5BC discussion

[DaveShack]

Decisive? Daveshack, the option that won received 4 out of 24 votes! Receiving 1/6th of the vote is not majority. As I said before, you seem to think that compromise is screwing both sides over. Instead of both sides developing an alternative method, you just grabbed the middle and forced it upon us.

Hmm, let's see if a picture helps.

Note who opened this poll, and what the vote was. I followed the will of the people, nothing more.

 

[Furiey]

I notice Chieftess posted a link to Charis' 5CC story, SGOTM4 may also be interesting to read - it was a loose 5CC, so you could have more cities during the turn provided there were only 5 at the end. The results thread is here and there is a thread in the same forum for each team. Conquest and 20k victories were most popular, athough there was one spaceship. You'll find lots of discussion in the team threads on tactics and the spoiler threads will summarise everyone's progress as a couple of points in the game.

 

[Strider]

Hmm, let's see if a picture helps.

Note who opened this poll, and what the vote was. I followed the will of the people, nothing more.

You know full and well what poll I was talking about. I'm also certain that you know that the one you took a photo of isn't it. Although, for debate purposes I'll put in some comments from people, from that the same poll you placed in above..

its not a very good compromise, no one needs more than 20 cities... The only thing this variant would do is stop us from winning by domination, It won't add any challenge.

With 20 cities, we can easily win on a standard or small size map. That's no challenge - it just restricts how many corrupt cities we can have. A 10CC isn't much of a challenge either.

i dont agree. no limits, we just wont bulid to much

I could have won several hundred years earlier by conquest -- but before I hit button pressing mode it was 100% military except for the rare occasion where a tech opened up a new building -- build that in each of the 5 cities and then back to more military. This was also monotony, just a different kind.

As far as I could tell, I had to play it exactly like I did, no variation, to keep the AI from winning on points in 2050. If I left the last AI standing more than 5 cities then I would have a lower score, and wouldn't be able to trigger one of the other victory conditions.

Do we want a game which is scripted until the end? More cities would give us the potential to build frivolous things before their time, and keep the length of the button pressing period shorter.

Ummm... I'd stay for any difficulty. A sid demogame sounds like fun. I probably would fail at a sid game if I tried it alone, but with all of us bickering CFCers playing it... I'm actually starting to like it.

---------------------

Yes, the poll did receive a majority. However, when the poll was almost over, discussion start on wether or not we should just up the difficulty level. Demigod received enough support to warrent attention, however it was not given that. As such, we moved onto the poll that I've been questioning the entire time, which was horrendously flawed.

 

[Black_Hole]

You know full and well what poll I was talking about. I'm also certain that you know that that one isn't it. Although, for reasoning purposes I'll put in some comments from people, from that poll.

no, that comment was against the idea of 5 built cities and unlimited captured cities

 

[Strider]

no, that comment was against the idea of 5 built cities and unlimited captured cities

There was no discussion inside of that poll about keeping all captured cities.

 

[Chieftess]

Moderator Action: This thread went from discussing tactics and questions related to a 5BC, to a slugfest on should we have a 5BC challenge. This has gotten way off topic. Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889