Four Four Seven
Spearman
I think the concept of the Game of the Month is a great one. However, there is a large segment of us who simply can't beat the AI at Emporer, who rarely have time for a long game, and who are shocked at the ridiculously high scores some people come up with.
Solution? A "Bad Player Game of the Month!" I propose we institute a second (informal) GOTM for those of us who aren't Civ aces! My humble suggestions for this:
1) If you can beat Emporer, you're not eligible. You can still play, but your score won't show up in the standings. This is the minor leagues, we don't want superstars!
2) We'll play at the medium levels. I personally would prefer Regent and maybe Monarch if we're feeling particularly bold. If people want easier levels, especially to start out, that would be okay, too.
3) We'll only play on tiny, small, and standard size maps. There tends to be a direct correlation between being a bad player and playing less frequently. In order to have time to get a game done, we need to keep the map smaller.
4) I've read all about the strategies for scoring high ("milking", "ICS" and all those other fancy terms... ). Those, again, take more time. I suggest we simply look your ranking by year of victory. Perhaps we have winners for each type of victory. If you lose (like we bad players often do), you note your year of defeat. Tiebreaker for same-year victory can be score, I suppose. That's it!
5) If you win the "Bad Player Game of the Month," you go into the "Bad Player Hall of Fame." Note that if you win again, we may get annoyed at your ability, and we'll ban you!
6) If you cheat/use trainers in the "Bad Player Game of the Month," you clearly have nothing better to do with your time, and that's just plain sad. But maybe we can allow a limited number of reloads for those who don't think through their actions too carefully? Then again, that's a slippery slope, so maybe not...
What do people think? I'm interested especially in the opinion of other "bad players."
Solution? A "Bad Player Game of the Month!" I propose we institute a second (informal) GOTM for those of us who aren't Civ aces! My humble suggestions for this:
1) If you can beat Emporer, you're not eligible. You can still play, but your score won't show up in the standings. This is the minor leagues, we don't want superstars!
2) We'll play at the medium levels. I personally would prefer Regent and maybe Monarch if we're feeling particularly bold. If people want easier levels, especially to start out, that would be okay, too.
3) We'll only play on tiny, small, and standard size maps. There tends to be a direct correlation between being a bad player and playing less frequently. In order to have time to get a game done, we need to keep the map smaller.
4) I've read all about the strategies for scoring high ("milking", "ICS" and all those other fancy terms... ). Those, again, take more time. I suggest we simply look your ranking by year of victory. Perhaps we have winners for each type of victory. If you lose (like we bad players often do), you note your year of defeat. Tiebreaker for same-year victory can be score, I suppose. That's it!
5) If you win the "Bad Player Game of the Month," you go into the "Bad Player Hall of Fame." Note that if you win again, we may get annoyed at your ability, and we'll ban you!
6) If you cheat/use trainers in the "Bad Player Game of the Month," you clearly have nothing better to do with your time, and that's just plain sad. But maybe we can allow a limited number of reloads for those who don't think through their actions too carefully? Then again, that's a slippery slope, so maybe not...
What do people think? I'm interested especially in the opinion of other "bad players."
