RBCiv Conquests SG Discussion Thread

With the arrival of C3Conquests and the warm enthusiasm of succession game players to play, I would like to open up this Discussion thread for topics related to RBCiv series games, whether tossing out ideas, hammering out parameters, or questions. Such threads have been very helpful in the past, both in the development of new ideas as well as for avoiding cluttering up existing 'game' threads with off-game-topic discussion.

For clarity, the RB series of games represent those of/by/for Realms Beyond Civilization, and the RBCn games are the new series for Conquests games (RBP was for PtW, RBD for the original game, RBE a wild ride of deity only games). It's not a formal guild or anything, just a (usually) like-minded set of folks who enjoy playing strategy and action games for their challenge, who favor honorable/non-exploitative play, and who like to have fun!

Homepage: http://www.realmsbeyond.net/civ/
Epics Rules and Discussion of Exploitative Tactics: http://www.realmsbeyond.net/civ/etactics.html
RBCiv Forum: http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/189557 (Includes all discussion of 'Epics' and other assorted topics)

RBC games are like a 'Republic', not owned by any one person or committee, but opened by those who abide by the non-exploit rules, and who have participated in and completed a RB succession game. These are 'musts' which ensure a consistent and quality game experience for all involved. The other near-must is to discuss a game in some fashion (RBCiv forum, PM, a SG or this thread) before starting it. We hate to see half-baked ideas for games started, or insufficient sign-up, which can litter the forum with games that are never finished (or worse, never started). Keep in mind too that the RBC series is a home for interesting or variant games, but by no means the only one. In the past year the number of outstanding variant/themed/challenging SG games has gone way up, and many folks playing along the lines of RB-Epic rules have their own series, which is cool to see.

I'll finish with the reason for kicking off this thread now -- we're going to be going through the 'Conquest' scenarios, and have started with RBC2 Mesopotamia Phoenicians. To give a wider audience a chance to sign up or comment on the games, and to get the right options set before a game is posted, let's use this thread for Conquest games discussion. Sulla (a beta tester) will be running the second one, Rise of Rome, so any discussion of that or others belongs here.

Thanks! I look forward to gaming with my many old friends here, as well as meeting several new ones through the joyride known as the 'Succession Game'. (Let me give a big thumbs up too, to Thunderfall, Chieftess, Moonsinger, Padma and other CFC fanatics who make this all possible! )

Let the games (discussions) begin!
Charis

I would be extremely interested in joining a Rise of Rome Conquests game (Sulla). I realize I am not an RBCiv player so I will have the least priority, but if there is an "A" and "B" team, maybe I can sneak in somewhere?
I have completed many Succession Games here at Civfanatics, and I "think" I have a decent rep.

We presently have three SG teams competing in a GOTM 24 variant that mad-bax and cracker have set up. It might be really fun to get several teams together to compete against each other in one of the Conquests. This would do several things:

1. Get more people involved in SGs
2. Get more people thinking in the RBCiv non-exploitive way of thinking (a hats off to folks like LKendter, T-Hawk, Arathorn and several others that I can't remember at the moment for promoting these ideas in their SGs)
3. Provide new experiences for all involved
4. Explore the new scenarios
5. Have fun competing as a team.

I'm sure you'll have a lot of sign ups.

Thanks for listening,
Bugs

Originally posted by Sir Bugsy
2. Get more people thinking in the RBCiv non-exploitive way of thinking (a hats off to folks like LKendter, T-Hawk, Arathorn and several others that I can't remember at the moment for promoting these ideas in their SGs)

Click to expand...

I think the ultimate testimony to that working is games have started saying we will use the LKendter or RBCiv exploit lists. RBCiv is the tougher of the two, but my list has gotten closer over time.

It might be really fun to get several teams together to compete against each other in one of the Conquests

Click to expand...

Would the GOTM team play by the RBCiv rules ?

Because each player posts a turn log, most of a team's actions can be scrutinized. Yes, a portion of a player's turn will be on the honor system, i.e. no re-loads. But that is the case in the RBCiv world also. I think this could be a great opportunity to spread the RB ethics, raise the levels of participation and skill, and spread the word that all of you have been trying get out over at RBCiv

I like your idea Bugsy. It could have Gotm teams, SG teams and RBCiv teams. We could call it the World Championship C3C matchups. I'll play in the SG team, if they'll have me.

OK, I'm slow on the uptake here. Now I understand what Skyfish is saying. I would think we could have 3 or 4 teams each playing the same game by the same rules. You could have folks chose a team with their buddies or have someone assign people to a team.

RBCiv is the tougher of the two, but my list has gotten closer over time.

Click to expand...

Except ofcourse in the case of worker buys .

I think the Charis is correct in thinking that RBC2 will be over quickly and after playing tonight I don't see why it wouldn't be. IF interest is strong enough I would like to be apart of the second team on the Rise of Rome game. The last Team/competion game I played with Sullla I think is still going on .

Anyway, I think that SG's are a great way to get introduced to the Conquest. I can't find time to delv into the conquest as a single player game but have been enjoying them in SG format.

Hotrod

I would also like to be a part of any RBC Conquest game.

I posted some ideas on the conquest scenariso in general and perhaps Sulla has some insight into my question.

The question is this: Does difficulty level matter? How does a conquest scenario vary by difficulty if unit numbers and locations are predetermined? SEE RBC2

I understand trading costs, production costs, happiness issues, etc but isn't one of the largest difference in Btween deity and say Monarch the sheer number of free units, settlers and workers the Deity AI starts with. Do the Conquest scenarios take difficulty level into account when starting units are determinge? I doubt it? All that being said what difficulty should these games be played at?

Hotrod

Count me in for a 2nd team in Rise of Rome if one is formed. I don't think either of the 2SG's I'm in are going to be very demanding time wise.

being a huge fan of Roman history I'd love to play in a rise of Rome scenario; however, as it appears that everyone wants to take part in that one, I won't mind if I don't make the cut.

Lots of interest floating around here and many different possible ideas. Let's see if I can clarify some of that a bit.

The question is this: Does difficulty level matter? How does a conquest scenario vary by difficulty if unit numbers and locations are predetermined? SEE RBC2

This is a valid question posed by hotrod. First of all, I'll say that those playing in the Mesopotamia SG have been a little thrown off their experiences - the games are not always that easy. Looking at the Phoenician civ, it definitely seems that they start in an excellent position to dominate the game. Maybe if I had formally tested that scenario, I would have seen the problem and addressed it. Sorry on that - couldn't be everywhere at once.

The real answer is that difficulty still matters in the scenarios, but MUCH LESS than it does in the standard game. Or, to put it another way, the difference between Emperor and Deity in one of the Conquests is much lower than in the standard game. This doesn't mean they are all easy, but on the whole, winning on Sid is entirely possible in the scenarios while it is next to impossible in a standard game. I recommend playing SGs on either Demigod or Deity, because with the players we have assembled here, anything less will be just a laugh to win on.


Here are the parameters for the game I had envisioned for the Rise of Rome SG.

Scenario: Rise of Rome
Civ: Carthago
Difficulty: Deity
Goal: Win by Domination before the time limit is up

Carthage starts and remains in a locked war with Rome for this entire scenarios. Can we first defend ourselves and then expand in the face of the strengthened (and Deity-cheap) Roman legions?

Interest is extremely high already for a game which hasn't even started yet. We can do a couple of different things here, whatever the group most is interested in. And we don't take this kind of sentiment: I'd love to play in a rise of Rome scenario; however, as it appears that everyone wants to take part in that one, I won't mind if I don't make the cut. If that happens, it's time to create another game with more signups! Here's some possible ideas:

1) Run "A" and "B" succession game teams from the same start, in the vein of smegged's RBD23 game (kudos to anyone who remembered/played in that game and is still here!)
2) Run "A" and "B" games with different civs on the same difficulty, to get the feel for two different sides. A Carthage/Roman dichotomy would be interesting to explore, or we could do Carthage/Persia for the non-classical civs thing.
3) Run "A" and "B" games with the same civ on different difficulty. Everyone might not be up for a Deity game, and we could then explore the effects of difficulty on the scenarios in more detail.
4) Something else I haven't thought of!

Running GOTM/RBCiv teams might not be the best idea; the goal is more to build cooperation than to turn this into a competition between rival bodies (heaven forbid someone start thinking of our groups as "clans"). I count 8 potential interests already, so if there are more signups we could possibly be going to three teams. Let's have some feedback on what options would be the best, so that by the weekend I can set up the games and start play.

Sulla: From the options you list I would favour having teams playing the same difficulty but playing different civs in the scenario to get a feel for the game from a different perspective.

I vote with Nad. Same difficulty, different Civs.
(P.S. what if you don't fall into the GOTM or the RBCiv spheres? I'm just a plain S.G. player here at Civfanatics.)

*((Gawd no! No clans please! What are we, a bunch of prebuscent 11 year olds playing shooter games??!! I've stopped playing games and stopped going to forums where clans have taken over!))

Thanks for stepping up Sulla, the enthusiasm is strong

I'll echo Rubberjello's comments, both on option #2: same-diff, different Civ (either Rome or Persia is ok), as well as 'eep, no clans'. For those thinking 'Deity?? No way!', fear not! Without the settler and starting units bonus it's mostly just a cost factor reduction, not a crushing REX that we face.

On the cooperation with other active players, I agree with you Sulla. In fact, I dare say that mixing up such participants would be a learning experience for both. I've learned alot from having Cartouche Bee for example, hopping into our SG's, and have lurked many of the top GOTM players' games -- playing together in the same SG with some of the solid GOTM folks would be delightful

Charis

I don't mind the idea of competing groups but I'm not promoting it either. It just depends on your definition of cooperation. If cooperation depends on all players from each group following the same rules, then its fair to say that cooperation has already been accomplished. Its how RB works. All players compete/play and then post a report. I don't see much difference.

I agree with Charis's comment "mixing up such participants would be a learning experience for both". Its why I like to play the SG's. Anyway my 2 cents. I'd like to follow with a lengthy disclaimer but I'll keep it simple and just reiterate that I'm not promoting the idea.

I'd like to keep my name on the table for this one. However, I'm in two SG's now and am trying to limit myself to one at a time. So not a sign up. Good luck.

Yet annother vote for the diffrent civs idea. I'd suggest Carthago and Persia. Rome has a bit of a stacked deck in this scenareo I believe so it would probably be more fun to stay from using them is my guess. Actually, If you had enough for 3 we could use all the non Roman Civs. That sounds like the most entertaining idea to me.

If we do diffrent civs I'd like to join the Carthago team if possible as they are my favorite historical civ.

Ok, so what do we have for a sign up list at the moment? Once we establish the interest level and consolidate our sign ups, we can figure out how many games we need/want.