Progressive MP game thread

I just arrived home and it's too late for me to play anymore, but I managed to do this one as nothing important was needed from me this turn. Both other turns i'll take tomorrow morning.

So Turns Done, Joseph is up

 

My and Acularius turns taken, Koshling next

 

Magnus is up...

 

Turn 126 completed, Thunderbrd is up for 127.

 

Turn taken! S&S up!

 

Turns Done, Joseph is up

 

Acularius next,

If no response by end of day will take his turn then.

EDIT: Acularius turn taken Koshling Up!

 

Over to Magnus...

 

Turn 127 completed, over to Thunderbrd for 128.

 

Turns taken! S&S are up!

 

Turns Done, Joseph is up

 

I will take both our turns this evening. BUT....if I don't hear from Acularius soon, like by the end of this week say Friday evening, I am going to turn our empires over to the AI.

EDIT: Koshling next!

 

It would be a pity to lose you from the game. You have been very reliable at taking your turns, if nothing else. We could probably find someone to take over for Acularius. Again.

On the other hand, instead of turning over to the AI, you could surrender to me, and have Acularius surrender to Thunderbrd. That would make things interesting. Also, there are enough AIs on this map is it is.

 

I'm not sure that's possible with teams and if it was we'd be torn apart by the distance to capital upkeep if we kept those cities.

 

Yeah, it probably would. It is just a pity to lose more actual human players to AI.

 

Whos says I'm "human"? T-brd has other ideas about that.

 

Naw... I just think you're wrong where we disagree, not inhuman. I don't begrudge you at all but I find it frustrating that I so often have to make executive decisions to override your opinion. This is because I'd LOVE to be able to be supportive but I can't be that when I cannot agree with the stance you're taking. I'm unfortunately too honest and too much a stickler for certain details. I just wish you were more often capable of seeing the points I make. I KNOW you think the same thing in reverse, feeling like I'm just somehow not seeing what you feel is obvious, but I do, and you probably do see my points too, and when it comes down to it, the difference is in what we value in game designs. You're trying to make things inviting to those who might be intimidated by more difficult structural webs and I'm trying to make things inviting to those who are easily bored by games too easy to disseminate and master.

That said, you should stick this out imo. I'd much prefer to have you in this game. And while one might assume Whisperr and I would be dominating this game due to familiarity with the dynamics, this one is my worst struggle so far due to some very strong wilderness opposition and very poor initial plots. We might recover some but we are nowhere near the dominant players at the moment.

 

Isn't this what SO wants? So players can "Just Have Fun", like the mod says, when you start a new game. No one should ever be excluded because of their level of play.

 

You'd have to try pretty hard to lose on Settler level.

 

Normally, I am entirely in favor of complexity over simplicity, but I also favor giving people choices. In other words, why not do both? Make the more complicated stuff options (as per Developing Leaders, for example), so that people can play the game with or without it. It isn't even about 'level of play', just personal preference.

On the other hand, why would a person load up a mod like C2C, which emphasizes complexity and options, and expect a simple game? If they want simple, then can play BtS, vanilla Civ4, or gods-forbid, Civ5 or Civ6.

To rephrase what I said several posts above to JosEPh, "Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you..."