Question: What Difficulty Level will we use?

options Prince, Emperor

This is a repoll of the original question after new information posted in the original poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=267466) prompted some citizens to say they would choose differently if they had known more. Also, quite frankly, my run-off attempt was a disaster perpetrated by my own pour word-smithing in the early morning (I should know better!)

Admin, please close my runoff poll here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=267956).

Please accept my appologies for the unintended bias in my earlier poll and for misconstruing the reasons behind the new poll.

I am one of the people who changed positions based on the discussion past the ending date of the original poll. I believe that there will be better roleplaying material from a difficult game which presents unexpected and challenging events. Higher difficulty should help with that, as long as we don't go out of our way to play a bad game. Less than perfect for role playing purposes is fine, outright bad choices will obviously need to be avoided.

I am still of the opinion that Emporer doesn't leave us enough room, as we can be quickly crushed much too easily. Monarch would be my upper limit, and Prince is pretty much right on where I think we will still have a challenge but yet be free to make decisions based on RP as much as we want.

I think random civ and unrestricted leader combination along with an overcrowded world (9 civs) and city flip option on would be more than sufficient a challenge, if we consider the combination of options. Emperor along with these options would make this a short game indeed, and roleplay would get a minimum of space. I notice that the same supporters of Prince difficulty level are mostly those that support roleplaying anyways.

For those who are serious about the Factions, please support Prince, not the "Zerg" alternative.

I am serious about roleplaying and I have voted emporer for the same reasons Dave mentioned. Prince would simply be a cakewalk and would bore both the hardcorists and the roleplayers. It's far easier to roleplay if the faction you are roleplaying as a part of isn't too dominating. Rather be the small dog than the largest fish o' the pond imho.

I am serious about roleplaying and I have voted emporer for the same reasons Dave mentioned. Prince would simply be a cakewalk and would bore both the hardcorists and the roleplayers. It's far easier to roleplay if the faction you are roleplaying as a part of isn't too dominating. Rather be the small dog than the largest fish o' the pond imho.

Nice summary - agreed.

-- Ravensfire

Emperor as I stated in the other thread and has been discussed here too.

Emperor as I stated in the other thread and has been discussed here too.

Hey there :)

I read your excellent BTS Info thread, and I know you are an expert and all in BTS :) However, I could not find one single word about the difficulty levels there, can you please enlighten us on that, and what it means?

We haven't been able to dominate a demogame on Prince at all, and our first time around was almost a disaster. I think we should stick to Prince as it seems to give us a bit of a challenge. Emperor is just asking for us to fail.

We haven't been able to dominate a demogame on Prince at all, and our first time around was almost a disaster. I think we should stick to Prince as it seems to give us a bit of a challenge. Emperor is just asking for us to fail.

Ice2k4s analysis is quite accurate. However, that said, there are some of those that wants the faction system to fail, which is why we see some developments now both in the metagame and the political department. Emperor fits nicely into a strategy for a stronger emphasis on rules and gameplay above roleplay and narratives.

Emperor fits nicely into a strategy for a stronger emphasis on rules and gameplay above roleplay and narratives.

Interesting, as I feel playing on Emperor level would help the faction play style. I also find it odd you keep saying this as I'm not seeing people argue against factions. If anything, it appears like the DG is getting even more players due to the faction system. I don't see how pushing emperor difficulty level is trying to remove factions, or is this a manipulative thing that I'm just not seeing? [No offense meant, just a serious statement]

I just don't see why this was re-polled. Even if those people who wanted their votes changed did so, Prince still would have had the majority. Is anyone going to be able to re-poll something just because 3 people want to? All this does is slow down the demo-game so that person can try and get the way they wanted, rather than accepting the majority. This isn't pointed at anyone mind you. I just find it odd that the majority was ignored in this polls case.

Interesting, as I feel playing on Emperor level would help the faction play style. I also find it odd you keep saying this as I'm not seeing people argue against factions. If anything, it appears like the DG is getting even more players due to the faction system. I don't see how pushing emperor difficulty level is trying to remove factions, or is this a manipulative thing that I'm just not seeing? [No offense meant, just a serious statement]

I think the picture is not black-white here, pertaining to the interest in keeping factions. Factions is bound to be a better sell than the obsolete traditional one, as people like to identify with a core concept in a competing setting, not some blurred and carebearish thing. There are arguments supporting an emperor level, I admit that, but not all players here are that competitive, they simply log on, read the game forums, post and vote. Many of these would be happy with warlords and noble levels, and we already upped the ante with added civs, random civ/unrestricted leader and so on.

City flip option enabled also makes for higher risk. We are quite possibly Prince 2.0 as it stands, with the faction-based system (which is run for the very first time, historically), BTS increased the level of challenge, there are numerous new variables to consider, new game features, we got a huge faction of mainly veterans (tribals) and another huge faction of entirely new players (legion) and a medium faction of mainly veterans (mysticracy) and a medium faction of mainly new players (only me as "veteran", but I am no real veteran, since none of my ruleset ideas ever won through, to be a veteran would require strong influence on ruleset).

If you recall from the initial debates and polls establishing factions as the core ruleset, it was a very close race. Some players here swore that they would make this "experiment" fail, and they even repeated that several times, so many times, that I actually believe them. Kind of shame, now that we see factions attract more than the communal organization we had before.
The core outcome of making this Emperor level, is that we create a caste system of elite demogame veterans on the top, telling newbees what to do, just so people can stay alive. Prince would level the playing field, and enable non-civ professionals to contribute with their ideas, so they are not ridiculed and isolated based on some CFC-slang or demogame terminology, or frozen out simply due to limited game-technical skills.

We need an accessible playing field, now this is first time factions is run.

This was also somewhat speculative, as people now could phase out "unwanted prince votes" due to Easter. The consequence of the perpetual repoll system some seek to institute, is that people voting for a majority poll never can rest safely after a poll, but must make sure that the outcome of the poll is implemented long after. This means, no one can ever write "final run-off poll", due to the insecurity if a result is not allowed to stand. The perpetual repoll regime regardless of previous outcome will just generate a "concrete shoe" policy that forces players to make sure the original poll result still stands, which just gives us extra labor. The original outcome winners will from now on remain vigilant, since their first poll never will be really valid.

I understand your point Provo, but I have to respectfully disagree on certain topics. I'm comfortable on Monarch, but I obviously wasn't always so. Emperor scares me on SP games and I won't go near immortal or deity unless its a HOF game (decide specific settings making it much easier i.e. future start). If a succession game were to pop up for immortal or deity, I wouldn't hesitate to join in. Why you ask? Simple, over several years of playing succession games I've learned how much easier they are due to playing as a group. My first succession game was civ3 and I was barely comfortable on regent. We played that SG on emperor and won without breaking a sweat. Yeah, we had Bede as a teacher and Soul Warrior helping out, but the difficulty level scared me and I believe the other players as well (we were noobs). I will jump on a much higher difficulty level in team games than I will an SP game. I believe I was playing immortal team games before I was comfortable at prince. Again, team games are much easier due to discussion.

Prince IMO will be way too easy and the game will lose a lot of its fun. If the game is more challenging there will be more ammunition factions can use against each other. Look at the US now and how much our politicians are using world events to argue their platform. I fully expect and hope that our factions do the same thing. I'm afraid if we make it prince level, we'll move out ahead of the rest of the AI too quickly and the game aspect of roleplaying will be removed. If we play a more difficult level I still believe we'll win, but there will be more for the factions to argue about.

I don't believe playing on emperor will force our lesser experienced players out of the game. I believe many of them will play because there will be others they are playing with and can learn from. And I'll be the first to say even a veteran player can learn from a non-veteran player.

My two cents on what we should do.

1) wipe all these current polls away
2) start a new poll in this forum with every diffiuclty level present.
a) If one difficulty level gets over 50% it is selected end of story.
b) if no level is above 50% then have a run off between the levels with the most votes. In the case of a tie, then have all levels in tie involved. Once run off gives a 50% result that is the level

My two cents on what we should do.

1) wipe all these current polls away
2) start a new poll in this forum with every diffiuclty level present.
a) If one difficulty level gets over 50% it is selected end of story.
b) if no level is above 50% then have a run off between the levels with the most votes. In the case of a tie, then have all levels in tie involved. Once run off gives a 50% result that is the level

I agree...

My two cents on what we should do.

1) wipe all these current polls away
2) start a new poll in this forum with every diffiuclty level present.
a) If one difficulty level gets over 50% it is selected end of story.
b) if no level is above 50% then have a run off between the levels with the most votes. In the case of a tie, then have all levels in tie involved. Once run off gives a 50% result that is the level


I can agree very much with this. These difficulty polls have been....difficult....to accept. In a sense, I found the almost 60 % for prince what I called a strong win, and we cannot have a culture for restarting polls simply because they forgot to reflect/discuss why they wanted a difficulty in the first place. Otherwise we need rules for how long a debate should be and how long for polls.

DaveShack, Diamondeye, and particularly Methos have made some pretty compelling arguments. I voted Prince in the previous poll; their arguments have persuaded me to vote Emperor in this one. Prince on a normal-size map with 9 civilizations will be a cakewalk, as Diamondeye says, and we risk getting bored with the game. In order to give factions the best shot I'm now convinced we should go with Emperor difficulty.

If you recall from the initial debates and polls establishing factions as the core ruleset, it was a very close race. Some players here swore that they would make this "experiment" fail, and they even repeated that several times, so many times, that I actually believe them. Kind of shame, now that we see factions attract more than the communal organization we had before.

This is not the place to discuss specifics, but if you're going to make this kind of accusation it needs to be backed by facts. Care to PM links?
If not, please refer to the forum rules statement on posting false and defamatory information.

This was also somewhat speculative, as people now could phase out "unwanted prince votes" due to Easter.

This makes no sense at all. The poll ends long before then.

Prince on a normal-size map with 9 civilizations will be a cakewalk...and we risk getting bored with the game.

First of all, for me, emperor would be daunting. I've played Civ for a few years now and still have issues playing on the Warlord difficulty. There are plenty of noobs (before you complain I consider myself one of them) playing in this demogame, the amount of micromanagement might be overwhelming. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself.

Secondly, factions are new, and as ice2k4 said, prince IS a challenge for a demogame without factions. To think that a harder level is a better way to try something new I find hard to fathom. I'd say the opposite would be needed, which is an EASIER level than prince, if you were truly interested in trying out the 'faction experiment.' If prince turns out to be to easy, then fine, we know to up the difficulty next time. 'Better safe than sorry', 'error on the side of caution,' etc. Having the difficulty higher is almost like asking for the game to fail.

And finally, I doubt it'll get boring on Prince. The game hasn't started yet and I am in no way bored. With the factions and random events, we'll have a blast!

-Lost

This is not the place to discuss specifics, but if you're going to make this kind of accusation it needs to be backed by facts. Care to PM links?
If not, please refer to the forum rules statement on posting false and defamatory information.


This makes no sense at all. The poll ends long before then.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=264334&page=3

Here is a link, and several statements either predicting, hoping or stating the commitment to make Factions less than what it should be. I am strictly within forum rules, as this is accurate.

I also think that several players are beginning to see what I am seeing, that there is a convention for having our side poll an issue several times to get the same result as the "official side". This perpetual poll thing, I wonder what the reaction would be if we repolled every single decision we did not like, and made that a standard. It is not taken for granted, we will apply the repoll convention of the last 2-3 demogames you and a few others installed, we need to discuss it and repoll it for this game separately.

If there is no such thing as "final repoll" or "final run-off", please let us know, and we would never add the "final word" in our polls, and we will find ways to protect the integrity of the initial result. We would also like to have this metagame demogame rule discussed and polled itself, as it is a major decision to have all polls repolled for the smallest reason.

Now, several players in this thread, as many as in the initial difficulty poll, are this time advocating yet another difficulty poll, public vote with all options on the table, write the conditions in the poll and complete it as fairly done, as well as possibly include a "contract" that this is the definitive and final poll, not repollable at all (if you can dispense from your core beliefs). If you are really true and consistent to your core idea that a poll must be redone if enough people call for it, the time is to do it here, again, even if it hurts and takes more time than needed. Yes, difficulty is a difficult thing to handle, in particular when you remove the outcome of a poll with 60 % support and even a median outcome of Prince, and replace that with a series of flawed polls where some of the original voters cannot participate and the second biggest option, monarch, not emperor, is deliberately left out. If I posted something like that, we would have a totally different uproar.

You can even set it up Daveshack, so it follows your strict preferences for what is right or not, as you are the supreme authority in here.
I certainly do not feel privileged enough to set it up.

the amount of micromanagement might be overwhelming. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself.

Thats the good thing about being in a group, everyone can have their little tasks, which are more likely to get done well than when you or i play on our own becuase we have to focus on the entire nation. And doing those little things, especially as a governor help me at playing civ overall.

1) I know I can stumble drunk and blind through any Prince level game on any map and win...I'll be more than happy to assist in the group strategies at Emperor, although I admit that Emperor is allot harder than Prince. Monarch is not much of a step at all from Prince, except that the AI actually starts to fight back. On Emperor, you just simply have to be aggressive and pragmatic about how you play.

2) I love factions, I repeat, I love factions!

3) As a group, you'll be surprised at what you can learn!

4) I still see the two polls that are actually in question here (ignoring the ill-fated "final" poll) as representing two completely separate ideas. In the first poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=267466), we were purely looking at the difficulty level and many people voted, and yes, the majority wanted Prince level. In this poll, we're looking at a new idea, where we now realize that we're part of a group, and that the difficulty level will be more like the foundation of our experience, not just a formality or a choice at the start of the game.

5) I love how, although the game hasn't technically started, we are already at war, lol.

6) Politics is chaos. However, perhaps there needs to be a rule that governs who may start polls, and the format that must be followed. Make this a sticky in the poll thread, and empower the admins to delete polls that are not established by the authorized persons.

7) Let me assure you, that I did not start this poll for political reasons. I honestly believed that this poll represented a new idea. However, I do agree with the idea that excessive re-polling can be frustrating and a parasitic drag on our community here. I do not however, view this poll as something that would necessarily negate the original poll.

8) Let's rephrase the discussion this way: How should the results of the two polls in question be handled? Option A: Forget the first poll? B: Forget the second poll? C: If Emperor does not win with 60% of the vote or more by the time the poll is closed, then go with the results from the first poll, i.e. Prince difficulty? D: Have the admins get together and make a decision that is final and shall stand without argument from the community?

Having looked more into the matter, I think the poll proposal presented by Blastoidstalker and supported by Methos, myself and others would be the most fair thing to do. We need a public poll with all options and rules for interpretation of the poll included, so no player is left out of the loop. We still got some players that are scared of even Prince level, and here we got some pushing for Emperor and omitting Monarch, which was the real runner-up.

Personally, I would possibly vote for Monarch in a run-off (as it is closer to what I consider an ideal demogame level of difficulty). I would not like to vote for Emperor at all, it is too high and forces us into a gaming style that is not reconcilable with running for example a small faction.

So the most fair and responsible thing to do, looking away from my personal bias, would be to follow the good advise of our friend Blastoidstalker.

We need a public poll with all options and rules for interpretation of the poll included, so no player is left out of the loop. We still got some players that are scared of even Prince level, and here we got some pushing for Emperor and omitting Monarch, which was the real runner-up.

So the most fair and responsible thing to do, looking away from my personal bias, would be to follow the good advise of our friend Blastoidstalker.

So...Prince, Monarch, and Emperor? I see this as taking some votes from Prince and some from Emperor, and leaving us with a quandary of sourts. I'm more in favor of option C or D, myself. Every time a game difficulty poll has been opened, we get more salt into the wounds. In fact, I think less people will vote in a future poll.

I'm also starting to believe that major polls such as this one should probably have had a couple days of discussion prior to any actual vote. That way, all sides argue their case and the poll is more equitably structured, and no one feels left out of the loop.

I would like to voice my support for blastoid's proposal as well. Have all options in a poll, and then take the highest vote-getters until we get a 50% majority. This is the best, systematic way to go about this.

This was the very post that lead us to the misconceived "run-off" between Prince and Emperor, where Emperor got 3 votes against Monarchs 6 and Nobles 6. This is what happens when some influential players and some leading characters with real privileges are listened to, and not the voting majority. If handled fairly, the run off, if made, would only include Noble, Prince and Monarch, where Emperor, the most extreme option, would be left out.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6606540&postcount=14

I don't want to hurt the development of our community with yet another poll, which is why I see option C or D as the most viable options.

This was the very post that lead us to the misconceived "run-off" between Prince and Emperor, where Emperor got 3 votes against Monarchs 6 and Nobles 6. This is what happens when some influential players and some leading characters with real privileges are listened to, and not the voting majority. If handled fairly, the run off, if made, would only include Noble, Prince and Monarch, where Emperor, the most extreme option, would be left out.

The reason there was a run-off was that several voters, including me, changed opinion due to the discussion in the previous poll. I agree that i tmight be bit arrogant for the starter of this thread to listen to the "minority" that wanted emperor, but as is now, Emperor is leading, 55% against Prince's 45%, so obviously the majority of the voters are convinced with the DG playing on this difficulty. I especially find Methos' arguments about being many players to plan and decide, heavy-weighting.

In my opinion we don't need a repoll, but ofcourse, we can do as an above poster suggested and include all difficulties. My bet is that the result will be emperor + one difficulty level.

My bet is that the result will be emperor + one difficulty level.
I have a feeling that Monarch might win. This poll simply proves that the majority would prefer Emporer over Prince.

I think we should all take a step back and look at this. Don't you think that no matter what we pick, we'll end up okay? If we happen to get wiped out early, let's just start DG IV! Same if we win easily.

I have a feeling that Monarch might win. This poll simply proves that the majority would prefer Emporer over Prince.

I think we should all take a step back and look at this. Don't you think that no matter what we pick, we'll end up okay? If we happen to get wiped out early, let's just start DG IV! Same if we win easily.

Heck, I'd be happy going with Monarch to appease all sides or at least come to the middle. I play all of my SP games on Monarch or Emperor, so I'd still be happy there. Others may feel that emperor is too far of a reach. However, let's also look at what this poll represents from a scientific perspective. it's a study of extremes being presented with no middle ground. It shows that you really have two camps here. One that wants a comfortable stride, and one that really wants a challenge.

A middle ground would be the most politically palatable...let's make that option E, following the logic presented in my earlier post #23 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6621390&postcount=23)

Well, it will be interesting to see how many of the original 36 voters will vote again. Since the previous poll was private, we can of course not compare the voting populations, but anything less than 30 would be a defeat for all of us. Nothing is as disconcerting as having a clear majority poll of 22 votes being "stolen" due to a sudden "run-off" against 3 votes and 3 calls for Prince-Emperor run-offs by more influential and privileged players.

If we get 36 to vote in a poll, we have at least grown the game population, otherwise, it will be proven that the "Perpetual Repoll Policy" has to be reined in, just to protect the electorate against sudden poll-coups. Voters should be allowed to rest after a poll, not be forced to protect the implementation of it day and night.

I think random civ and unrestricted leader combination along with an overcrowded world (9 civs) and city flip option on would be more than sufficient a challenge, if we consider the combination of options.In my experience, an overcrowded map is actually easier to play. Sure, there is less land for expansion, but it effects the AI as well. As a result, an earlier war is more likely to break out. Not just AI against human, but AI against AI as well. The human player has a distinct advantage in this arena. He/She can adapt to the changed environment, whereas the AI will play the same start that it was programmed to do. Also I find these early wars to be more crippling to the AI than to the human.

Hint: The Imperialistic trait gets a 50% boost to Settler production. That could be quite handy on an overcrowded map.

The random unrestricted leaders will also serve to make the game easier. Many of the leader civ combinations have no synergy. Sure, you may end up with a powerhouse AI ... but in my experience, the AI seems to struggle with this option. The AI is nothing more than a set of pre-programmed rules that is unable to adapt to the changed environment.

As for the city flip option being on, it is normally on by default. I've never experienced any significant issues with my cities flipping to the AI. If you're concerned about your border cities, then prioritize cultural buildings. Also if you garrison enough troops in the city, it will not flip. In the city view screen, you can see the % chance of revolt. In addition, city flipping is also a weapon in the human's arsenal. Thus whether it is on or off, I don't see it affecting the level of difficulty either way.

By the way, I've been playing BtS emperor lately, and when you're used to the new mechanics, it's quite easy. I'd say BtS emperor = Vanilla monarch.This has been my experience, as well. I've also noticed some of the early wonders are no longer prioritized by the AI, the Pyramids being the most notable off the top of my head.

If there is no such thing as "final repoll" or "final run-off", please let us know, and we would never add the "final word" in our polls, and we will find ways to protect the integrity of the initial result.I hesitate to enter this foray ... But it seems to me the new guy has already been crucified for this. Maybe we ought to think about letting him down? The thread has been locked and he has apologized. My 2¢ ... YMMV

I agree with blastoidstalkers curriculum on this poll. I don't like that those who don't like prince only have to choose emperor. Emperor didn't even get 1/4 vote in last poll. Yet, if a new poll is posted, like it should be, I will most likely vote monarch, as an appeasement. I myself, usually play noble, as prince is tough, and monarch even tougher. I think focusing on a high difficulty is going to do nothing but kill rp, as we will be more focused on staying alive and begging for the help of people who can play emperor by themselves. I want to play in a game where even bad ideas can be implemented without worrying about total anihilation. I came here to RP, not play civ, as I can do that on my own. Playing on such a high difficulty does just that. It makes this a game of civ, where the only players having fun are the metagame people. I just think, that in the interest of all the new players, and even the vets, (as they too are noobs to this) we shouldn't throw ourselves into a sharktank. None of you have tried a BTS demogame before, so why push so hard for such a high difficulty? Even if the game is kinda easy on prince, the random events and other special feature on BTS will more than keep the game alive.
And about unrestricted civs, I dont know how many games youve all played with that option, but I dont find it unbalanced at all. In fact it can make for some awesome chances in taking power, or just defending yourself against a good combo'd civ. I always choose unrestricted personalites, more so for the fact that I've never play the same game twice. Every game, the comp uses a different strategy based on their civ, and to think that they wont is just inexpirienced. Though I do agree that some civ/leader combos are inherently weak, there are more strong and balanced combos than weak ones out there. So, all this swept under the proverbial rug, I just want to see a new poll with blastoidstalker criteria met. This is what should happen.

I also think that several players are beginning to see what I am seeing, that there is a convention for having our side poll an issue several times to get the same result as the "official side". This perpetual poll thing, I wonder what the reaction would be if we repolled every single decision we did not like, and made that a standard. It is not taken for granted, we will apply the repoll convention of the last 2-3 demogames you and a few others installed, we need to discuss it and repoll it for this game separately.

If this game follows the pattern of the previous ones, the fact that you're making so much noise, especially conspiracy theory noise, about this issue will send many of the 1st timers packing.

There is no conspiracy and never has been one.


You can even set it up Daveshack, so it follows your strict preferences for what is right or not, as you are the supreme authority in here.
I certainly do not feel privileged enough to set it up.

Any citizen may post a fair, unbiased poll. How could it be any different?

The single biggest thing that hasn't really been addressed is that ice has said that the demogame has struggled with Prince before. I think this means that going above Monarch is asking for trouble.

I second (fourth? fifth?) blastoid's proposal. Let's get a real poll with all options up there, now that people have had a chance to discuss this more. We may get less response, but it's the best we can do. Clearly, the last two polls did not work.

The single biggest thing that hasn't really been addressed is that ice has said that the demogame has struggled with Prince before. I think this means that going above Monarch is asking for trouble.


Looking back in the archives (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206368) I see that we played DG2 on prince level. We won that game very easily -- the difficulty was with keeping people in the game due to unnecessary fighting over rules and polls.

Three points:

a) I agree with Blastoidstalker proposal, and would suggest a little twist to it,
if no single option got more than 50%, that is, to "slider"it to achieve
majority. Two examples: 20 voters,10 for Prince,10 for Emperor, then
victory to Monarch; 24 voters,5 for Noble,9 for Prince,10 for Emperor, then
it shall be Prince. (No need for a run-off).

b) I usually play the level I play by two reasons: I'm a strong (for said level)
Domestic player and a weak (again for said level) Military and Diplomatic
player; so, in a team, me and my partners can play a higher level.

c) Honestly I cannot see how a higher or lower level can help or hurt RPG or
narratives.

Best regards,

Honestly I don`t want to play on emperor level, but if thats what the people want i dont want more recounts. I say we just go with this poll

And about unrestricted civs, I dont know how many games youve all played with that option, but I dont find it unbalanced at all.Shaka is still Shaka, whether he has a Fast Worker or an Impi as his UU. The personality is based upon the leader not the civilization. If you give him a Navy Seal or a French Salon, he will not do as well. Give him a Praetorian and ... well ... things may not go well for the home team. :lol: Given the number of combinations in a random draw, it is more likely that Shaka will struggle.

The same goes for other leaders. Asoka is going to focus on religion and science. The same with Mansa Musa. If you give these types of leaders a War Chariot or a Praetorian, the units will likely not be used to their fullest potential.

The single biggest thing that hasn't really been addressed is that ice has said that the demogame has struggled with Prince before.The first DG was started right after [civ4] had been released. There was no experienced pool of players to call upon. My guess is that a series of poor decisions were made in the early game that came back to roost in the mid game. In the second DG (also on prince), the game became easily winnable despite a number of poor decisions in the mid game.

Looking back in the archives (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206368) I see that we played DG2 on prince level. We won that game very easily -- the difficulty was with keeping people in the game due to unnecessary fighting over rules and polls.

There is one thing about this post that I find a little disconcerning. Civ 3 is a different game than civ 4. To compare difficulties on these two games is like me comparing half life to half life 2. Sure, they are from the same franchise, but half life 2 has more content and a harder premise than half life. The same works for civ. Civ 3 has the same concept as the new one, but there is so much in civ4 that older versions of civ cant even stand up to. I think everyone needs to admit that we don't really know what were doing in civ 4 BTS when i comes down to it. I would much rather try something easy first, and if its sooooooo ridculously easy that we lose gamers because of it, then I shall stand corrected and at fault. Yet, even on low difficulties, BTS is just more strategicly played than vannila civ. We need a difficulty that allows anyone to implement their ideas without custom tailoring them to the difficulty.

On this or another poll I will support what the people do, as long as it's not biased or otherwise unfair. I'm not planning to act either way, that is for someone else to do if they feel strongly enough about it.

@Provolution

This means I'm neither promoting nor discouraging another poll. Nor have I ever been promoting (or discouraging) repeat polling in general. What I have been saying is that the people are free to stick with an old decision or choose a new direction based on current events, when current events change people's perceptions.

Seems to me like there's plenty of interest in playing at Monarch then. That' in the middle of these two extremes. All in favor, say aye!

Ok, in the essence of fairness, I will create a poll with all the difficulty levels as options. I'll have it up in a little bit.

Ok, in the essence of fairness, I will create a poll with all the difficulty levels as options. I'll have it up in a little bit.

Scratch that for the moment. One thing I worry about is too many re-pollings are going to hurt the game. So the question is, do we want to keep repolling this, or accept this one? Even though this poll favors my desire, IMO it isn't valid. Yet at the same time I don't want to constantly be repolling this, or anything for that matter. Nor do I want to discuss the same arguments and points over multiple polls.

So do we want to keep this one, keep the other one, repoll it, or what?

I think we need a repoll, plain and simple. We either take the results of the first poll, or repoll the first poll completely.

Include it in the faction platforms? :mischief:

Enough people say they want monarch to put the outcome of this poll in doubt. I agree it fails one of the core principles of polling, that all reasonable options must be included. If it had been a runoff between top options in a previous poll this would not be an issue, but that is obviously not the case.

The traditional view is that a poll which fails to produce an outcome, either because of a tie or because of structural difficulties with the poll, is a no-decision. No decision would mean that a previous valid poll prevails unless something valid overturns it.

I honestly don't care what the level is, which is why I'm not planning to post a repoll. What I do care about is keeping it fun either way it goes.

The first DG was started right after [civ4] had been released. There was no experienced pool of players to call upon. My guess is that a series of poor decisions were made in the early game that came back to roost in the mid game. In the second DG (also on prince), the game became easily winnable despite a number of poor decisions in the mid game.

True, give a bunch of former civIII players a game of civ4 on a decent difficulty level, and they'll crash the economy. Which is exactly what happened. (Though, to be honest, the start was rather terrible too).

Poor decisions in the mid game? :hmm: You mean like crashing our economy? :)

There is one thing about this post that I find a little disconcerning. Civ 3 is a different game than civ 4. To compare difficulties on these two games is like me comparing half life to half life 2. Sure, they are from the same franchise, but half life 2 has more content and a harder premise than half life. The same works for civ. Civ 3 has the same concept as the new one, but there is so much in civ4 that older versions of civ cant even stand up to. I think everyone needs to admit that we don't really know what were doing in civ 4 BTS when i comes down to it. I would much rather try something easy first, and if its sooooooo ridculously easy that we lose gamers because of it, then I shall stand corrected and at fault. Yet, even on low difficulties, BTS is just more strategicly played than vannila civ. We need a difficulty that allows anyone to implement their ideas without custom tailoring them to the difficulty.

Dave is talking about the civ4 DG

I agree with DS here. I say accept the valid polls results which resulted in Prince, or if there really are enough objections, repoll it.


[EDIT] I don't agree with having polls in the hands of factions. Polls are a core concept in this game, so they should be in the core rules.

Dave is talking about the civ4 DG

I was confused by that rebuttal too, but then realized it was really saying that Civ4 and BTS are different enough games that the levels are not as easy to compare to each other as the levels in Civ3 and C3C were. I have to agree with this, there are more ways to get handed your head in BTS, if you ignore espionage, the AP, and corporations if the game gets that far.

Seidrik glances up from his pint, scrubs the muck from his eyes and looks to the council chamber windows. The sun has long since set, and in fact, the moon appears ready to retire itself.

"How long have I been asleep?" He wonders.

Looking around the room, he sees three men still discussing the latest poll results, the horns of their discourse and logic locked in a battle that appears to have no resolution in sight. They've woven a weave of thick trees and brambles where no master woodsman could find his way. Bemusedly, Seidrik spies others, who are in various stages of repose, and some appear to have fallen asleep with their mouths open in the expectation of uttering a position of their own.

Marvelling at the finer points of the discussion, Seidrik smiles to himself and leaves, looking for a nice hammok and dreams with better looking components to them...

Hmm. As Dave says, any citizen can start a new poll, so if you think a runoff with Monarch as an option would work, you have the power to start one.
My vote will still be thrown at emperor though, even if I am a Prince player normally.

I kinda liked the argument presented on page 2 (dont remember by who) that states this situation as two camps. Might I illustrate further by a metaphore, against the mid-camps alternative of Monarch?
If a public poll shows that about half of the people in your city does not like salad at all, and the other half loves salad so much they dont anything else, you are not going to profit by putting "some" salad in your burgers. You are going to profit by choosing either alternative, not by finding some sort of middle way.
I know the metaphore is kinda bad but I think it illustrates the point fine. I'd rather have 56% happy players than, like, 15% happy and 70% content players, but maybe that's just me...

Hmm. As Dave says, any citizen can start a new poll, so if you think a runoff with Monarch as an option would work, you have the power to start one.
My vote will still be thrown at emperor though, even if I am a Prince player normally.

I kinda liked the argument presented on page 2 (dont remember by who) that states this situation as two camps. Might I illustrate further by a metaphore, against the mid-camps alternative of Monarch?
If a public poll shows that about half of the people in your city does not like salad at all, and the other half loves salad so much they dont anything else, you are not going to profit by putting "some" salad in your burgers. You are going to profit by choosing either alternative, not by finding some sort of middle way.
I know the metaphore is kinda bad but I think it illustrates the point fine. I'd rather have 56% happy players than, like, 15% happy and 70% content players, but maybe that's just me...

Well, there will be no burger, mate. So prepare for accepting what the house initially had to offer, the offer the majority subscribed to, before someone requested an illegitimate repoll.

Repoll!!! We need a repoll

Repolling is perfectly valid when new information comes to light, a significant number of people ask for it or circumstances change. Until actions are taken, no poll should be viewed as absolute and final. The mere fact the results of this poll are so different shows that YES, a repoll was warranted here.

I'd LOVE to see a game without repolling as Provo demands. It would be quite ugly, as anyone who thinks it through will understand.

-- Ravensfire

... before someone requested an illegitimate repoll.

There was nothing illegitimate about requesting a repoll. Hindsight showed the repoll missed something which cast its result in doubt, but repoll requests in the face of new information are always legitimate. You still don't seem to realize that this principle is not subject to change.

Repolling is perfectly valid when new information comes to light, a significant number of people ask for it or circumstances change. Until actions are taken, no poll should be viewed as absolute and final. The mere fact the results of this poll are so different shows that YES, a repoll was warranted here.

I'd LOVE to see a game without repolling as Provo demands. It would be quite ugly, as anyone who thinks it through will understand.

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire, you have not even seen my proposal on how I see polling could be done differently, you are just conjuring up demons to brand me, nothing else.

I want repolling, but not done by the methods some of you just sponsored and made evident with this latest piece of evidence, promoted and protected - because it came from your own. You are the ones considering 22-3 (biggest and smallest option) a repoll, I am not, so you are in the wrong here, not me.

You are merely trolling me as usual, without any consequence, protected as you are in here. But see, we have now learnt how to manage around it.
What RF posted was not a troll. This isn't either, but it's darn close to PDMA. - Dave

We will reassess some of the metagame rules later, when this has been settled, and people will see that there should be opportunities for repoll, not just as extremely liberal, manipulated and slack as they have been so far.

People! Its a GAME! Stop being cranky!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/Dalai%20Lama.jpg

Love & Peace people

Agree with Daveshack on Provo's comment. If 50% of the community finds the "unneccessary" option worth it, I don't think it should be considered unneccessary.

That said, you are welcome to start a new repoll with all the options available again, even if its going a step back considering game start time.

If you haven't seen it yet, I have chosen to sacrifice myself in the hopes of ending this bitter stalemate.

See this thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=268209)

Moderator, would you please close this poll? Thank you.

Moderator, would you please close this poll? Thank you.

I second this request.

Moderator, would you please close this poll? Thank you.

I second this request.

Thread Closed