Should 5BC be in the constitution?
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
I'm for putting the 5BC variant in the Constitution.
We're talking about a decision about the basics of the Civ 3 game underneath the DG. 5BC is a compromise variant that will dramatically change our we play the initial aspects of the game, and give us new challenges as we progress through the game. Those new challenges are what makes this variant exciting. Suddenly, we can't simply "out-produce" everyone - we've got to plan. We can't just capture at will - we've got to think. Invasions by other civs will represent real threats, not minor irritants.
We very well could be in difficult situations later in the game than we ever have before - and that's the exciting part of this variant. An actual risk of defeat, of losing, adds thrill and a sense of accomplishment to a victory!
The Code of Laws is a document that is designed to be easily and simply changed - a simple majority. It's where the details are given. The Constitution is the basic framework we base our government on. That's a good description of the 5BC - it's the basic framework we base our Civ3 game on. Before, we didn't have any restrictions on that Civ3 game, so we didn't need anything in the Constitution. We do now.
The information about the 5BC variant belongs in the Constitution. If it has truly become unwieldy and impossible, the vast majority of citizens will vote to overturn this, as they would for any other such clause of the Constitution.
-- Ravensfire
We're talking about a decision about the basics of the Civ 3 game underneath the DG. 5BC is a compromise variant that will dramatically change our we play the initial aspects of the game, and give us new challenges as we progress through the game. Those new challenges are what makes this variant exciting. Suddenly, we can't simply "out-produce" everyone - we've got to plan. We can't just capture at will - we've got to think. Invasions by other civs will represent real threats, not minor irritants.
We very well could be in difficult situations later in the game than we ever have before - and that's the exciting part of this variant. An actual risk of defeat, of losing, adds thrill and a sense of accomplishment to a victory!
The Code of Laws is a document that is designed to be easily and simply changed - a simple majority. It's where the details are given. The Constitution is the basic framework we base our government on. That's a good description of the 5BC - it's the basic framework we base our Civ3 game on. Before, we didn't have any restrictions on that Civ3 game, so we didn't need anything in the Constitution. We do now.
The information about the 5BC variant belongs in the Constitution. If it has truly become unwieldy and impossible, the vast majority of citizens will vote to overturn this, as they would for any other such clause of the Constitution.
-- Ravensfire
Eklektikos said:
You'd think so -- but we have a lot of people saying they would rather lose the game than change the variant.
greekguy
Missed the Boat
I'd rather lose the game like a man, than whimp out and win buy churning out settlers and winning domination.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
Where's the point in playing a variant only for as long as you're sure that you're going to win? Losing the game will not necessarily make the DG a disaster provided the fight for survival is still fun.DaveShack said:
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Poll has been posted.
This ought to be the last ruleset poll. Let's get it done, and look at starting the game!
-- Ravensfire
This ought to be the last ruleset poll. Let's get it done, and look at starting the game!
-- Ravensfire
Eklektikos said:
I'm not saying we should change if losing -- I'm saying we should change if it's not fun!
Anyway, we'll see how it works.
Similar threads
