Concern With Two Games

Beta · December 23, 2003, 13:55

The more I have thought about the proposed two game approach - the less it appeals to me. I recognize the reason for it - given that 10 teams have signed up, but here are some of the downsides I see:

1. the length of time to play even one game in this format. Civ 4 may be out by the time game two rolls around. And what will the teams eliminated do. Probably start another game anyway. It just seems that even maintaining interest in one game over long lengths of time is tricky enough. To extend it over to two may be impossible.

2. the tourney approach just doesn't seem to fit inter-site pbem demo games.

3. a game starting with 7 or 8 civs is more interesting than one with 5 - IMO.

4. each game only needs to have two civs eliminated to be considered complete. Then again - is this really Civ as we know it.

5. and overcoming a poor start is tough enough (as we know). In this case it will truly be an early exit.

My suggestion would be to reduce the starting number down to 8 teams. How? Well yes, that would be quite the discussion.

To start with - I am sort of surprised with GCA showing up.

Or maybe I should say that I am not surprised that they have shown up, but that others are willing to let them in. That aside, you could ask for volunteers to leave, or two teams to merge, or something along those lines.

On the flip side of the coin - maybe the first games will go fairly quickly.

Just some thoughts - mostly against the idea. How do others feel?

Ennet · December 23, 2003, 14:30

I agree with you Beta, at least if there are two teams that is willing to merge. And GCA should defenatly not be allowed entrance. But if there isn't any teams willing to merge, I cant see a way to force one out of the game.. so in that case i think we should walk along the current path. :-)

conmcb25 · December 23, 2003, 15:26

Whoa!

Guys were are kind of far into the process to bring this up. I dont necessarily diasagree but it has been like pulling teeth to get TEN teams to organize and TEN teams to vote on polls and TEN teams to decide how we were going to play this with ten teams.

If you want to do this we are going to have to volunteer to leave or merge at this point in time.

And on GCA, there has never been "proof" of cheating. So what is the basis for the exclusion? Again I agree fully this statement is borderline ridiculous but I believe thats the way the whole community is looking at it (at least the part that knows about there "luck" anyway.)

But thats as far as I will go on that subject for OPSEC reasons.

Beta, I just believe its too late, we should have brough this up in mid November.

And the first two games gives you a chance to look at a CIV game from a different perspective. Can Apoly improvise, adapt and overcome? I would kind of like to see if we can.

Tassadar500 · December 23, 2003, 17:59

I agree with Con totally. I for one do not want to merge with ANY team. It's really too late for this discussion to take place. Who cares if this will take a long time? Which I don't think the first games will considering how there is only a warmongering objective in the game. As for not allowing GCA enterance into the game, as Con already said they were never actually caught cheating and we can prevent them from joining just because they were extremely lucky.

conmcb25 · December 23, 2003, 18:40

And just one other point, the first game doesn't necessarlily have to be a war monger game.

If all 5 teams survive till the end then the three highest scoring teams advance.

Although I dont think it will play out that way

BigFree · December 24, 2003, 03:33

Let's move onwards. Civ 4 won't be out for another 2 years IMO.

BigFurryMonster · December 24, 2003, 04:29

I agree with Beta, but also with Con. We're too far into the process to start moving things around in this manner. That's unfortunate, since I especially agree with the statement that it's more fun to start with 8 teams than with 5.

Beta · December 24, 2003, 11:01

con - I see the points you are making, and that this should've been brought up earlier. I did not mean to undermine all the hardwork you have put in at the UN. Guess I just had to state it. Now that I have done that - let's get going.

AND - I concur - with 5 teams, and the game being to eliminate two of the others, we had better:

1. ...have a top notch diplomatic corp. The early alliance may make or break us.

2. ...be ready to fight hard, and early.

3. ...pray for a reasonable starting position.

Beta · December 24, 2003, 11:10

And thinking about it a bit more ... in a game such as this, one of the game guidelines becomes ultra-critical. That being the one about no out-of-game contact until teams actually meet in game.

There will be a great temptation for teams to form alliances before the game gets going, or before they have met in game. The goal in this game is not to win - but to survive. The easiest way to do that is for 3 to gang up on two. Which may very well happen in due time in the game - as civs meet and alliances are forged. But it should not happen as a pre-game pact between civs.

But con - I think - given the nature of this game - you will really need to make this point clear at the UN.

(and if I was some of the smaller sites - I might be thinking to eliminate the Poly's and GWT's of the world in the first round - it would give me a btter chance in the second.)

conmcb25 · December 24, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Beta
con - I see the points you are making, and that this should've been brought up earlier. I did not mean to undermine all the hardwork you have put in at the UN. Guess I just had to state it. Now that I have done that - let's get going.

AND - I concur - with 5 teams, and the game being to eliminate two of the others, we had better:

1. ...have a top notch diplomatic corp. The early alliance may make or break us.

2. ...be ready to fight hard, and early.

3. ...pray for a reasonable starting position.

No undermining was taken or assumed. Its just too late in the process.

But your point 1., 2., 3. is just what I mean by improvising adapting and overcoming. And I think Apoly is up to the task.

By the way the Germans just posted a thread this morning about 3 teams ganging up on two. Not sure what there point was (language barrier) but that will definately have to be a consideration. And I dont think the entire IDG group can legislate against that, it just doesn't seem right.

conmcb25 · December 24, 2003, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Beta
And thinking about it a bit more ... in a game such as this, one of the game guidelines becomes ultra-critical. That being the one about no out-of-game contact until teams actually meet in game.

There will be a great temptation for teams to form alliances before the game gets going, or before they have met in game. The goal in this game is not to win - but to survive. The easiest way to do that is for 3 to gang up on two. Which may very well happen in due time in the game - as civs meet and alliances are forged. But it should not happen as a pre-game pact between civs.

But con - I think - given the nature of this game - you will really need to make this point clear at the UN.

(and if I was some of the smaller sites - I might be thinking to eliminate the Poly's and GWT's of the world in the first round - it would give me a btter chance in the second.)

This is already listed as one of the cheats exploits to avoid, so it is in all likelyhood going to be legislated against. Proving that it happened or stopping it will be another matter.

I imagine the exploits discussion will heat up again right after the holidays. Thats and just what we are going to let the map makers do to level the playing feild of the map.