I got a bunch of people to respond to so I will do it in seperate posts as opposed to one mega post. It's just easier that way.
This is a lot of rhetoric but I don't think you're actually trying to understand.
OK this is the second time I have been accused of this last time was by scooter IIRC...as in he said my argument was just theoretical while his (the RB position) was based on actual experience. So now I must remind you that my position is based on
HAVING ACTUALLY RUN AN ESPIONAGE ECONOMY IN AN MTDG FOR TWO YEARS. Now please, anyone tell me that they have similar experience. If you don't, I will still listen to your arguments and thoughtfully consider them, but please at least respect that I am not just theorizing and talking empty rhetoric.
Seven, as for your specific point, it is completely unfair, if you care to, go back and see my original statement that began this discussion where I cited that I had read the RB thread and encountered EXACTLY the point you make (that Civic swap Mission (CSM) is all people will do if enabled) and I had considered it and then I gave my specific reasons the point was not valid. Furthermore, to illustrate how your above statement is unfair, you said:
The examples you give are very different. Imagine if you could build a unit that, when deleted, immediately gave you +20h in all cities, and this unit cost 100h. I'm sure you'd agree that's broken, right? ... This hypothetical unit that I invented though, you will look at your in-game situation in many, many cases and it will be obvious that building this guy instead of something else
Now go look at the examples I gave of game mechanics that effect the whole empire but dont track with empire size. Every single example is a REAL, ACTUAL mechanic in the game. And your response is to use some absurd hypothetical, and then accuse ME of engaging in rhetoric? WTF?
Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, I get it, you RB guys have bought into the line that the CSM is so OP, that the cost-reward is so UB that if we play a game with it enabled, all anyone would do is use that mission non-stop. And I have subsequently proven that to be false through lessons learned ACTUALLY RUNNING THE CSM IN AN MTDG. But it seems to me that you are the one who is not listening.
The claim here (I don't know for sure that it's true as I have never played with swap civic/religion allowed, so I am not making any such argument myself)
I know
, and that is my point, well one of my points. What I have gleaned from reading some of Ruff's 90 page PBEM 1 thread at RB, coupled with the comments here, is that One guy caught you by suprise with an EE and since no one was familiar with it, he pwned everyone with it. And based on that one experience, everyone decided that espy was OP and banned it forever.
Now combine that with the fact that the clergy hates EEs, because when the oldest players first got good at Civ 4 there was no espy, and so they learned to play expertly without it. Then when it was introduced, they realized they would have to adapt, but they didn't want to, so they just labeled it OP and banned it. Naturally everyone accepted this, because they were the most experienced, meaning that very few people have any real experience using espy, so when the clergy tells you its OP you just accept it without any experience using it. And since you never use it (because its forbidden) you are now afraid of it as well, so it stays banned, and it becomes like religion. Your above statement is proof positive of this principle in action.
What is so insane about this, is that Ruff LOST that game!
. So all this hand wringinng and tooth gnashing about how OP espy is and how all hell will break lose with it on... The guy who caught everyone BY SURPRISE (which wouldn't happen in this game because everyone is ready for it) with a well run EE STILL LOST THE GAME, to a good ol fashioned Diplomatic Victory. Go figure
So what was all that about it being invincible and OP?
You are arguing basically that if you don't have an ally to help you undo the damage it's your own darn fault. Well, I agree with you
Thanks
I am glad you finally accept that the 'ally-switch-me-back' is a viable defense that negates the 'little-civ-hurt-big-civ' argument
Here is the big thing: games often have fewer players left at the end. If it ever gets down to 3 players or 2, there is 100% going to be a player with no ally to bump him back, and now we have that situation where civic/religion switching is going to be used at every opportunity.
This is an excellent argument. Here is my response:
1. In a (3 civs left) 2 on 1 situation, if you are the 1, you have lost the diplomatic contest and thus deserve to lose the game anyway. Honestly, if its 2 on 1 your going to lose, whether its by espy, or culture, or AP victory or UN victory, or an all out Military rush, its over. What does it matter then if they wont let you run SP or OR anymore? Just fight to the death like a man or conceed defeat and congradulate the winners. (Or Nuke them both befo... Oh yeah Nukes are probably gonna be banned
)
2. In a 1 on 1 situation CSM is irrelevant because THE OTHER GUY HAS TO RUN THE CRAP CIVICS he is switching you to. If you are both stuck in Despotism then no one has any advantage. (which is why chain-CSMs between last 2 players will probably not happen) The only disadvantage would be if you're dumb enough to keep trying to switch back.
"But what if he is SPI or has CR?
" - You should have built CR yourself. It's your fault if you don't have it. As for him being SPI, Well you should have taken that into account before you ended up stuck in a 1 on 1 with him at the end. SPI sucks most of the game, and if a player sacrifices FIN or PHI or CRE or ORG to get SPI, then he deserves to get the FULL benefit of his choice, not some nerfed down BS version because people are scare of one little espy mission. There are plenty of SPI leaders to choose from. If you are so fearful of CSM. If you think its sooooo OP, then pick a SPI leader.
"But what if he is switching my Religion instead of Civics?
" - If you get to the endgame 1 on 1 without having spread all his religions to most of your cities then you played poorly and you deserve to suffer the consequences. Plus by then the loss in gold/hammers etc will have been offset by corpora... Oh yeah
I forgot
The Point of the CSM is to force you to use a particular civic NOT to force you into anarchy. You only go into Anarchy if you decide to switch back. All the complaining about the lost turns of hammers/gold etc, CSM just glosses over this. How about this, more elegant solution.
We ban using CSM to put people into the bottom tier Civics and Serfdom. Everything else is OK? Is that a fair comprimise?