Compromise Poll

[Ginger_Ale]

I won my 5CC last night, by 20K culture, in 2048. It was Monarch, small, 60%, continents, random terrain/water/temp, as Carhtage. Doing so took hours of monotony, hitting the button, clearing pollution, button, pollution, etc. Once in a while confirming a tech choice or queueing up another wonder for my 20K city. In a demogame, this would be weeks or even months of monotony.

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.

Who says you need to win by Histographic or Culture?

A 5CC Conquest is very possible (MeteorPunch did one as the English and won very quick - check the Stories and Tales forum), as is a 5CC Space Race. They would take no longer than a normal game, maybe every shorter because we have less cities to control.

 

[DaveShack]

Who says you need to win by Histographic or Culture?

A 5CC Conquest is very possible (MeteorPunch did one as the English and won very quick - check the Stories and Tales forum), as is a 5CC Space Race. They would take no longer than a normal game, maybe every shorter because we have less cities to control.

In my game I was researching space flight when time ran out. As I said in my post, conquest would have been much earlier, maybe the 1800's or so. I was researching at max and had an entire age of tech lead -- the remaining AI was still in the middle ages.

What about this: 5 Built City, and allow us to keep conquored civ's original and final capitals, and cities containing wonders? That gives us a bit more spice.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Sounds like a good one, DaveShack.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Fine by me, as long as it is a Standard Map or smaller.

Now is it relaxed? Or strict? (Can we keep cities until the end of turn)? I say strict, because now we can hold other cities.

MeteorPunch, turning to this as an alternative to GOTM and SGs?

 

[DaveShack]

So this poll has the most support so far. Any disagreement with using this thread as the discussion thread to build a custom DG variant of 5CC, and then polling that for ratification? Or should this be the ratification poll for the idea and we can build in the variant itself into the rules?

 

[Black_Hole]

In my game I was researching space flight when time ran out. As I said in my post, conquest would have been much earlier, maybe the 1800's or so. I was researching at max and had an entire age of tech lead -- the remaining AI was still in the middle ages.

What about this: 5 Built City, and allow us to keep conquored civ's original and final capitals, and cities containing wonders? That gives us a bit more spice.

I would go for this, but I am still not buying a limited city game, a 14CC has no challenege...

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Lets use this as a stepoff point. From what I can construe, the 6 nos are basically between those who strictly want a 5CC and those stupidly unwilling to compromise at all.

We can work with this.

The 5 build and capture idea seems good, but we can't overdo it. I can understand keeping capitals, heck, that'd be fun. But not too much besides that. (Besides, if the capitals are far away enough, they'd be worthless and serve mainly as mementos.)

This could be the begining of a working strategy...

 

[Black_Hole]

How about a max of 2 cities per conquored civs?

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

That could be tricky depending on the map size and amount of civs we play with.

But 2 sounds like a nice number. Allows us to do some real planing to decide which cities we're going to keep. Also gives us a set number of cities were allowed to have.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

That's 19 cities - hmm...

I would rather do 1 city per conquered civ (with a goal of Conquest) - maybe even we can just capture the capitals. This would equal 5 + 7 cities, or 12. Enough for the FP, but not too much to be overpowering. We could try this on Monarch, I think. Emperor would be a bit hard, unless we want number crunching.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

12 cities sounds fair. Plus, it makes us really think about which cities we kept.

Can we hear from anyone else about the number 12?

 

[vikingruler]

this sounds like a good idea, but i like 2 cities per civ. 2 cities from each civ would allow a more in-depth strategy like SaaM said we would have to think about which ones we keep.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

2 is too much. that gives us 19 cities, which is basically what happens if you have a close neighbor.

12 is more of a chalange.

 

[DaveShack]

That's 19 cities - hmm...

I would rather do 1 city per conquered civ (with a goal of Conquest) - maybe even we can just capture the capitals. This would equal 5 + 7 cities, or 12. Enough for the FP, but not too much to be overpowering. We could try this on Monarch, I think. Emperor would be a bit hard, unless we want number crunching.

Monarch vs Emporer is a roll of the dice from what I saw in my recent game. Get good resource locations and Emporer is quite doable even without the captured cities. Missing a resource and you're screwed big time, and Monarch might even be hard.

I think capitals and cities with wonders or resources which are worthy of being kept -- and we shouldn't be afraid to go ahead and raze a low-value capital or two in order to preserve the ability to capture better ones later. Start with a limit of 1 per civ (but allocated any way we want) and we need a high percentage like 2/3 majority vote to go over.

 

[Black_Hole]

So 5 built cities and enemy capitals? That sounds good...

 

[greekguy]

Wow, so this poll actually worked. we'll have a 5BCC (five built city challenge). we should probably poll how many cities we can capture. 1 per civ? 2 per civ? enemy capitals? wonder citys?

EDIT: figured a poll should go up sooner, rather than later. Vote Here

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Exactly. Now we can feud over whether to use 2 captured cities or 1.

Well... at least its something different to feud about.

 

[greekguy]

Exactly. Now we can feud over whether to use 2 captured cities or 1.

Well... at least its something different to feud about.

Well... at least it's is progress. we have a variant, now we need specifics.

 

[MeteorPunch]

5CC start.
+1 city for each destroyed civ.
+1-2 city for each era change.

 

[Strider]

Let's just play a Sid game, up the number of settlers the AI starts off with by 2 and then call it a day (that'll be 6 settlers the AI starts off with?).