Discussion in 'Civ5 - Stories & Let's Plays' started by Civleader, Jul 16, 2012.
I would prefer GaP tied to CiV if possible.
I think I will be able to overcome my grief for a few seconds in order to add my two cents. I agree with others that GaP should remain in ciV. The one suggestion I would have is that it may be more fun if the game started with the country already built to some extent much like in Dot80's Imperium Romanorum. In both GaP's the game never really got past a certain point and players would have more oppurtunities to excel in a later empire.
Alright, I think it is general consensus to keep GaP with Civ V. As I said before, I might start the next game in the renaissance (or medieval era) to get things going a little quicker, and to have room for RP in the past. What do you think on playing as Celtia once again, as a "continuation" of this one? Or should we start with new civ?
I support a new civ.
And I agree that it might be a good idea to start with an already built (to some extent) nation to start in.
Same opinion as tambien here.
I favor a new civ
Wow, how rude.
There was no Aronokath situation.
The only reason it lasted so long is because I didn't get beat after the first punch. Look at all the past GaP rebellions against the "established order". They were all swift and decisive, that is, a clear victory for those in power and a complete and utter loss for those rebelling.
I not only managed to keep the problem going over multiple session turns, I planted the seed that would have made the Aronokaths a permanent thorn in the side of the "established order".
Even when it appeared you eliminated my rebel camp, somehow your house burned down and you perished, jehoshua. You eliminated camp after camp, sent assassin after assassin, and yet I still managed to survive.
The problem lies with you, not me. You need to admit that you couldn't beat me and my following. Sure, you killed most of the leaders, but I was never completely out of the picture.
I had 2500 religious followers and an insanely high status in the last turn. I was going to become a religious idol.
I caused the city burnings with 4 followers
Make power less absolute.
That is all I ask. Make it easier for lower ranked players to come to the top. Make it more difficult for established players to retain absolute control. My cronies and I had to kill spy after spy, deflect assassin after assassin, and we never managed to even breach the palace.
The innate income and rule-making for leaders makes it too easy to denounce or blacklist someone (like me) from the system.
The King had unlimited spies. Everywhere I went spies would follow me due to bounties. The King had control over all security forces and lawmaking. He could imprison without trial and execute.
For christ's sake, the King himself managed to hire assassins and kill timeless and his group. How does the King manage to hire assassins, even by sending an agent?
The King gets unlimited money. Nobody can beat the raw spending power he has, the military or political influence.
I know we might not have a King the next time around. All I ask is that there are means to climb to the top.
Also, I know there are various non-government means to power. We've been through this. I'm just saying that it's too easy to keep power once you get it. I'd like to see more balancing power.
And jeho, don't gun for me in GaP 3, alright? I'd be willing to set aside our differences. If you choose to allow your bias against me to leak into GaP 3, things will get messy.
You can tell us know Jeho. Also, both games ended when people started to migrate out of the country, it seems.
There was a situation, it was protracted and it was most definitely Aronokathian.
Not true, whilst king I only had four agents after you, any spies were from Jeho's ring - which he constructed prior to becoming king.
No assassins were hired to kill timeless legend
Considering the only reason you didn't seize power was poor timing and over-confidence and still managed to make a nuisance of yourself after I would say the balance is ok.
For GaP III go for a new Civ with a later start - either Classical or Renaissance. If Renaissance may I suggest a Terra map to allow for colonisation of the new world. I would agree with you playing a couple of turns to begin with to at least get the initial cities settled. The only issue with a later start would be form of the starting government - I suggest use the historical government form of the civ at that point in history.
I won't bother addressing P_Fs thing since most of what's in it is either factually erroneous (as Civleader would know and Filli has addressed) or merely crowing about how great and excellent he was/is, which of course is not worth answering other than to reassert what Filli said, which is that the game was balanced.
As to GaP III however, I would agree that a later start (Id go with classical myself) would perhaps be beneficial although the detail of how that would work obviously will need to be fleshed out. I'd also say that a different civilisation would be preferable compared to rehashing the celts, on either a Pangaea or Terrai map, would give people a new context to explore.
A Terra map would be awesome.
If you do end up doing a terra map consider reducing the number of civs by two from the default - they tend to get overcrowded in the early stages.
Hmmm.... Perhaps as a civ we should try the Inca?
I think that the culture and such is very interesting. However, they don't exactly fit the terra theme. Perhaps use YNAEMP instead?
No assassins were hired to kill timeless legend
Well who sent them. Either you or jehoshua sent an assassin group that wiped out timeless, his family, and his followers.
Timeless caught spies infiltrating his camp, and we knew that they were sent by the King, since we got word of it.
I second a new civ, I don't think terra is necessary though.
Terra + Rennesance start would allow for colonization and that could be a very cool mechanic if implemented correctly.
Hmmm.... perhaps. I still like the idea of Inca and YNAEMP
If only we could have kept going. I had a lot of surprises on the map. I will begin thinking on how to handle starting on an advanced era.
As to what Patriotic says, we have been through this before. You are only making suppositions, since you dont really know what other players do and have. But I believe your opposition to the establishment, as you call it, did not hinder the game, but made it interesting and added to the world of the game.
Ah well it is always sad when a game must end. Thank you civleader for another very interesting installment of GaP I think next time, if you still have them, I'd like to be an Assistant GM or whatever they are called. I find that I am not very good at games like these, and I think I would get more enjoyment from being on the other end. Can't wait for the next Good game everyone!
Thank you. I apologize for my reaction, but I was offended when *I* was blamed for the lack of roleplay (when I encouraged roleplay).
As such I would favour a more mercantile and naval based nation. Not the desert loving Persians or the forest loving Celts.
Separate names with a comma.