RBP3 - Living by Faith (OPEN SG, Arabs Emp)

RBP3 - "Living by Faith" - A PtW, Arab, Large Map, Emperor game seeking 100K Culture win

Abu Bakr, a expansionist religious zealot, is out to domainate the world, but
under the banner of culture, empowered by the devout faith of the civilization. :love2:

Civilization: Arabia Difficulty: Emperor
Foes: 11 total (8 Religious Japanese, Indians, Aztecs, Iro, Egypt, Bablyon, Spain, Celts,
plus 3 non-lambs: Persia, China and Scandinavia)
Map: Large 60% Continents (high land), other conditions rnd
Barbarians: Roaming (lowest setting where they still exist as wanderers)
Victory condition: All enabled, but we must win by 100K Culture
Other: Turned off AI respawn, kept culture flip and preserve rnd seed

Variant Rules

- The first build in EVERY city must be a temple (Temple rule)
- No non-cultural bldg can be started if there is a cultural choice
available in that city (Culture rule)
- Luxury slider permanently set to 10% (Tithe rule)
- No razing or intentional starving (Mercy rule)
- Until Chivalry we may not build military other than at Medina,
except when at war (Farmer gambit)
- We must declare war or be at war upon making our first Ansar when Chivalry is reached.
That war cannot end until capture of a capital or wonder (Crusade rule)
- If any AI razes one of our core cities, we will never make peace with that AI and must
eliminate them ASAP (Jihad rule)
- Mecca may provide teachers of the law - warriors for military police duty (MP rule)

Here's the starting position:



For background material and the original ruleset, see this link -
Background

To fast forward to the actual start of the game, go here...
Game Start post

Enjoy,
Charis

If only I had PTW... Maybe I'll be able to grab the game sometime after Christmas (if it hasn't been finished by then...)

JMB

Do those rules sound too much?

YES - I couldn't play a game where every move I have to read down a check list.

I'd like a spot in the first round, though hopefully once again towards the end of the first round.

Just to clarify- cities outside the Holy Land can also build workers and settlers between cultural projects?

-Griselda

Ermmm...

If this was a closed SG, I wouldn't see a problem with the rules you laid out, but this is an open grab-the-game SG, playing by a laundry list of rules like the Musketeer game (IMO) is going to cut way down on the number of different people willing to pick this game up. I can play either way, but my advice is to trim down the rules list to something that people can absorb in one pass (for example, under the current rules, somebody who picks the game up for the first time in the Middle Ages will have to spend a non-trivial amount of time before even being able to play just to determine which cities constitute the "Holy Land").

I'd have to concur with Carbon. For an open SG, may I suggest setting up the rules on the basis of the KISS principle?

You expect K.I.S.S. from Charis???

OK...

RBP3B - "Extolling the Faith" - A PtW, Arab, Large Map, Emperor KISS game

Abu Bakr, a expansionist religious zealot, is out to dominate the world
by conquering the heathen who would oppose his rule! All shall taste
the pungent sting of death at the hands of the mighty Ansar Warriors!

Rules: Just win! Trample all foes underfoot!
Win by a military condition, conquest or domination, although the
weakling AI have diplo, space and culture enabled.

Map: Large, Continents-HighLand. All conditions rnd.
Foes: You'll see.
Barbarians: Roaming (lowest setting where they still exist)

Format: *OPEN* Succession game - Anyone can post got it, and within 12 hrs of that
must post their new save file. No 'roster', just grab it. Game will start Monday.
I'll provide the map, but will need someone to start it off. We might try a greater numbers of turns in the ancient age.

We'll get to see which is mightier, the pen or the sword!
RBP3(A) is switching to closed Roster, myself and Griselda so far, two-three more would be good. It will be a comparison game, same map, two highly different approaches. I'll start another thread for B, and will need someone to play its first turn (I've already done so for the A game)
@JMB - It certainly won't be done by Christmas, hop in when you get the game

Does that sound more like it, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Charis

(PS Nod... 'open' format and "Amazon-like ruleset" is too much - RBD folks know that I mean by that )

Heh, well, I wasn't thinking QUITE that simple, that's more like an all-or-nothing proposition! How about something in between? I just thought you might be able to condense your original ruleset into a single paragraph comprised of the most important ones. Adding flavour text all around it to justify the rules is fine, so long as a concise and easy-to-follow summary is there too! Especially in an open game, a quick summary may be as much as people care to read and try to follow.

I wouldn't think it ought to be too hard to distill a summary paragraph, since a lot of your rules follow one from the other, or are not even rules but just commentary/speculation/advice as to how to proceed. For instance, concerning the rule regarding no early war: if no military built other than at Medina, then of course we wouldn't get too frisky! As another example, the whole holy land/not holy land distinction is somewhat moot anyway since anything that's not in holy land will build stuff so slowly that they will probably never run out of cultural buildings to build. Just treat the entire empire as holy land!

For instance, you might choose something like this:
- Empire wide, cultural buildings must be built before other buildings (culture 1st rule)
- Until Chivalry, we may not build military other than at Medina, except when at war (farmer gambit rule)
- We must declare war with or be at war with at least one AI civ when we reach Chivalry. To end this war we must capture a wonder or the capital city from the relevant AI(s). (crusade rule)
- If any AI razes one of our cities, we will never make peace with that AI and must eliminate them ASAP (jihad rule)
- no intentional starvation (starvation rule) -- NOTE: here I would expect people would be more likely to cashrush foreign workers rather than poprush as the cost of poprushing lots of culture buildings would be too expensive in terms of govt swaps (even if religious) and in terms of endless unhappiness
- lux tax set permanently at 10% (tithe rule)

Does that look like a fair summary/simplification? It's your ruleset, adjust to taste and serve!

One question remains, what's the policy on cash rushing? As much as you like? Common sense suggests that one wouldn't rush a lot of infrastructure in overly corrupt towns anyway, but you did make some mention of hand building culture in non-"holy land" cities, so I wanted to clear that up.

Zed, that's a nice job of simplification. Actually, I made such a mini-summary before I started! (I need KISS too?)

Here's an edit of that summary plus yours:

- The first build in EVERY city must be a temple (Temple rule)
- No non-cultural bldg can be started if there is a cultural choice
available in that city (Culture rule)
- Luxury slider permanently set to 10% (Tithe rule)
- No razing or intentional starving (Mercy rule)
- Until Chivalry we may not build military other than at Medina,
except when at war (Farmer gambit)
- We must declare war or be at war upon making our first Ansar.
That war cannot end until capture of a capital or wonder (Crusade rule)
- If any AI razes one of our core cities, we will never make peace with that AI and must eliminate them ASAP (jihad rule)

We might consider adding 'Mecca' to the military producer list, depending on the situation, purely for MP reasons.

I didn't want the start to be delayed too long, so I've actually made the map and started the game. Let's just say that what is/isn't Holy Land is crystal clear! I would prefer 'one' game too, to not tie up too many folks, so if this simplified set works, we'll go with one game, open SG. BTW, there's no problem with cash rushing per se, but it's definitely part of the intention to use devoted followers, not cash, to rush as many items as needed, outside the Holy Land. It's one of those touted pluses of communism, and a tip from 'strat' pages that I just have never tried and am determined to here

Thanks for your help,
Charis

Glad we got this sorted out. Boiled down to just that list, it looks pretty nice.

I keep forgetting to suggest this until it's already too late, but could you (or whoever generates the map for a SG) change the leader name to RBP-# like we do in the Epics? It makes it SO much easier to distinguish which save belongs to which game and which entry in your HoF corresponds to which game.

I agree with Carbon. That condensed list of rules is considerably easier to understand than that monster first post. You were approaching "Sirian" length in that first one Charis!

I like the idea and the format. At some point in time over the holidays, I'll probably play through a turn or two when not much is going on for me. Not this week though - finals time for this student.

I agree, one game with those rules would be fine. Agree on Mecca being able to produce MP as well. Chivalry is a LONG way off, we will need more than 1 city producing military or we will get walked all over; besides which, once we get to Chivalry and start a Crusade we will want to have SOME kind of offensive forces with which to do it besides our first Ansar! Probably we will have to make an effort to do the old horse->knight rush trick, but I'm a bit concerned as to how well we'll be able to pull that off with only 1 or 2 cities building military.

Communism? You DO recall what happened in RBD5 with Communism, right? We can't stay in Communism or Despotism, and swapping back and forth between governments just for the sake of being able to poprush cultural buildings seems both costly for our core due to lost income/shields/culture and unworkable long-term for our colonies due to nigh-permanent unhappiness from massive whipping. You might want to try that out, but I think that's one "tip" we can safely live without exploring. The cost/benefit on that one is telling me the only way this might be worthwhile is if we're halfway to a domination win already (relying on the sheer number of rushed buildings to make an impact) in which case the game's already won anyway.

I'd like to go last in round 1 if possible, if these rules are the final ones. I've actually played along these lines before with the Egyptians and it was one of the most fun games I've had.

I'm glad the short list makes sense!

Glad to see your interest, Marshall, and Sulla, we'll look for you post round 1.

Zed, by NO means do I expect to stay in Communism, boy that sure was nasty in RBD5! The govt-swap-poprush-swap are for a few reasons -
- I need to 'experience' it firsthand
- We want gobs of temples, I imagine seeing them sprawl over a whole conquered continent. Rather than pay a gazillion gold to rush a temple AND cathedral and Library in every city, it will be quicker and cheaper to swap govt about every 40turns (if that much conquering is going on)
- The people LONG to throw themselves into such a worthy project as the building of a temple or mosque and make a sacrific
- Besides, cash rush isn't off the table, if we try it once and it's leaves us with the deep sense of "ewww!!!" it won't be done again Obviously it wouldn't even be a thought if not for being a relig civ

Carbon, oddly, I **hate** having the leader name be RBCiv-nn, since you are referred to that mid game by other leaders in diplomacy. It wrecks "immersion" for me. Now "leader title" rather than 'name' might be a workable slot that lets the savefile be distinguished. As far as future games, if I'm alone in this view, I'll change. In any case, sorry, unless it can be done mid-stream, the first round is already done.

Charis

Regarding Civ leader names... I'm from both camps. It was a bit of a shock to play CFGOTM14 and have "Hammurabi of the Babs" cluttering my save folder. As far as that goes, for me the immersion has long since worn off. I can still get immersed into a game, or play it clinically, but either way the leader names are irrelevant to me now because I've had enough turns at the game with the default names that they are just as meaningless to me now as "ABC123". I can only play as "Bismarck of the Germans" so many times before I think, "Yeah yeah, get on with it". So I'm in complete agreement with Carbon: for tourney games, there are only plusses (in my view) to using the leader name as a game label.

There is another way, though. I also use nicknames, or alternate names. I've run a Marie Antionette at the head of France, for example, and the RBE games I ran were led by "X-man" and "Monty", making them stand out in the save game folder (filled as it is) as much as a clinical label would have. You do the same, as there has only been one game led by "D'Artagnon". :shotgun:

I'm sorry to hear that the convention is a pet peeve of yours, Charis. The mysteries of Mr. C, eh? What I don't quite grok is how that one little bit would shock you out of immersion, while dozens of other (to me, equally) absurd things in the game would not. Oh, for example, transmuting a nearly finished "palace prebuild" magically into Magellan's Voyage, or buying your way to a unanimous vote to become ruler of the world by giving away a couple of techs. Since you see past those artificial tidbits, I'd think you could get past a useful-if-antiseptic game labeling device, but... perhaps not. Whatever works for you.


I read through the thread from the start and felt... a little upset after wrapping my brain around the first rule set to find they had been replaced by several other rule sets in succession. (I'm notably short-tempered with things that create useless work for me lately, and I was left wondering why I had to read through now-obsolete rule sets to get to the real thing). If I may make a suggestion, cut all the extraneous iterations from the thread. If that doesn't appeal, then post the current (final?) rule set in the first post and earmark the others as "optional background info". If the intent is to relieve brain cramp, it will only work if folks know not to cramp themselves with the now-obsolete info.


As for "you expected KISS from Charis"

The irony is, "Sirian Length" in terms of rules tends to be pretty trim. Functional symmetry. (The Epics rules swelled in reaction to need to close down problems, not out of any desire on my part to extrapolate). But pick up the rules for Ember, and they barely fill a paragraph. Then compare to AMZ rules. Of course, Sulla wouldn't know about those items yet.

I do tend to prattle on, don't I? But there are many ways to be wordy, and I am champion of fewer of them than the cultural myths and good-natured teasings would indicate.


- Sirian

Shoot, you're just a TAD early reading the thread -- I fully intend to put the final rules up in post 1 and make what was there 'background' that didn't get in the way. Sorry 8-\ It also highlights my own breaking of a rule - I prefer to float game rules in a 'ideas' thread, then post the final ones and the first save and avoid the clutter. I imagine some readers will be lost when the first turn doesn't show up til page 3

I like the nickname idea for the leader names myself, and yes, D'Artagnon came to mind, and I recall it being both helpful for role playing AND to find the save files!

I probably overspoke it too, not a pet peeve, but the 'first' time I saw it I did almost choke. I'm almost used to it now actually, and it had NO adverse impact in epic 19, for example. But then again, I wasn't Joanie at all, I was Napoleon! Not to mention, last week I was stung by playing two Celt games at once and overwrote the wrong game file.

I was amused by the "Sirian length" comment!! I think you're the ONLY one who would smack me down in a length contest! I had what was for me a "tiny" post over at Apolyton, where I'm pretty much unknown, and the folks had a cow - "Holy ***** that was a loooong post!". I'm thinking, oh my, I didn't even get warmed up!

Thanks for the input, and pardon the extra work - it'll be fixed at save post tomorrow. And in the first post I'll have a "fast foward" link to the game start. Phew, we're still one page.

Charis

I just copied those existing rules cause it looks like an interesting challenge and didn't what to lose access to them.

I kind of like culture victories and this looks doable on emperor. Deity would be a stretch I think.

The new set of open SG rules sound fun too!

I really do love those Sirian - Charis dialogs, they really are an integral part of Civ3 in the forums !

from Charis :

I imagine some readers will be lost when the first turn doesn't show up til page 3

Click to expand...

Remember your Minoan Bull SG ?
I think it was more like 10 pages before the game even begun !

You are so different and yet manage to keep on the edge of respect so that no hard feelings are ever shared...but some times it seems like its just, just , just...

Keep us entertained please !

Hard feelings? Nah. None show because there are none. We are at opposite poles in how we craft game situations, but you know they say opposites attract.

Charis likes cooking up these elaborate stews with loads of ingredients and many spices. I mostly stick to simpler recipes and just cook more of them. I can get elaborate in terms of scoring options, but tend to limit the actual gameplay rules for a scenario. Because he's juggling more ingredients, it sometimes takes him longer to find the right balance -- and with a game like civ3, he can't go through as many iterations as quickly as in other games. So I may get impatient and gripe a little, wanting a refined stew when he's still sorting out his recipe, and he may gripe a little if my soups fail to hit all the flavor buds he's itching to have stimulated. Sometimes we just need to run off to our separate kitchens and cook what we want without worrying about the other guy, but there are also times when either of us cooks up a fine dish that should not be missed.

Now whether that makes ANY sense to anybody besides Charis, I have no idea.

I might a jump in for a turn or two here, if I hit a famine period with all my other commitments.


- Sirian

One thing I just thought of that might discourage revolution back and forth between Communism is the fact that you generate no culture in anarchy, in addition to no gold and no shields. So if our rounds of whipping don't save at least two turns on the culture victory (once to flip to Communism, once to flip back to Monarchy or whatever we're at), we're better off not doing it. Now, I imagine we can get at least two turns' closer to 100k from our first few rounds like that, but the closer we get the less benefit there is to doing that (we wouldn't want to lose 2 turns' worth of culture to anarchy to rush temples that would only shave 1 turn off the victory date, not to mention the lost gold, beakers, and shields).