What Level of Play?

[Cyc]

So, what level of C3C should we play at? Monarch? Higher?

Higher means tougher growth and tougher Barbs. What are your thoughts?

 

[DaveShack]

We don't want a cakewalk, nor do we want a level that requires a lot of technical game play. So as usual I'm thinking something in the middle.

 

[donsig]

Low level please. Higher levels are bad for demo games. The lower the difficulty level the less arguing there should be over trying to make perfect moves. Lower levels would allow us be sloppy in our civ play while enjoying demo game aspects of building up our civ. We could create a national identity for our civ and make our civ moves according to that instead of just making civ moves.

EDIT: Cross post with DaveShack and, guess what, we are not quite in agreement. I'm not so sure we don't want a cakewalk. Lower levels do not necessarily mean a cakewalk, especially if we put some DG constraints on ourselves. By this I mean we could decide we don't want to be conquerors and will never keep captured cities, but we won't raze them either. We'll give them back after the war is over. We could use our imagination here.

 

[Black_Hole]

Low level please. Higher levels are bad for demo games. The lower the difficulty level the less arguing there should be over trying to make perfect moves. Lower levels would allow us be sloppy in our civ play while enjoying demo game aspects of building up our civ. We could create a national identity for our civ and make our civ moves according to that instead of just making civ moves.

EDIT: Cross post with DaveShack and, guess what, we are not quite in agreement. I'm not so sure we don't want a cakewalk. Lower levels do not necessarily mean a cakewalk, especially if we put some DG constraints on ourselves. By this I mean we could decide we don't want to be conquerors and will never keep captured cities, but we won't raze them either. We'll give them back after the war is over. We could use our imagination here.

I agree completely. I would definitely prefer to make game decisions based on a "identity" that we make up instead of what would win us the civ game.

 

[Cyc]

Hmmm. I remember having heated discussions about pop-rushing. One thing I didn't like about Civ4 was the slavery aspect, and in earlier Demogames pop-rushing was likened to that.

Maybe we carry the one person/one vote concept all the way. No pop-rushing?

 

[GenMarshall]

Emperor, too high
Deity, too high

How about Monarch

 

[DaveShack]

Identity yes, "rules" about the identity no. Let it develop naturally via the pen and voting booth.

Too low a difficulty would mean no surprises, or at least fewer ones. I think surprises are necessary to keep spice in the game.

Ironically, my comment about not wanting a cakewalk was prompted by donsig's comment in the "how will you participate" thread about it not being fun to roll over the AI's too easily.

 

[Nobody]

i say if we go for a easyier difficulty then we rasie the ai agression. its fun to be attacked.

 

[Cyc]

i say if we go for a easyier difficulty then we rasie the ai agression. its fun to be attacked.

Hey! Nobody play the victim here, ok? Couldn't resist.

I do like this suggestion, Nobody. Monarch, but set the AI agression up a level?

 

[donsig]

Ironically, my comment about not wanting a cakewalk was prompted by donsig's comment in the "how will you participate" thread about it not being fun to roll over the AI's too easily.

I see things haven't changed over the years. Here's what I said:

It will also depend on how fun the game is. If it becomes a micromanaging, let's play the perfect game and pulverize the AI then I doubt it'll be much fun. If we try to play with some imaginative constraints then things could get fun.

My whole point was we don't have to ratchet up the difficulty level to prevent a cakewalk. We can give oursleves limits or handicaps to prevent a cakewalk, the idea being that the handicaps constitute our identity.

Identity yes, "rules" about the identity no. Let it develop naturally via the pen and voting booth.

For the constraints or handicaps to effectively prevent a cakewalk (and keep the DG interesting) they would have to be something we stick with. What good is a handicap if you abandon it once the going gets rough? And, also, are you saying we can't develop a hard and fast rule via the pen and voting booth as you so eloquently put it?

i say if we go for a easyier difficulty then we rasie the ai agression. its fun to be attacked.

Even more fun trying to win by not keeping conquered cities nor razing them but returning them. We could also play to keep the status quo land-wise. If two AI go to war we intervene we make sure all cities go back to their rightful owner.

 

[DaveShack]

I prefer a decision point by decision point style. As long as the 2nd decision is as easy to make as the 1st one, I'm ok with it. The people can make the same choice again or not depending on prevailing opinion at the time. If the 2nd decision is harder to make than the 1st, that's a bad thing.

Hopefully there will be some difficulty level that most feel is too low. <launches to look at the available difficulty levels> I would say chieftain is definitely too low. Warlord is also probably too low, thus regent is the lowest level I'd be interested in.

Regent or Monarch level is the best if we want to make our own difficulty.

 

[Furiey]

Babylon, winning by culture, only able to keep captured cities if they culture flip?

The higher the difficulty the more likely it is to push us to try to play the technically perfect game in my opinion.

 

[Nobody]

Even more fun trying to win by not keeping conquered cities nor razing them but returning them. We could also play to keep the status quo land-wise. If two AI go to war we intervene we make sure all cities go back to their rightful owner.

Yeah this type of thing sounds fun but i dont think we need to make it a rule e.g. "only citys we culture flip". If you want something like this elect leaders who have the same ideas or run for the position and vote for that kind of thing.

 

[CommandoBob]

Monarch with our own house rules? Sounds good to me.

Wouldn't our identity relate to how we want to win? Or derive from that? Like we're Zulu and want to go to Space, but we can only research one tech per age?

 

[donsig]

I prefer a decision point by decision point style. As long as the 2nd decision is as easy to make as the 1st one, I'm ok with it. The people can make the same choice again or not depending on prevailing opinion at the time. If the 2nd decision is harder to make than the 1st, that's a bad thing.

I don't think we can play a democracy game without making decisions one at a time as we go along. I don't understand your point about the second decision being more difficult. But moving right along, Nobody has the right idea here. Most likely nobody will have the same vision for our little civ. So we can form our little groups or parties around our competing visions and try to elect leaders who will adhere to that vision. (I assume here that political parties are not banned as they were in the old days.) That could actually be fun.

I agree we should go with either regent or monarch.

CommandoBob's idea is interesting. Sounded scary at first but it just means we'd have to buy alot of techs. I also like Furiey's idea of only being able to keep cities that flip to us. We do need to have room for our identity to grow.

 

[DaveShack]

I don't understand your point about the second decision being more difficult.

If one of these game restrictions is in the Constitution, and to change the Constitution it takes ...

Spoiler :

more votes to pass than an ordinary poll would ...

I assume here that political parties are not banned as they were in the old days.

We've just had a pretty horrible experience in the last Civ4 DG where we elected a slate of officers from a party (calling it a "faction") instead of individuals. I think we're much safer this game having each individual candidate state a platform. The old citizen groups would be ok, of course.

 

[Cyc]

But moving right along, Nobody has the right idea here. Most likely nobody will have the same vision for our little civ. So we can form our little groups or parties around our competing visions and try to elect leaders who will adhere to that vision. (I assume here that political parties are not banned as they were in the old days.) That could actually be fun.

The last line in Article A of the Constitution clearly states "Political parties are not permitted."

 

[Cyc]

Wouldn't our identity relate to how we want to win? Or derive from that? Like we're Zulu and want to go to Space, but we can only research one tech per age?

Hey! Welcome, CommandoBob! Sounds like we've got our Science Leader. Interested?

 

[donsig]

If one of these game restrictions is in the Constitution, and to change the Constitution it takes ...

Spoiler :

more votes to pass than an ordinary poll would ...

So if the identity rules were in a lower form of law that was easier to change you wouldn't mind?

We've just had a pretty horrible experience in the last Civ4 DG where we elected a slate of officers from a party (calling it a "faction") instead of individuals. I think we're much safer this game having each individual candidate state a platform. The old citizen groups would be ok, of course.

The last line in Article A of the Constitution clearly states "Political parties are not permitted."

So does this mean two or more people can't run for different offices on the same platform?

 

[DaveShack]

I don't see any reason to prevent several people from having the same platform. That by itself doesn't constitute a political party.

What's the difference between a lower form of law, and the last recorded decision on a topic?