Planning cIV BTS MTDG III
- Thread starter Sommerswerd
- Start date
nabaxo
King
Oh wow. Going from OFF to ON just like that. 
It seems that things are converging so here are the final settings that somehow could affect to the map:
Map - MAPMAKER'S CHOICE, something random/special, decent amount of land, not archipelago
Wrap - TOROIDAL
Mirrored starts - NO (capital locations are very similar though)
Fair/balanced starts - YES
Corporations - ON
Barbs - ON
Speed - NORMAL
Huts - OFF
Allow all teams pre-optics contact - YES
Size - Huge (game setting) - In reality something between 80-100 x 40-60
Difficulty - Emperor
I won't say anything else about the map until the pick up process is finalized.
Map - MAPMAKER'S CHOICE, something random/special, decent amount of land, not archipelago
Wrap - TOROIDAL
Mirrored starts - NO (capital locations are very similar though)
Fair/balanced starts - YES
Corporations - ON
Barbs - ON
Speed - NORMAL
Huts - OFF
Allow all teams pre-optics contact - YES
Size - Huge (game setting) - In reality something between 80-100 x 40-60
Difficulty - Emperor
I won't say anything else about the map until the pick up process is finalized.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Hahah, good one
This comes also to show how wrong someone can be when trying to guess what others would vote or want and decide instead of them.
nabaxo
King
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
Thanks again, Plako for your work and your sacrifice of not participating in the game itself, it is highly appreciated.
I do want to ask though, how starting locations will be decided? I read somewhere about starting locations being numbered on the map and then after the teams leader/civ choices are done, then the admin randomizes and gives to the mapmaker which team goes where? This sounds to me like a good way this to be done.
.
2metraninja
Defender of Nabaxica
for our outstanding mapmaker!Regis Hastur
Chieftain
Civforum.de picked Inca
Wow, very cool. Thanks to all the teams for clearing up their votes so quickly. When I saw this issue come up I was expecting days of debate. Now we've got a definitive espionage vote, and a civ choice! That's pretty good for one day.
Mojoqmeyvam
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 129
Apolyton is up.
Spanish Apolyton is on deck (i.e., next).
Spanish Apolyton is on deck (i.e., next).
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I'm at a loss that the voting is presently in favour of leaving a demonstrably broken and exploitative mechanic in the game for abuse. What do we gain from allowing a clearly incorrectly scaled mechanic in the game like this? Teams who intend to aid their victory by the use of such a broken mechanic may as well just use the Oracle or Liberalism to take multiple techs. They're not that different - one gains hundreds or thousands of beakers in a one-off for free, the other costs a specific opponent hundreds or thousands of beakers over 5 turns (+ even more in potential anarchy), for the input of only a few hundred espionage points from a minion nation (investing 1 turn or less at that point in the game), and can potentially be repeated indefinitely.
When it can cost less espionage points to mess with an entire empire than with a single city, you know something is very wrong.
When it can cost less espionage points to mess with an entire empire than with a single city, you know something is very wrong.
What pick are we on? 3? So It's just Ragnar and Inca that have been picked right? Need to start brainstorming on choices so I just want to be sure. Is there a thread where the picks are being recorded?
OzzyKP
Deity
Wow, very cool. Thanks to all the teams for clearing up their votes so quickly. When I saw this issue come up I was expecting days of debate. Now we've got a definitive espionage vote, and a civ choice! That's pretty good for one day.
TWO civ choices.
OzzyKP
Deity
Uh, yea. This thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=463321
And we're on pick 4 now.
Yep found it. Thanks OzzyI agree that we shouldn't.. I believe many just voted yes without thinking of the consequences of these missions, but the rest must adapt anyway.. it's democracy after all.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Here's an example of the potential consequences.
T100: Spy swaps civics in your empire, 5 turn wait imposed before you can do anything.
T101: Can't switch back, 4 turns to go
T102: Can't switch back, 3 turns to go
T103: Can't switch back, 2 turns to go
T104: Can't switch back, 1 turn to go
T105: You switch to your original civics, 5 turn wait supposedly imposed. Later that turn, a spy swaps your civics, ignoring the 5 turn wait. New 5 turn wait imposed.
T106: Can't switch back, 4 turns to go
T107: Can't switch back, 3 turns to go
T108: Can't switch back, 2 turns to go
T109: Can't switch back, 1 turn to go
T110: You switch back. Later that turn, a spy swaps your civics, ignoring the 5 turn wait. New 5 turn wait imposed.
...and so on and so forth. It can potentially go on like that indefinitely, as long as there is a minion nation around willing to build a couple of Spies and spend a turn or two on full espionage every now and then to screw with you. There is no minimum wait period for these missions - Spies can enact them at any time... only just switched or not, Anarchy or not.
This is not a "tactic" nor a "strategy" - it's a broken exploit in its present form, plain and simple. It's only made worse in high-level multiplayer games with a large number of human opponents. It's no different than grabbing extra techs with the Oracle or Liberalism - sure the game allows you to do it in regular play, but that doesn't mean it's not highly exploitative. And that is why it's silly not to ban the civic/religion swap missions.
It's foolish to allow exploitative mechanics in a game like this. I would hope that we would all be here to try to test our collective skill and wit across an epic game of Civ4... not to test who can abuse a demonstrably broken mechanic the most effectively.
T100: Spy swaps civics in your empire, 5 turn wait imposed before you can do anything.
T101: Can't switch back, 4 turns to go
T102: Can't switch back, 3 turns to go
T103: Can't switch back, 2 turns to go
T104: Can't switch back, 1 turn to go
T105: You switch to your original civics, 5 turn wait supposedly imposed. Later that turn, a spy swaps your civics, ignoring the 5 turn wait. New 5 turn wait imposed.
T106: Can't switch back, 4 turns to go
T107: Can't switch back, 3 turns to go
T108: Can't switch back, 2 turns to go
T109: Can't switch back, 1 turn to go
T110: You switch back. Later that turn, a spy swaps your civics, ignoring the 5 turn wait. New 5 turn wait imposed.
...and so on and so forth. It can potentially go on like that indefinitely, as long as there is a minion nation around willing to build a couple of Spies and spend a turn or two on full espionage every now and then to screw with you. There is no minimum wait period for these missions - Spies can enact them at any time... only just switched or not, Anarchy or not.
This is not a "tactic" nor a "strategy" - it's a broken exploit in its present form, plain and simple. It's only made worse in high-level multiplayer games with a large number of human opponents. It's no different than grabbing extra techs with the Oracle or Liberalism - sure the game allows you to do it in regular play, but that doesn't mean it's not highly exploitative. And that is why it's silly not to ban the civic/religion swap missions.
It's foolish to allow exploitative mechanics in a game like this. I would hope that we would all be here to try to test our collective skill and wit across an epic game of Civ4... not to test who can abuse a demonstrably broken mechanic the most effectively.
Similar threads
- Sticky
