Civ2 Demo Game #3 Finalization

cavebear · March 26, 2003, 21:52

I want to summarize what I think we agreeing the Civ2 Demo Game #3 will be:

1. Almost entirely Land, with some local ponds and rivers for some irrigation. We have a premade map unknown to us if I understand things correctly. I understand it to be a rather hard land, though, which should make things interesting.

2. Military conquest intended.

3. All settings hardest (raging hordes, for example).

4. Uncertain about using Wonders (shall we build any or not?)

5. Some suggestions about different climates and ages of the World. On the dry side.

Let's settle these questions before we elect new leaders. I think it would be better to attract interested players first and choose leaders from among them. Giving everyone a feeling of involvement right from the start will be important.

If there is no objection, as VP (assigned election responsibility) I will organize the first elections of the next game (standing for no elective office myself) when the settings of the game are chosen and announced.

I think we of this game can choose the settings of the next as long as they are interesting and different to attract new players.

Does all this seem reasonable as a way of formally organizing the next game?

Discussion open...

SCG · March 26, 2003, 22:09

sounds good to me - although if its a premade map, i don't think we get options for age or climates.

and just in case anyone is wondering, even though I've only had 2 turns as minister, I'm planning on taking a turn as an interested citizen again

Might run for office in may or june

cavebear · March 26, 2003, 22:42

SCG, good for you. It might be intersting if we decided that all the leaders of the next game be "new", just to get some interest in participation up.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · March 27, 2003, 00:13

I will be an interested citizen next time around, rather than a Minister.

I like the idea of a non-Minister taking the premade map and coming up with an 'interesting' starting location to make the game more fun.

atomant · March 27, 2003, 02:45

I am more that prepared to arrange starting locations as I believe it is my map that people are refering to. As I will be away during the opening phases of the game, this eliminates any conflict of interest on my part

MrWhereItsAt · March 27, 2003, 06:56

Seems like a good plan. So we're starting to change our win conditions to further the challenge, eh?

Has anyone ever won without any Wonders before? And are we allowed to capture wonders?

cavebear · March 27, 2003, 08:07

"No Wonders" would be an interesting game. But we have to be able to capture them. Just because there is a Wonder in a city we want to capture, that shouldn't mean we can't take it!

So, let's say we will "build no Wonders"?

MrWhereItsAt · March 27, 2003, 08:44

To be really challenged, if we win such a game, let's think about a game with no CARAVANS.

Has anyone done THIS at Deity?

shade · March 27, 2003, 09:49

sounds good to me.
the idea of a NONE-minister picking an interesting

startinglocation also sounds good.

I don't know about the wonders, they aren't one of the points we draw our strength from(I thought).The idea of not using any caravans/freight sounds more interesting because we seem to use as source of power(used to rush wonders,get beakers and gold)
I would rather suggest letting go of the caravans then the wonders(without caravans/freights our possibilities to build wonders will be smaller, no caravans to complete, less gold to rush it)

maybe we also should limit our govt choice?(no rep/demo)

Shade

-Jrabbit · March 27, 2003, 10:17

This is starting to sound like a succession game...

Six Thousand Year Old Man · March 27, 2003, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

To be really challenged, if we win such a game, let's think about a game with no CARAVANS.

Has anyone done THIS at Deity?

Yes, and yes to the No Wonders game as well - there have been 2 succession games (Civ2-General) in the last year with these conditions.

The no-wonders game was tricky, IIRC, but the the No Caravans game (no diplomats or spies, either) wasn't that hard. ICS, and then a crushing force of Crusaders

atomant · March 27, 2003, 10:50

a poll perhaps is in order.....

obviously the difficultly will be Diety
however things like barbs options and number of players could be set at either max or random.

Additionally if people want me to set up start locations, that will have to be polled upon as well.

Additional I assume this Civilisation will be called New New Apolyton and the leader will continue to be Great Leader, maybe Greater Leader.... and the colour of the civ will remain yellow.

ColdWizard · March 27, 2003, 11:54

using the pre-made map and building no wonders sounds interesting

if were we to go with no caravans/freight, then i'd suggest allowance of wonder building

atawa · March 27, 2003, 12:01

Winning without wonders or caravans is no biggie, I've done it before a couple of times.

I suggest setting barbs to huts only as the barbs only slow the AI down, not human players.

CivPatriot · March 27, 2003, 22:47

This should be an interesting game to participate in, once we are space borne lets go!!

War4ever · March 27, 2003, 23:56

sounds like fun!

mrboo123 · March 28, 2003, 08:24

no WoWs!!!! :eek!: Thats hard! But, I've NEVER beat deity, or play on a radom map.

cavebear · March 28, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
Winning without wonders or caravans is no biggie, I've done it before a couple of times.

I suggest setting barbs to huts only as the barbs only slow the AI down, not human players.

Having no barbs would be fine with me. They're a nuisance, not a real strategy issue.

atawa · March 28, 2003, 12:20

For humans they are nothing more then a nuisance, but if they capture an AI city BC you can effectively forget about that civ for the rest of the game.

Although it is always fun to hand over every city you conquer over to the barbs.
I once had a game with 30+ barb city's

atomant · March 28, 2003, 12:45

Another factor we have to consider is the number of starting civs.

Or do we go with random, seven or what?

I like the fog of war idea, and having unknown factors, which is why i have only release superficial about my captain chaos map....

Once we get to AC in the current game, it might be a good idea to have presidential elections so as I can send the map (with appropriate starting spots if desired) to this person. Of course, this presumes my map is the one you are using.

Having these details finalised by the 9th April would be advisable as this little Aussie is leaving lovely sunny peaceful (yeah right) Zimbabwe for the climates of spring time europe for a month. The alternative is me sending the map to another non player to do whatever with.

atawa · March 28, 2003, 12:49

I would say seven, anything less just makes the game easyer.

cavebear · March 28, 2003, 15:54

I was assuming 7 civs, so we would have plenty to fight against, but random is intruiging too. I suppose the suspense wouldn't last long, though, since we would figure it out from the demographics chart or after the first session ended (powergraph).

We'll make sure to get you the settings well before the 9th. Probably April 1st or 2nd, I would guess.

James Adams · April 1, 2003, 06:32

Great Idea!

-Jrabbit · April 1, 2003, 11:45

No WoW builds, no caravans, deity-7-raging, on atomant's map, win via conquest.

Is that the consensus?

Also -- How big is the map? And are there government restrictions?

cavebear · April 1, 2003, 19:58

That's the results of the polls. No Wonders, no Caravans, no ICS, raging barbs.

In addition, it looks like 7 civs is popular and the question of limiting the number of cities is uncertain.

The name of our civ is the Apolyton Imperium, led by the Chosen One. Our color will be Yellow.

Atomant, I believe you can go ahead and set up the game!