the domination of space race victories...

[cleverhandle]

Is it really necessary to make fun of people who play smaller maps so that the game doesn't bog down their system?

No kidding. Do we really need the chest-thumping and sausage-twirling? Maybe some people like smaller maps. Maybe some people just want to have a blast taking over the world at Settler and don't feel the need to prove their manhood. Let people play their own game. So long as everyone is clear about what level they're talking about when discussing strategy, I don't see what the problem is.

Since Ravinhood is a new member, maybe he doesn't realize that this forum consists largely of adults who prefer a community that treats its members with respect. Take the juvenile trash talk some other place.

 

[Ravinhood]

Mansa Munsa won a diplomatic victory against me on Noble in my most recent game. It was annoying, but fair.

To echo the earlier poster, turning off Space Race is designed into the game. We all have games that we like to play; i like to pangea with space race and time victory shut off and "random personalities" engaged. Everyone is different.

-John

That's exactly the way I play. Applaudes John. Most fun and challenging game of all. I do go the Huge Epic games though with bigger maps custom created with a few XML changes.


[Take the juvenile trash talk some other place.]

Actually that sounds more like you are the juvenile since an adult would be more "patient" and in some cases more "compassionate" to trying to understand a persons personalities instead of just ignoring them or shutting the door in their face. But, then again maybe you are just the new age of adult who doesn't care about anyone but him/herself? eh?

 

[yoshi74]

I actually think that Diplomatic Victory is the greatest offender and most worthy of being turned off. Dating back to AC, I've always hated how easy it was to achieve. Unless you play on a small map with few rivals, it pretty much renders domination and conquer victories obsolete.

Why bother finishing off all of your enemies when you can just elect yourself winner of the game twenty turns earlier?

Don't think the diplo win is as easy as it was in CivIII or earlier. Its pretty easy when you only elect yourself shortly before you hit domination/conquest.
But when you actually need several others to vote for you its really much harder. Just try it. The cheese easy win option now is the space race.

 

[SmartMuffin]

Don't think the diplo win is as easy as it was in CivIII or earlier. Its pretty easy when you only elect yourself shortly before you hit domination/conquest.
But when you actually need several others to vote for you its really much harder. Just try it. The cheese easy win option now is the space race.

Glad to hear it. Seeing as I don't actually have this game yet, I probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.

But answer me this:

Is there any possible circumstance where you achieve a conquest or domination victory and couldn't have achieved a diplomatic victory at least 10 turns earlier?

My point is that as long as diplomatic victory is enabled, and you don't make a concious decision that you're aboslutley going to win in one certain way no matter what, you're essentially turning off conquest and domination.

 

[Mujadaddy]

Glad to hear it. Seeing as I don't actually have this game yet, I probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.

But answer me this:

Is there any possible circumstance where you achieve a conquest or domination victory and couldn't have achieved a diplomatic victory at least 10 turns earlier?
My point is that as long as diplomatic victory is enabled, and you don't make a concious decision that you're aboslutley going to win in one certain way no matter what, you're essentially turning off conquest and domination.

Of course there is... I can think of two...

1. No one ever built the UN...
2. In your haste to destroy everyone else, you razed the city in which the UN was built...

 

[SmartMuffin]

Of course there is... I can think of two...

1. No one ever built the UN...
2. In your haste to destroy everyone else, you razed the city in which the UN was built...

Razing Wonder cities??? That's harsh... even for me!

As far as not building the UN, well, yeah, that's why in my first post I mentioned a small map with few rivals where you could feasibly achieve total conquest in a relativley short time.

 

[yoshi74]

Is there any possible circumstance where you achieve a conquest or domination victory and couldn't have achieved a diplomatic victory at least 10 turns earlier?

If you are strong enough to vote yourself alone the victor you can do that. If you have the UN that is. But this isn't really a real diplo-victory by definition .
But at this position its quite unimportant whether you vote to victory or kill the remaining or just wait for histo-win. The game was long ago over.

 

[SmartMuffin]

Oh, well for the record, I don't consider histo to be a win. Ever since the days of Civ1 I always thought retiring without having met a "win condition" was a loss.

As far as voting yourself winner or not, well, I think that usually one doesn't attempt to war with several civs at a same time, meaning that unless you're at the very end of your conquest victory, you're going to have some allies who will vote for you, but typically these allies have a fraction of your population. If they had enough population to be a real factor, they'd vote for themselves

 

[Ravinhood]

I wonder how many people play/setup games in the beginning "they know" they are going to win? I mean if you've played a small map to victory even several times, why keep always stacking the element of victory in your favor? Are you that weak as a person if you lost a game to the AI you would be crushed and fear being humiliated by the gaming public if they found out? hehe (and hell they aren't going to find out unless you tell them) lol

I always take the near most extreme choice of what to play and how to play/setup the game. I might turn all the conditions off except 1 and play toward that goal, but, I always use the largest maps I can get and with 14+ civs, adjusting for variance in each game.

Also, if I have won on one level of difficulty, I always move up to the next level until I win a game on that level, then keep moving up until I reach the difficulty where I come close nearly every game, but, just don't quite get a victory out of it. Now, to me that's the best game. Winning isn't the reason I play any game, for it to be "challenging" is more important. That feeling of "almost" is more exhilerating than "I did it", because when you reach "I did it" it's over, the challenge isn't there anymore, you're just wasting time playing something you know you are going to win, boring to me playing a game like that.

I have no need to come to some forum and thump my chest about how I beat the AI on Diety on a "small/tiny" map. Yet, I see some doing this. But, I certainly would applaud anyone who came to the forum and told their story about how they beat the AI on Diety on a HUGE EPIC PANGEA map playing against 14+ civs. That to me is an accomplisment. The others are just simple tasks exploiting the weakness of the AI by lesser numbers.

Just wondering, so why do some of you setup games you know you are going to win?

 

[Renata]

You seem to be under the impression that 'large' = 'difficult' and 'small' = 'easy'. Why is that? It certainly wasn't the case in Civ3. If anything, the opposite was true -- more civs meant more trading opportunities (therefore easier to catch up from the typical Deity pit-of-medieval-despair), and larger maps meant less need to manage corruption carefully. There was a reason that most of the casual players who just wanted to piddle around endlessly building things gravitated toward 'huge'.