Lightning Strikes Twice!

John-SJ · March 21, 2001, 11:21

OK, I'll start the thread.

I would suggest we use the rules originally proposed by kcbob in the original lightening thread and why not use one of SG's starting positions that he mentioned on page 4 of the Lightning Strikes thread?

And if you are interested in the game, sign up early as it's likely to fill fast. If enough people sign up we could also start 2 games, let's see how it goes.

Lightning Strikes Twice Roster:
John-SJ (jdulleck@pacbell.net)

John-SJ

John-SJ · March 21, 2001, 11:23

BTW,

I did want to mention that the original Lightning Strikes Succession Game was a BLAST! And I wanted to thank kcbob for coming up with the idea. Way to go, kcbob!

John-SJ

Scouse Gits · March 21, 2001, 11:39

Yes

--------
SG(2)

Scouse Gits · March 21, 2001, 16:31

Yes
-------------
SG[1]

Ribannah · March 21, 2001, 16:34

Sorry, I will have to pass this time. Duty is calling. Have fun!

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

kcbob · March 21, 2001, 18:16

In for a penny, in for a pound.

kcbob - kcbob49@hotmail.com/robert.a.sorter@dfas.mil

------------------
Frodo lives!

Thoth · March 22, 2001, 09:25

quote:

Originally posted by kcbob on 03-21-2001 05:16 PM
In for a penny, in for a pound.

kcbob - kcbob49@hotmail.com/robert.a.sorter@dfas.mil

I'm in.

Thoth - dv685@ncf.ca

John-SJ · March 22, 2001, 10:45

So far we have:

John-SJ (jdulleck@pacbell.net)
Scouse Gits(2)
Scouse Gits[1]
kcbob (kcbob49@hotmail.com/robert.a.sorter@dfas.mil)
Thoth (dv685@ncf.ca)

A question for the Scouses, will you be playing a single turn per round same as the last game?

And a question for all, are there any rules/preferences/etc. you'd like to change from the last game? Let's discuss.

Might it be worthwhile making this game a 2.42 game this time? I remember with the original Lightning Strikes game at least one person was not able to play because we used MGE.

John-SJ

Scouse Gits · March 22, 2001, 11:13

Can we reserve our position on that one?

If it comes on Friday or Sunday - the nights we get together - we would play as a team, but were it to come to SG(2) on Monday, say, he might be able to turn it round and hand off to me on Wed or Thurs -- if that suits everyone.

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

John-SJ · March 22, 2001, 11:26

SG, that sounds fine to me so long as we can keep the overall per-person turnaround time relatively low as is the distinctive feature of a lightning game.

All I would ask is that you keep us updated as to your intentions as I'm sure you would anyway.

John-SJ

March 22, 2001, 16:31

Please make it 2.42 so I could join in!

Scouse Gits · March 22, 2001, 18:07

Marko

I have sent John SJ a 2.42 (and one in MPE) save of an "interesting start"!

If there is enough interest perhaps we could have a 2.42 team and one for MPGE.

We want as many players to join as possible.

----------

SG(2)

John-SJ · March 22, 2001, 20:06

I personally would sign up for both if we decide to do both.

What does everyone else think? Preferences?

John-SJ

Thoth · March 22, 2001, 22:03

quote:

Originally posted by John-SJ on 03-22-2001 07:06 PM
I personally would sign up for both if we decide to do both.

What does everyone else think? Preferences?

John-SJ

I've only got MGE. Unless I can play a 2.42 save on it, I'm only good for MGE or TOT.

John-SJ · March 22, 2001, 22:18

OK, so far we've got:

...2.42..............MGE
----------------------------------
Marco Polo..........Thoth
John-SJ.............John-SJ

How about the Scouses and kcbob? Are you up for both or do you need to restrict yourselves? Feel free to update the little sign-up table I started here.

John-SJ
edit: formatting
[This message has been edited by John-SJ (edited March 22, 2001).]

Scouse Gits · March 23, 2001, 04:33

We're equipped for both - but won't playing in one compromise your performance in the other?

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

Julius Brenzaida · March 23, 2001, 05:33

Well, I'm in it. For either MGE or 2.42 with a preference for MGE. I think one should play in only one team.
And what about the old idea of ICS vs Perfectionism vs OCC. Was it Scouse Gits who talked about it ? I liked the idea. We could compete on different settings. Yes, what about the world series of Civ2 ? round 1 in a small map, round 2 on a gigamap and so on ? It could be great fun ! I'm ready to organize that !

kcbob · March 23, 2001, 09:17

I'm MGE only.

------------------
Frodo lives!

John-SJ · March 23, 2001, 16:25

quote:

Originally posted by Julius Brenzaida on 03-23-2001 04:33 AM
Well, I'm in it. For either MGE or 2.42 with a preference for MGE. I think one should play in only one team.
And what about the old idea of ICS vs Perfectionism vs OCC. Was it Scouse Gits who talked about it ? I liked the idea. We could compete on different settings. Yes, what about the world series of Civ2 ? round 1 in a small map, round 2 on a gigamap and so on ? It could be great fun ! I'm ready to organize that !

Another great idea Julias, I'm up for whatever people want to do.

To be honest, I thought there would have been more response than what we've seen so far for "Lightning Strikes Twice", is this not the best time to be starting another succession game?

DaveV · March 23, 2001, 16:51

For me, personally, it's not a good time. But I think enthusiasm for the succession game concept is dying down. I see several major flaws:
1) It only takes one or two sleazers in the rotation to turn the game into ICS. It's just too easy to sell off a lot of improvements and build a ton of cities which the perfectionists just can't bring themselves to disband. The "no ICS" games tried to address this syndrome, but they seem to have foundered. As a corollary, all of the non-OCC completed succession games have been won via conquest, which generally means a lot of military units.
2) The game is too easy! The outcome of the game hasn't been in doubt in any of the late-game rounds I've played. It's just a matter of playing out the (sometimes interminable, see item 1) turns. Even the AI Headstart game looks like it's in the "survive until bombers/howitzwers" phase now. Maybe we need some newbie players to make big mistakes the other players would have to recover from. But newbies might feel the intimidation factor of not wanting to be called out publicly for their mistakes. Or maybe a scenario is the answer...
3) People lose interest. Too much time between turns, too many units and cities (see point 1), being forced by previous rulers into an uncomfortable strategy (see point 1 again), too little challenge (see point 2), real life interruptions. Several people have remarked on the tendency of several succession games all needing attention at the same time. The lightning concept was a good remedy, keeping the game moving along and limiting the number of turns.

The lightning game was fun; it's the banter in these forums that make it enjoyable for me. But I had to pass one turn and play another abbreviated turn, so I can't sign up now.

Scouse Gits · March 23, 2001, 20:35

Dave - I must agree with much that you have written. However, I think the succession games are interesting and fun to play - if 5 don't arrive within the same day

1) I have the notion that they reflect reality more than the average game of civ played by the single operator. Their very weakness and (perversely) their strength lie within the fact that one person is not in control. Just imagine the difference between FDR and Richard M. Nixon playing a succession game of civ! (Nixon unzips his game and posts - "didn't you think to research espionage and the microphone?) Would there still be a USA? But there is - and in real life Clinton hands over to Dubya! How different the country might be today if George Washington was allowed over a 100 turns at Uncle Sam's (real) game. I think succession play brings out the "politician" in many of us. We know our term of office is short, so we wish to leave our legacy to history. In our pixel world that might be building Leonardo's Workshop - or in the real world Middle East peace (that would be a wonder) - the difference, within the parameters applying, is the same. Sure, the sleazer will sell off the perfectionist's granaries and build a bunch of settlers - such is life. Many of us are guilty of the politician's myopia and short term thinking.

2) Most of the games have been won by conquest, but not all:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HTML/001517-5.html
Perhaps we should try "Lightning Strikes AC" and rule out conquest?

3) I believe my game has improved by playing them. You see other people's approaches to strategy - the good, the bad and the ugly. This broadens your thinking (and in my case sometimes impatience! - I'm not going to mention the factory building with a net production of one shield, or the settler on overtime building mines - which if the city ever worked would starve.) But at other times you see a brilliant solution to a problem! Most important the short time you have as ruler concentrates the mind. Now I treat all games as succession games.
a) What is my status?
b) What do I want to do?
c) How am I going to do it? Those questions focus the mind.

I hope newbies and vets alike will continue to sign up. You can learn much - and it is after all a game and fun.

--------------

SG(2)