The Perfect Game - READ - Page 3

rixxe · April 17, 2001, 08:20

bump!

Deity Dude · April 18, 2001, 00:52

I was out of town for Easter so I missed a few posts. I agree that we are in no hurry and I will go along with what everyone thinks but, do we really want to discuss every turn OR just relevant ones. Do we convene to disuss hitting the enter key? Also, in the later parts of the game we might want to have more than 1 discussion per turn (i.e. surprise landing by enemy troops - unexpected diplomatic situation - and about 100 other situations where we could convene prior to the turn, come up with a gameplan and then need to reconvene due to unexpected circumstances.)

IMHO we should convene and give the leader a plan and then let him play and save the game when:
a) a predetermined event happens (see below)
b) the leader, while playing, comes up with a situation that he feels changes the agreed upon gameplan.

Some predetermined events that could cause a meeting of the players could be
1) any new advance - so we could discuss what to go for next
2) anytime a city is founded - so we could discuss what to build and how to (i.e. should we rush build it)
3) when new units are produced - may not be necessary all the time.
I'm sure there are others.

I guess what im trying to avoid is my joke earlier about debating whether to move a settler one square or conveneing on 5 straight days to hit "enter" 5 straight times.

Another thought might be to elect the leader for a term instead of the whole game. It seems like the leader is gonna have alot more work than the other players so we might want to split it up.

One final thought - I really think we should consider some sort of IM package for meetings and maybe post summaries of the discussions here. Otherwise it could literally take weeks to do a single turn (ie if every player averages 2 comments about a turn before the vote on what to do, it would take 10 days before the vote, probably a day or 2 to get all 5 votes, a day to execute the agreed upon vote and repost it - and as the game gets more complicated I think people may have more then 2 comments)

Anyway thats my input, I anxiously await comments

Deity Dude · April 18, 2001, 00:54

oops
[This message has been edited by Deity Dude (edited April 17, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Deity Dude (edited April 17, 2001).]

rixxe · April 18, 2001, 05:27

I'm thinking about another way,...Like we all agreed (as far as i know) there will be cities (5/10/20) belonging to some people,...

I think it will be faster if one player moves his units, do whatever he has to do with his cities etc,...and when everything is done, he send the savegame to the next player, etc,...

At the end of the turn, the savegame is sent to the Leader who will post here what happened,...

And so on

carioca · April 19, 2001, 15:58

quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 04-05-2001 05:31 PM
Sorry I was tempted.

suually all the people who have newer civ versions also have the previous version as they play civ for a long time and wouldn't just go out and buy a "newly packaged" game with an game engine dating to 1995.

I don't have an older version of CIV 2 and I did go out and buy the newly packaged version of MPGE.

Sirotnikov · April 19, 2001, 19:55

well, then Tausrus can't be our leader as he can't upload stuff and I can!

kidding!

rixxe · April 23, 2001, 02:58

Well, it seems that this game will never start

[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited April 23, 2001).]

Sirotnikov · June 9, 2002, 15:42

[big loud bump]

I think that Builder deserves credit for starting this.

After all, this is the original "Civ III democracy game"

TCO · June 9, 2002, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli
Let's arrange the "perfect civ2" game.

The concept is :

A civ2 game.
Every turn is discussed by the posters here, and one selected poster will make the moves that we decided to make.

Before each move the "selected poster" will upload the save, so that we will be able to see it before making suggestions.

----

What is it good for?

A) The not so good players will be able to see the decisions that all the "deity sucks" players make together with their arguments.

B) Fun!

----

Many games by different players can be played like this but here is my main suggestion :

A game, on a HUGE map, like those that Julius Brenzaida's add-on on TOT allows.

Why is this good for?

A) The "Deity sucks" players wont enjoy from the regular games in this style, but on such map the game will be very complicated and it will allow the DS players to have some fun too.

B) Fun!

-----

Of course that questions, suggestions and "go away idiot" comments are welcome.

------------------
Builder.

"Antisemites? They are just the descendants of monkeys and are jealous of the descendants of Adam and Eve"

"The length of a minute depends on which side of the toilet door you're on"

1. Doesn't make sense on a huge map, becuase the number of units, cities, etc. makes it too complicated. Small map better. OCC best.

2. Is not good to mix and match different people's advice. (All the various actions one makes in a turn are coordinated.) So If you do this, you should just have one player who plays with an "orthodox style", listen to the advice, but than play as he sees best.

3. There is no orthodox style.

Other than that. Sounds like a good idea.

Graag · June 12, 2002, 16:47

I like the idea! If I can be counted in without reading all three pages, count me in.
Logistics suggestions are a tad dull for me (sorry), but it'll be damn good fun if it actually gets going... keep it coming!

P.S. BUMP