THE true game = individual player preferance

Crustacian · March 11, 2001, 11:43

Is that not what arguments over which style of play are more true boil down to?

2x and 1x
micromanaging and not
wonders or no, or some
huts or not
And what about simultaneous play?!?!

Are these not only choices available to us by the designers to choose from in hopes of creating a game that is more enjoyable to our individual tastes?

Even cheating if you will, can be a fair game among those who have an equal shot at the possibilities.

Now I defenately have favorite settings, but it is fun for me to try other ones and explore further those that seem interesting.
Even the OCC is something I KNOW I could learn a great deal from.

Anyway it gripes me when players put down other styles of play.

I do not usually re arrange my city workers each time a caravan dumps off frieght to inhance the gold/science bonus. But others do. It is not pointless as some have claimes and the benifits are documented. But it is an example of things which can be agreed on in the beginning of a game. I enjoy playing with a couple micro managers and in those cases the long turns are worth the wait for me.
Most of the time even when I had time, I prefer shorter turned "faster" moving games at the expense of "wasted" shields and whatever. But those who do not are not justified to call faster paced playersw speed freaks just because they prefer a differant setting.

Just be honest about your preferances and find others who agree on them and HAVE FUN!!

What do you say?

Ming · March 11, 2001, 12:52

Yes... It is just personal preferance and not an issue of What's the Best

My favorites.
2x pro
1x move
Raging hordes
Small map that increases in size the more players involved
Deity
No City Bribe
Bribe units fine
No wonder trading
No Teleporting Caravans (giving them to another so an instant trade route is set up)

I'm usually open to anything else.
But I really HATE simul movement. the host has too many advantages.

War4ever · March 11, 2001, 18:28

i prefer x1x1 no simul....... deity, raging , small.... with four or five players.......

very fond of x2x1 same as above......

the only time i like simul is on a bigger map when it is necessary and with larger groups of players...

i follow Rah rules......

admittedly MDL rules were alot of fun too although like all different civ strats, things change!

Too truly be a champion of all civ..... one needs to learn and master all the settings..... even then...... if you get ****e land against the best your done for.

to quote Ming...... "keep on civin" in whatever size, level, and rules tickle you purple or whatever color you play

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by War4ever (edited March 11, 2001).]</font>

rah · March 11, 2001, 19:27

Ditto to what Ming said.

War4,
I like rah rules too.

Simul has promise but every game I've played someone has dropped out after B*tching how unfair it was for the non-host. It moves quicker though.

RAH
Different strokes for different folks.

drake · March 12, 2001, 01:16

I say amen to that crusty.....

Drakes pref.

1X1X (The original baby!)
Emperor Level
As many civs as possible
Medium to Large Map
Thoughtful planning players
Patient(!) Players
Ditto about bribing, wonders, caravans as Ming

"If it ain't fun, don't do it!"

Ming · March 12, 2001, 01:25

<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 drake on 03-11-2001 12:16 PM</font>
"If it ain't fun, don't do it!"
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

That sums it up well... It is just a game

Berzerker · March 12, 2001, 04:55

May I suggest a listing of the various preference groups? Some of us are familiar with RAH'S Rules so all one need do is hear the title and know what the rules are. I also liked MDL rules with the Oracle not expiring since it is worthless now. Agharta's suggestion of expiring Mike's and Bach's could be part of another set of rules. No wonders could be part of another pref group, and the game as designed would just be the standard game, so on...

Ming · March 12, 2001, 09:17

Interesting concept...
Granted, many people play by many different sets of rules, even though they may have their favorite settings. However, by setting up some basic core groups of the most common settings, it would make it easier for people to find a game with settings they like to play, or for groups to find people that people that are willing to play the settings the group uses.
It's highly likely some people will wanted to be listed in different groups too...

Hmmmm... something worth thinking about.

rah · March 12, 2001, 09:53

For those that don't know. RAH rules besides what ming listed are as follows.

2x pro
1x move
Raging hordes
Small map that increases in size the more players involved
Deity
No City Bribe
Bribe units fine
No wonder trading
No Teleporting Caravans (giving them to another so an instant trade route is set up)

Items that Ming Missed:
No AIs

No time limits. (we just stop playing with the real slow players)

No alliances or tech trading (other gentleman agreements like trade treaties, tech stealing treaties are allowed but broken at will)

Worlds as small as 39x42;
Large land masses, continents.

Chat from start.

No simul (maybe in the future if a concensus can be reached on contact and conflict)

Restart when host gets techs.

On a disconnect, we try not to penalize the player dropped. (sometimes that is hard based on the last save)

No rules.txt modifications.

And my favorited with the group we play with, (NO HARD FEELINGS)
i.e. The other night War4 found my second city the turn after I settled it. He destroyed it with a chariot. Losing the second city that early makes for a long game.
There was no threatening or suicide charges or pledges of eternal hatred or no claiming that i had no chance to win so i was quiting. (a little whining maybe

)

IT'S a game, and getting beat is part of it.

One final note: They are not called RAH rules because I made them up. They have just evolved over time with the group that we play with. The only reason they are called that is because in the early day's i had the fastest machine and a cable modem, therefore, I usually hosted. And they know the name annoys me

. I also like to think people trust me enough to let me host.

RAH
I'd be willing to call them something else.
How about Ferret Rules?

If i've forgotten any, please feel free to remind me.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by rah (edited March 12, 2001).]</font>

sekong · March 12, 2001, 11:11

<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 03-12-2001 08:53 AM</font>
For those that don't know. RAH rules besides what ming listed are as follows.

2x pro
1x move
Raging hordes
Small map that increases in size the more players involved
Deity
No City Bribe
Bribe units fine
No wonder trading
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

What's this no wonder trading?

Ming · March 12, 2001, 11:38

It's when people "gift" a city with a wonder to an ally.
IE, gift the city with SOL to your partner, let him switch governments, and then he gifts the city back to the original owner after he has switched governments.

Another would be the work shop... use it to keep updating everybodies units in an alliance...

Granted, some happiness city improvements disappear when you gift the city back and forth... but you plan for that.

We did this in early "arena" games where alliances were permanent (a true team sport)... since then, we have decided that it is an abuse of the rules, and just don't allow it.

War4ever · March 12, 2001, 23:28

Yup Rah rules and they should stay that way are pretty much my favorite rules to go by.....

x2 production is a little iffy, but with these guyz, the game is always a hard fought territorial battle.....

I miss our old games.... civ isn't the same anymore

rah · March 13, 2001, 00:00

Thanks war4. Maybe after my wife gets better, i can rejoin on a weeknight.

I'm waiting to hear what the boys down under play. (when they're not arguing about them)

RAH

Crustacian · March 14, 2001, 10:19

<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 Berzerker on 03-12-2001 03:55 AM</font>
May I suggest a listing of the various preference groups? Some of us are familiar with RAH'S Rules so all one need do is hear the title and know what the rules are. I also liked MDL rules with the Oracle not expiring since it is worthless now. Agharta's suggestion of expiring Mike's and Bach's could be part of another set of rules. No wonders could be part of another pref group, and the game as designed would just be the standard game, so on...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Good idea!

Suggested Rule Groups so far:

Rah
Pluel
MDL
PBEM
Standard

There could be a sight where anyone who wants could download the mod if any. Or a link to a discussion of the rules if not modded.

Crustacian · March 14, 2001, 10:58

Crustacian likes a 1x1x game best with most any settings.

My favourite has always been:
1x1x
No AI's
Deity
Raging
Huts
Wonders
Bribes
Maps in wet, warm, varied terrain for diversity in special resources & appropriate size for # of players, archipelago.
No wonder & caravan trading
The standard full meal deal.

For some time it has been interesting and fun for me to mess around in an attempt to develop a game with as equal as possible settings just for an option. Building on others ideas that leaned in this direction, and adding a few of my own and from others...

A Pluel is a more than 2 player equal setting, non co operating duel like game. And by no means limited to a bloodlust game that many duels become. It can be played on ANY SETTING OR MAP you want but is considered "an individual effort game". It is about the opposite of a diplo game I figure.

Things like:
AN ABSOLUTELY EQUAL MAP with equal land size, specials, starting location and so on. Even with hidden equal specials for the extra strategy of developing them.
NO HUTS
NO BRIBES, NO STEALING, NO TRADING ANYTHING, NO TECH ON CITY CAPTURE, TRADE ROUTES WITH OWN CIV ONLY
APOLLOS & MANHATTENS ONLY WONDERS OR NONE
KING TO DEITY for extra variations of strategy options

This type of game idea can be used in any setting really, but those were ones I am working with. The map needs to be reduced to a smaller size like medium for four players tho.

Ming · March 14, 2001, 10:59

<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 Crustacian on 03-14-2001 09:19 AM</font>
There could be a sight where anyone who wants could download the mod if any. Or a link to a discussion of the rules if not modded.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Huh... what's wrong with here, since most of us are here anyway. You can open a thread for the different rules groups to hold discussions, and provide a link to the needed mods

War4ever · March 14, 2001, 11:18

in all the confusion i forgot to mention Crustacians Pluel rules

thanks for reminding everyone.... those are good rules too.....

markusf · March 14, 2001, 12:03

my preference is winning

doesn't matter what settings are used

Berzerker · March 14, 2001, 23:13

Rah - <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>The other night War4 found my second city the turn after I settled it. He destroyed it with a chariot.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

The other night Rah found my second city a few turns after I settled it. He destroyed it with a chariot!

Remember? It was occupied by a warrior on wine

Your Karma ran over your dogma...

rah · March 15, 2001, 10:17

Hmmmmmmmm, yeah, I had forgotten about that. Didn't realize it was your second city.

But, it helps prove my point. You didn't rant, rave, and quit the game either. You also didn't take it personally either. It was part of the game that we've come to expect and you just try to recover as best as possible. This is why I like playing with the group we usually do. We treat it as a game for fun. We prefer to win and crush our opponents, but it's not so important that we lose sleep or FRIENDS over it.

RAH

It was really your second city?

March 17, 2001, 06:34

<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 03-12-2001 11:00 PM</font>
Thanks war4. Maybe after my wife gets better, i can rejoin on a weeknight.

I'm waiting to hear what the boys down under play. (when they're not arguing about them)

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

Hey, that's us!! Aussies rule

In fact we rule the rules;
AND waive them completely out of sync with each other!

I play Turn-based simul with unit bribing whilst Alexanders Horse plays simultaneously (!!) without bribing units

AHorse gets very intense about the rules.....

finbar, Lowang and Hydey are very relaxed and easy-going about the rules.

But we all play 1x1x Deity level with Raging Hordes on medium to largish maps. Raz likes huge maps with the same settings.

This is the last vote we took on specific rules:

We are currently playing games in accordance with this.

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

rah · March 17, 2001, 17:09

Nice presentation.

I see no alliances. How does that translate for tech trading?

RAH

Hydey · March 17, 2001, 17:57

We are very selective as to who we trade techs with,

only those clever enough to have a tech I don't have will I trade with. he he he

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

March 17, 2001, 18:17

<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 03-17-2001 04:09 PM</font>
Nice presentation.

I see no alliances. How does that translate for tech trading?

RAH

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

Tech trading is OK.

And subtle alliances do exist, I suspect... basically along the lines of GET DEITY

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

agharta · March 18, 2001, 16:41

<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 Crustacian on 03-11-2001 10:43 AM</font>
Is that not what arguments over which style of play are more true boil down to?

2x and 1x
micromanaging and not
wonders or no, or some
huts or not
And what about simultaneous play?!?!

Are these not only choices available to us by the designers to choose from in hopes of creating a game that is more enjoyable to our individual tastes?

Even cheating if you will, can be a fair game among those who have an equal shot at the possibilities.

Now I defenately have favorite settings, but it is fun for me to try other ones and explore further those that seem interesting.
Even the OCC is something I KNOW I could learn a great deal from.

Anyway it gripes me when players put down other styles of play.

I do not usually re arrange my city workers each time a caravan dumps off frieght to inhance the gold/science bonus. But others do. It is not pointless as some have claimes and the benifits are documented. But it is an example of things which can be agreed on in the beginning of a game. I enjoy playing with a couple micro managers and in those cases the long turns are worth the wait for me.
Most of the time even when I had time, I prefer shorter turned "faster" moving games at the expense of "wasted" shields and whatever. But those who do not are not justified to call faster paced playersw speed freaks just because they prefer a differant setting.

Just be honest about your preferances and find others who agree on them and HAVE FUN!!

What do you say?

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

read the threads "a game to FINISH" and "Realistic Settings: The Debate"
before you blather ... i really dont feel like rehashing the anti-relativist argument for those who do not read.

Deity Dude · March 22, 2001, 18:14

my favorite setings (but will play almost anything if i can find people who wont quit) are
2x prod
1x move
definitely no simul (the only rule i insist on)
deity
no timer (gentlemans agreement not to spend forever on every move)
if 3 or less players humans civs = ai civs, 4 or more players no ai
no bribing human cities or units
no wonder or caravan trading
world size depends on number of players and how long u want to play

i think thats about it