Playing for fun : Opening the door to alternative play-styles

Cort Haus · December 7, 2003, 16:19

Following the discussion on playstyle choices in this game, I got thinking about what options might be available for a team that were not playing to win. It might be interesting to have a game where perhaps four civs are out to win, and three out to roleplay with no interest in victory conditions. If their roleplay is either too weak or too annoying, or they're unlucky, they'll get dealt with, but if things go their way they could find themselves with more than they expected.

Some of these ideas are probably absurd, and could even be seriously bad ideas which would imbalance and wreck a game, but I thought it might be fun to mention them anyway ...

Non-Interventionists

A team could play with the policy of peaceful survival for as long as possible, undertaking no aggression, only fighting for its own self-defence, and a refusing to enter into any offensive or defensive alliance. By declaring itself a non-contender, it would be less of a target than a determined competitor.

It would, of course have to defend it's land against civs with an appreciative eye on their assets, but if it succeeded in carving itself out a role as a non-threatening trading partner, with no enemies, it could find powerful allies prepared to offer security to maintain balance.

If it doesn't work - most likely for geographical reasons - and they get squashed then so what - the team were only playing for fun anyway.

Moral Interventionists - Military

These guys don't want to win, they just want to fight and die in a blaze of glory for a just cause. A variant of the Mercenary Civ, they'll fight not for their own interests but for whoever has the best propaganda.

Moral Interventionists - Diplomatic

OCC for DG, anyone? Maybe they'd only last for 10 minutes, but this team might either try to be an in-game 'referee' - a small, neutral civ with no chance of winning who makes supposedly wise and fair pronouncements and waits to see if anyone takes any notice. More realistic could be a 'UN Civ' to intervene diplomatically, trying to encourage and broker peace deals.

Psycho Warmongers

I wouldn't want to start next to this lot. They anticipate a relatively short but bloody career, taking the 'Glory of War' a step further. For this team the future is irrelevant, and the last one in the game's a cissy who defended themselves too well.

Beta · December 7, 2003, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Some of these ideas are probably absurd, and could even be seriously bad ideas which would imbalance and wreck a game, but I thought it might be fun to mention them anyway ...

Indeed!!!!

Quote:

Non-Interventionists

A team could play with the policy of peaceful survival for as long as possible, undertaking no aggression, only fighting for its own self-defence, and a refusing to enter into any offensive or defensive alliance. By declaring itself a non-contender, it would be less of a target than a determined competitor.

It would, of course have to defend it's land against civs with an appreciative eye on their assets, but if it succeeded in carving itself out a role as a non-threatening trading partner, with no enemies, it could find powerful allies prepared to offer security to maintain balance.

If it doesn't work - most likely for geographical reasons - and they get squashed then so what - the team were only playing for fun anyway.

Uh .... Lego?

Quote:

Moral Interventionists - Military

These guys don't want to win, they just want to fight and die in a blaze of glory for a just cause. A variant of the Mercenary Civ, they'll fight not for their own interests but for whoever has the best propaganda.

Uh ....Vox?

Quote:

Moral Interventionists - Diplomatic

OCC for DG, anyone? Maybe they'd only last for 10 minutes,.

Uh ...Lux?

Quote:

Psycho Warmongers

I wouldn't want to start next to this lot. They anticipate a relatively short but bloody career, taking the 'Glory of War' a step further. For this team the future is irrelevant, and the last one in the game's a cissy who defended themselves too well.

GoW or ND. Take your choice.

Darekill · December 8, 2003, 09:28

Grrrrrr......
We are no psychos!
No we aren't
the simple fact that we post from a sanatory and take our dose of psychopharmaca almost every day does not prove anything.
Whoever says that we would be psychos will be shot at at sight.

(only fun)

Cort Haus · December 8, 2003, 11:02

Nice try , Beta

It would be unfair to Lego to suggest they are non-interventionist!

What I had in mind was a truly hands-off civ. They'd hopefully have a nice little corner somewhere where they build some stuff, trade a resource or two, drink lager, and watch the show. With no military or diplomatic adventures they can play their turn quickly as well.

I think that would be fun to play, and wouldn't bugger the game up like the other ideas might.

( I'll beat you to it, Beta : 'GS post-Bob'

)

Darekill · December 8, 2003, 11:28

Do I read here that GS finaly dicided to leave borconia to the borconians?

Hey, that would be a great day for ND indeed....

Cort Haus · December 8, 2003, 11:57

No you didn't read that, Darekill

Darekill · December 8, 2003, 12:24

Sniff....

O.k. then lets have some fun by playing hide and seek with your Knights for a while....

vondrack · December 8, 2003, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It would be unfair to Lego to suggest they are non-interventionist!

I would have to agree with Cort Haus. No offense taken, Beta, but CH put it right.

GhengisFarb™ · December 8, 2003, 13:08

I think pretty much all the styles you suggested have been utilized by team concepts already.

GoW is a team of psychos, and proud of it!

Give us your cruel, your bloodthirsty, your psychological deviant yearning to bash in skulls..................

Cort Haus · December 8, 2003, 13:45

Is there a team playing non-interventionists on a DG somewhere? I'd be really interested in playing that. There's been nothing like that in this game.

Ennet · December 8, 2003, 16:37

We should be the only team who has the right to call ourselves "Psycho Warmongers"! There might be some other warmonger civs.. but surly we are the only psychos around, right? :-)

UnOrthOdOx · December 8, 2003, 16:38

Where the bloody hell is the mercenary concept?

Hell you include a 'variant' but not the original?

As for GoW, some of us are more psycho than others on the team...

woe be unto you all if all of us psycho's gain full control.

Cort Haus · December 8, 2003, 23:18

Yes, UnO, I was specifically exploring variants here not the original.

Which brings me to another point ...

Are GoW a mercenary civ, as I'd thought, or psycho-warmongers as is perhaps being claimed here?

I'd have thought there was a difference. Put bluntly, Psycho's do it for pleasure, mercs do it for cash or equivalent.

Hot_Enamel · December 8, 2003, 23:40

We shall not be pigeon-holed

We can be both.
Psycho-warmongers who can be easily bought if the price is right.

Hot_Enamel · December 8, 2003, 23:47

<--- I'm with Stupid

Panzer32 · December 9, 2003, 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Yes, UnO, I was specifically exploring variants here not the original.

Which brings me to another point ...

Are GoW a mercenary civ, as I'd thought, or psycho-warmongers as is perhaps being claimed here?

I'd have thought there was a difference. Put bluntly, Psycho's do it for pleasure, mercs do it for cash or equivalent.

We are psycho warmongerers who if we can't do it for cash will do it for fun

Beta · December 9, 2003, 09:58

Quote:

Originally posted by vondrack

I would have to agree with Cort Haus. No offense taken, Beta, but CH put it right.

And I would have to agree with you, vondrack. Vox's existence speaks for itself.

Master Zen · December 10, 2003, 22:04

Just so you know, one of the teams in the MZO C3CDG has taken the "Mercenary" concept to its utmost. Basically it is a team that has openly stated it has no intention of winning but only in being hired by other teams to do their dirty work and that their mercenary nature should be respeced. Since I'm not on the team I don't know if this is the biggest piece of propaganda to ultimately DO win or not but I think the concept is very interesting and unique.

(and I hope my team finds them first

)

Cort Haus · December 10, 2003, 22:14

Yeeah! thanks, MZ!

This is what I was hoping people would post about - teams who decide on a playstyle that doesn't include victory aspirations. Are those the guys that put up an ad hiring their workers too? Not the ******* Chinese again, surely!

Kloreep · December 10, 2003, 23:01

No, the vikings, actually

Come join Merc if you haven't joined a team already. What they say is true; we really aren't out to win.

Gold is far more important.

Aidun · December 11, 2003, 10:54

Hey, Roleplay is not included. During the first months we had oftenly the discussion whether we wanted to win, or go for roleplay, finally, we decided that we would go for victory ...

Aidun

UnOrthOdOx · December 11, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Yeeah! thanks, MZ!

This is what I was hoping people would post about - teams who decide on a playstyle that doesn't include victory aspirations. Are those the guys that put up an ad hiring their workers too? Not the ******* Chinese again, surely!

Sorry, I was talking about the merc team over there earlier, Court Hous, which I founded.

We are not giving a second thought to winning that game for we will win every time we are hired and complete a contract. Gold is our god, and the all mighty dollar rules.

Yeah, we offered our workers, and the 'assisted palace move', but we have many other ideas we are tinkering with as well.

Come join in the fun, and see if you can help us overcome the many challenges, most prominent of which MZ points out in making the other teams believe it's not the biggest piece of propoganda ever.