Just an idea

Robi D · Dec 8, 2008

I just had a though about the way could go about playing the game.

Obviously we will try to win, but should we attach some principles to the way we try to achieve victory.

For example we could avoid using the "nastier" civics such as slavery and police state to name two. Or for another example we could ban ourselves from razing caputured cites. A principle could be about anything in the game.

Personally i am not fussed whether i choose to do something like this but i did think it was worth looking at and discussing amongst ourselves, like the title says, just an idea.

Memphus · Dec 8, 2008

i think we should of chosen japan...haha and only been at war with samurai's (ninja's sort of)

Karhu · Dec 8, 2008

It could be interesting to come up with a philosophy that will govern our game play. Instead of choosing mechanics and strategies that we will not use, we just argue whether they fit within our philosophical position.

For example; Benevolence and adherence to International Law (possibly read human rights) could be our governing philosophy. Not only might we avoid the Slavery civic, but we might strongly look down on other regimes using it.

I personally plan to be an advocate of unorthodox strategies throughout this game; For this is the way of the ninja.

remake20 · Dec 8, 2008

Cool idea. How about we choose the most cruel civics and do the cruelest things to our enemies.

Krill · Dec 8, 2008

How about we try to play it as the mongols, killing everyone and just being blood thirsty bastards? Then again, that's how I advocate playing the game anyway.

remake20 · Dec 8, 2008

Ummmmmmmm... that might be a little risky. Don't you think? We might get allianced on.

Krill · Dec 8, 2008

Hey, I never said telegraph our intentions, or go it alone; find an ally, kill one team, start to kill another, backstab our ally, kill both, borg into their land then kill the fifth. Then commit suicide becuase we have no one left to kill but ourselves.

Viva_Chingon · Dec 8, 2008

Some good thoughts. I don't know where I stand. In reality I am for human rights, but this is a game. However, like Krill, that's how I usually intend to play anyway (warmonger) so it might be fun to think outside of the box.

Would we want to let the other teams in on this? It might actually be an interesting social experiment that way -- to see which choices work better than others and, possibly, understand better why certain civs succeeded or failed IRL.

There is a great author who talks of these things in two books; the first, "[wiki]Guns, Germs, and Steel[/wiki]" and the second, "Collapse" -- both by [wiki]Jared Diamond[/wiki]. They're on the weighty side but since we're all interested, to some degree by matters of nation building, I thought I'd mention them to everyone.

Anyway...cool ideas in this thread!

Karhu · Dec 8, 2008

Regarding Jared Diamond...

and this is in no way an attack on you, Viva Chingon. Diamond is a very popular author and even I have one of his books (a gift, unfortunately).

I saw one of Diamond's documentaries on PBS (that's the US's gov't/public funded station) and was appalled. It was done in a double narrator style, one of them Diamond, that worked hard to glorify Diamond and his ideas. He took credit for anthropological concepts that you'd learn about in an introductory class. It was shameful. I can only hope his books give credit where credit is due, but I've never read them, and have no intention of doing so.

Now, let me be clear that I have no problem with someone or group aggregating and synthesizing information, which seems to be what diamond is doing, it's the taking credit for others work and basic anthropological concepts that I have a problem with.

I should probably back up these statements with some real evidence for you. But consider this light conversation and these are my off-the-cuff comments, slandering Diamond.

Viva_Chingon · Dec 8, 2008

Oh! The documataries are horrible, I agree. The entire second part of GG&S equates to about 20 pages of an almost 600 page book. A grain of sand on the beach, really.

His footnotes do point the reader in other directions...although it's not too verbose.

Taking credit is a problem but consider this -- I may have otherwise not ever been exposed to that information. In that case, even if he is a bad man (in someone's opinion) he has helped to shed light on some very interesting information about the history of the world and it's people.

For that reason, possibly alone, you've got to give him credit, I suppose...

Thanks for the info though. I was turned onto the books by a friend and read them and was interested in what I learned. I think they're still great reading material if you're not perusing any sort of higher education (which might expose these concepts as basic).

Terrible hair though, for sure.

Karhu · Dec 8, 2008

The issues he is covering are very interesting for me too. And I'll say it's a good thing when someone gets a "super star" status and is able to excite a larger audience than would normally be exposed to the discipline.

In the documentary he said; "And then I realized...." and went on to explain how humans had migrated in waves across the earth. As though it was his idea! The nerve! Can't blame that on editing or someone else putting your book on the screen, cause that's your voice. I've loathed him ever since. There were other similar atrocities in the documentary, but it was to long ago for me to recall.

Robi D · Dec 8, 2008

Viva_Chingon said:
Would we want to let the other teams in on this?

I would not be telling the other teams anything, because then they probably would adjust their play towards us.

If we do adopt something then it should stay between us

Memphus · Dec 8, 2008

We could do somethign really off the wall and go for a cultural victory.... (second hardest in MP)

Viva_Chingon · Dec 8, 2008

Karhu said:
he said; "And then I realized...."

You do know that this guy has lived with aboriginal tribes all over the world and was actually one of the "boots on deck", so to speak, that worked to bring us that knowledge, yeah? For him to say that he figured something out would be true; from anyone's point of view.

The actual impetus for writing the book came from a question asked by an elder native man from Papua New Guinea. The question from this native was (paraphrased to the best of my ability), "How come your civilization catapulted through the eras while [his] society never left the tribal stage". Unable to answer this question in a satisfactory manner he got started on the book, GG&S, to answer that question.

Robi D said:
I would not be telling the other teams anything, because then they probably would adjust their play towards us.

Really? I mean, that's the argument in my head --

Do it and hamstring ourselves for the sake of haiving fun
Don't do it and, instead, base all decisions on upon the goal of victory.

If we do this, let's do it for the right reasons -- having fun vs. the social desire to win. If we're doing it for fun then it can't hurt us no matter who we tell. If you're going to think that what we are doing is a death sentance (which it may be) then we should consider a "winning strategy".

I don't know...it shouldn't matter if it 'hurts' us -- because, I think, that's what it's (probably, in game terms) going to do anyway!

azzaman333 · Dec 8, 2008

I honestly think that handcuffing ourselves to some additional criteria is silly, especially since we're playing against 4 other competant teams of human players.

Whomp · Dec 8, 2008

azzaman333 said:
I honestly think that handcuffing ourselves to some additional criteria is silly, especially since we're playing against 4 other competant teams of human players.

That allies with my greatest fear. I have a feeling teams are looking at this team and already saying we're the team to beat and a dogpile is in our future.

Maybe we shock the world by going cultural but if it's the second hardest way to win I don't know how logical it is.

So I guess my standard answer is :hammer:

Love the idea Robi but can't we just dazzle them with our diplomatic brilliance and have them say at the end "Wow, you fooled us there". The more "wow you fooled us" the greater the gratification? Otherwise... :hammer:

?

AutomatedTeller · Dec 9, 2008

What's funny is that the conclusion of guns, germs and steel is, essentially, what every civ player knows:

Having a lot of different types of food is key
Being in contact with a lot of different people is great

I certainly think that playing in a certain way makes sense, but I think that if we limit our choices in game, we will hurt our ability to win.

Karhu · Dec 9, 2008

Continuing the Diamond discussion here.

1889 · Dec 12, 2008

Rather than restrict our civics choices or diplomatic options to fit our philosophy, our philosophy should lead to the justification for taking whatever action best leads us to victory. For example slavery has been practiced in a wide variety of cultures by saying that those enslaved are undeserving of freedom for some reason and even the most peace-loving people have found justification to defend themselves by force of arms even if it means a pre-emptive attacke. In short no philosophy has to restrict a civilization or its leaders from doing what wants needs to be done.

Robi D · Dec 15, 2008

Well at least it has produced an interesting discussion

Just an idea

Minister of (Dis)Order

Deity

Devil's Advocate

:)

Deity

:)

Deity

Condition 1

Devil's Advocate

Condition 1

Devil's Advocate

Minister of (Dis)Order

Deity

Condition 1

meh

Keep Calm and Carry On

Frequent poster

Devil's Advocate

Mayor of H-Marker Lake

Minister of (Dis)Order

Similar threads