaming is all about

And, believe me when I say my post was in no means in defense of you... Your problem to deal with, plus, you didn't seem to really need any help.

But, agharta_id does just state what his opinion of the best settings is, and provides no argument to support them. While there is some indication that he was avoiding it just to get the discussion rolling, he has not yet provided any discussion on why his settings are more realistic (an interesting term at best here).

All I'm asking is that he cuts back on the "you are wrong crap" and actually discusses the subject that he himself started. I'm very interested in why he believes the way he does, and how other people feel on the subject. That's all I'm looking for in this thread...

agharta_id · February 20, 2001, 17:32

<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 Ming on 02-20-2001 04:27 PM</font>
Well Rah...
I'm just having fun too... isn't that what gaming is all about

And, believe me when I say my post was in no means in defense of you... Your problem to deal with, plus, you didn't seem to really need any help.

But, agharta_id does just state what his opinion of the best settings is, and provides no argument to support them. While there is some indication that he was avoiding it just to get the discussion rolling, he has not yet provided any discussion on why his settings are more realistic (an interesting term at best here).

All I'm asking is that he cuts back on the "you are wrong crap" and actually discusses the subject that he himself started. I'm very interested in why he believes the way he does, and how other people feel on the subject. That's all I'm looking for in this thread...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Read the thread: A game to FINISH.

agharta_id · February 20, 2001, 17:33

and, yes, i am withholding my arguments so others can voice their arguments.

War4ever · February 20, 2001, 20:26

Ok i will give it a shot........

I prefer Deity! Why? Its harder. The barbs attack at a greater strength, riot factor is more difficult, and in general, things just take longer to accomplish.

Raging Hordes..... I like barb kings

Not too mention, lots of barbs before your set up can be a headache..... every once in ahwile those are good for you.

x1x1....... this is how i learned to play....i love it... it adds more decisions to the game.... you can't just drop cities anywhere... you have to look primarily for growth most of the time

x2x1 is fun, cranking units , wonders , caravans, and improvements is a joy. One can really go to war in x2 production with ease........plus one can get alot further into the game science wise as things are almost doubled up

x2x2 hate it..... nothing like units coming from the otherside of the world and still being able to attack your cities...... out of the blue no less

I find these types of games too fast for my liking and too much a seek and destroy game..... if i want that i will play a better search and destroy game like AOE

Small worlds...... i like contact, conflict, and hopefully control..... a smaller world provides me with these options without the game dragging for too long. Small world means quicker turns..... time is at a premium for all...

Simul.... i like it depending on connections and who i am playing...... for instance..... i will do simul with Carnide, Markus, and others.........

I do prefer turn based though.... allows me to get other things done around the house , or surf the web, or ...... well you get my drift.....

In no way do i state these as must terms for me to play, they are just things i prefer.......

2 B perfectly honest.... its my playing partners i prefer the most..... and with different partners come
different settings......

No city bribe...... its too cheap, and even cheaper to bribe back, causing tech to change hands far too rapidly and IMO not realistic...... maybe if only one city was bribed...... but not when you bribe a whole F****** empire

Dont like wonder sharing or caravan gifting either, and if you don't know why then obviously you havn't played enough civ...........

I am sure there are other things i could comment on but for now thats it

agharta_id · February 20, 2001, 21:31

those "other things" will be teased out as others post ...

rah · February 21, 2001, 01:21

"Rah, you more or less add the preference **** at the beginning of your posts so that you do not offend the inferior."

As you say, my preferences evolved through experience. My reasons are My reasons. It is not an argument, it is a statement of fact from my perspective. Someone that has different reasons isn't inferior, just different. I respect differences. And guess what? You can "HACK" all you want, there is a very very small chance that you will change my opinion. Too much experience has gone into what I already believe to think that one sentence, no matter how cleverly worded, will have any impact.

But anyway, enough philosophical babble, I love hearing what everyone else's preferences are and any reasons they may have for having them. Keep up the good work. Maybe someone will say something that might eventually influence me.

There is no ultimate truth, just concensus.

Too much variety here for concensus.

RAH
Lord of the Ferrets
and slow today at work

Edited for excessive babbling.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by rah (edited February 20, 2001).]</font>

agharta_id · February 21, 2001, 01:45

Never argue with a relativist.

So I will not. But I will list the consequences of relativism:

1. Science is a waste of time: there are no absolute truths!

2. Philosophy is a waste of time: there are no absolute truths!

3. The Indian male who expects his wife to be burnt alive on his funeral pyre, the Chinese male who forces his wife to get abortion because the fetus is a girl, and the radical (and irrational) feminist who "believes" that men are inherently (there are many more examples: the Kanas school board) evil are all justified in their beliefs, because, and remember, this is what you just said: there are no absolute truths!

The mind is useless, the majority rule. Consensus is the name of the game.

I am sure those 100 hundred million male Indians, those 1.2 billion Chinese, and those highly active clusters of radical feminists (opposed to liberal and marxist feminists) would be happy to form a consensus through "diversity" "their reasons" "their opinions" and not rationality. Those who have irrational beliefs usually do. All they need is a bit of dependence, a lot of fear, violence, and they have won.

The witch hunters and the McCarthyites forced their beliefs on others without rational basis; by using fear tactics and mindless rhetoric they formed a consensus. A consensus, with mccarthyism, that still lasts today.

Sorry, no thanks.

I will stick with the rational. The consensus is a congealing of oppression, suppression, ignorance, irrationality, and bias. In short, irrational.

ciao baby.