Short game/Long game

In Civ 1-3, the only way to change the length of the game (besides winning or losing before modern times, of course) is to change the size of the map you play on. With a smaller map, there are less units to move and less cities to manage on each turn, so turns take less time, but there are always the same number of turns between 3000 BC and mandatory retirement (2050 in Civ 3).

How about a seperate option in the startup menus that allows you to choose "Quick game/Standard game/Long game" independantly of map size? I often play small or tiny maps because I have a job, a wife, and a kid: Civ doesn't get the time it used to when I was in college. I'd prefer to play on bigger maps, with more cities and more units, but those game just take too long for me these days. Likewise, I'm sure there are people at the opposite end of the spectrum: people who love to play really long games, but who'd prefer not to have to use the hugest maps because they think its boring to move so many units and manage so many cities.

So here's what I'm proposing: in addition to map size (which would of course still have a major impact on how long a game lasts), there would be this additional selection. If you chose "Standard game" things would be as they are now (I believe there are 500-something turns per game?). "Quick game" would make each turn twice as many years, so that 3000BC-to-Retirement was only half as many turns. The number of turns to research techs, and probably the number of shields to build improvements, units, etc, would get cut in half to compensate. On the flip side, "Long game" would have twice as many turns as "Standard" (modern times, currently at 1 year per turn, would have to either encompass more years total, or switch to a "winter/summer" scheme to fit 2 turns each year).

Someone with only a few hours to burn could theoretically play "Quick game" on a Tiny map, and someone who wanted a truly epic game could play "Long game" on a Huge map. But more importantly, for a reasonably short game, you could do either a small map with the standard number of turns or a standard (or maybe large) map with fewer turns, and likewise for a reasonably long game you'd have the option of a standard map with extra turns in addition to the current large/huge map option. What the heck, you could even play a long game on a tiny map, or a quick game on a huge map. That last one might appeal to people who don't want the game to take forever but who want to have as many opponents as possible.

Anyone else think this is a worthwhile idea?

judgement said:

Short game/Long game
Anyone else think this is a worthwhile idea?

Click to expand...

Not only do I think this is a worthwhile idea........I think it's THE MOST IMPORTANT change to the game!

If you want to play a game now AND go for a MAXIMUM score, the game lasts for hours OR days.....there should be an option to play a game in 1-2 hours and still have a competitive score! (And I don't mean playing Aztecs on Tiny, Chieftain Level with an 8-turn victory!)

EMan

P.s. I'm surprised more people have not added to this thread......maybe they're too busy playing a 400-hour Milk Run!
(I've done a few of them in my time!)

So, achieving very highly shouldn't require an investment? ???

Doesn't Accelerated Production already do a lot of what you want for a short game? The editor makes long games very easy, too -- just double the cost of everything, including time to grow, and away you go. (OK, it might be a bit more complicated, but....)

I think this is a reasonable idea, but one that already exists in Civ3 to a perfectly acceptable degree.

Of course, I think the scoring mechanism sucks and anybody who judges a game by that needs help.....

Arathorn

It's not the Winning of the game that's the problem......it's competing against humans in HOF/GOTM where short games are hard to come by......if you want to have a competitive score!

(Can't be messing with the editor in competitive games!)

Don't see why skillful games HAVE to be long ones!?

Then, it appears to me, you want the thrill of competition without the challenge. If it's easy, everybody will do it and there's no point in competing. If it's hard, you don't like it, because it's too competetive. Or takes too long. Or something.

You want to have a quick game with no real commitment, yet do well. I don't see why you would think that's reasonable (or even remotely a good thing).

Unless you eliminate ALL game-playing aspects, someone who plays better/more carefully will always do better than someone who breezes through a game quickly. I, personally, find that a good thing. [Of course, I don't have a compulsive need to compare myself to others, either.]

Arathorn

Arathorn said:

Then, it appears to me, you want the thrill of competition without the challenge.

Click to expand...

They go hand-in-hand in my book. How can competition be thrilling and NOT challenging?
(Assuming you're trying to beat your opponents!)

I don't want it to be easy.....I would rather play a 5-hour competitive game than a 400-hour one, that's all! (I think if you check my HOF/GOTM results, you will see many loooooong games.)

Would you play a 400-hour tennis match?

Amen. This is especially key for multiplayer, where you can't get people to sign on for an 18 hour micromanage-fest.

I'd also like to see a feature where you play the eras you want to play.

e.g.: play just the industrial age (1600-1900?)
e.g.: play the ancient era up until the industrial age (4000BC-1600)

And, of course, make it possible to win -- even dominate -- without playing a game 4 times as long. (this would be hard to implement, but could still be possible with some good gameplay concepts)