Who is ready to Cut more Crap? - Page 10

Azza · 29-09-2009, 03:52

I'd also like some sort of guard against razing large cities, but I'd much prefer it to be an out of game rule. Small cities should be fair game for razing IMO.

In the same vein, I think diplo checked but an agreement not to use the diplo victory is ideal.

Robi D · 29-09-2009, 06:24

Since BUFFY has potential bugs for MP then i agree to leave it for the game.

I'm happy to have a gentlemen's agreement on not going for diplomatic victory while leaving it checked.

With the no city razing i don't think barb cities were an issue since the map was slightly crowded (which i think it should be again so you get eariler contacts with others) but if others think that barbs should be off then i have no issue since they are a non factor anyway.

Definately a working in a starting stack, and noble is default for mp games.

I can't see that its mentioned anywhere are we choosing civs or is it random

Lt. Killer M · 29-09-2009, 09:36

I am undecided wrt city razing. Allowing it opens up some unreasonable options, but banning it removes one of the most effective options of keeping large empires in check.

Stapel · 29-09-2009, 10:51

It looks like we are getting somewhere!

HOWEVER:
It hate to say this, but I will be in rural east butt-fuck this weekend. No internet there, not even cellphone coverage. I will be back on Monday 5 October. I would really dislike the idea of a substitue doing the opening turns. Can we live with a start on Monday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt. Killer M

I am undecided wrt city razing. Allowing it opens up some unreasonable options, but banning it removes one of the most effective options of keeping large empires in check.

From the last game, I remember I was quite pissed when I found out I couldn't raze a city I took from Matrix. Later on, I realised I had a great option of leaving cities as bait, without risking to lose it for good. This worked as a great feature in the war I waged with Robi D.

However, on a 16 player map, Lt might have a fair point.

I'm indifferent on it.

FWIW: I've never seen the fun of barbs. Doesn't add much to the game, imho.
What about random craphola crap? Off, I suppose?

Indiansmoke · 29-09-2009, 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt. Killer M

I am undecided wrt city razing. Allowing it opens up some unreasonable options, but banning it removes one of the most effective options of keeping large empires in check.

Exactly! I mean if someone has infantry while I still have knights and he leaves his capital unguarded, why should I not be able to raise it and give myself a chance to get back in the game?

No city raising makes mindless expansion much more dominant as you know the city will not be raised and you can get it back....which brings me back to my point...if I get an imperialist neighbour who decides to spam nothing but settlers (especially since barbs are off) and he fills my land misplacing his cities...why do I have to be responsible for this?

Why should I not have the option to raise his misplaced cities and make my own?

socralynnek · 29-09-2009, 13:18

Because I think, there will be no one spamming the country with useless cities.
We are not playing Civ3, so someone who spams useless cities will pay so much, that he is out of the game (especially as we will be playing No Tech Trades, so no tech gifts)

And: Especially as long as culture is low, the risk to never get back a city that one has lost is so high, that we won't see someone spamming cities unprotected.

I perwsonally think, that the advantages of "No city razing" for gameplay are higher than the disadvantages.

Matrix · 29-09-2009, 13:28

I myself am away from thursday till wednesday, but in the weekend I'll probably have internet and Civ4 available.

I'm not afraid of the settler-spawning-bad-city-placements-tactic, because that definitely won't help towards your victory. You're just screwing it up for yourself and possibly your opponent.

I think what makes the biggest difference is the presence of water. If we're playing on an archipelago map, city razing is a must IMO. On a pangaea map I agree city razing has more advantages than disadvantages.

I sense a poll is coming up...

Wosret · 29-09-2009, 14:28

Well... azzas option sounds good, if we put a poll up that should be considered.

We can define the maximum size to a city get razed.

Indiansmoke · 29-09-2009, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by socralynnek

I perwsonally think, that the advantages of "No city razing" for gameplay are higher than the disadvantages.

I am a bit confused about the advantages of ths option...what exactly are they?

socralynnek · 29-09-2009, 15:30

The advantages are IMO, to push the players to building solid empires themselves.
This helps the players who are a little behind to stay interested in the game as a bigger player can't steamroll over them as easily as before and destroy their empire in just a few turns

I guess, this might be one of the reasons why so little players quit in our pitboss games. It's because even the ones who are a little behind stay relevant in the game.

29-09-2009, 06:24	#92
Robi D King Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Adelaide, Australia. Posts: 2,060	Since BUFFY has potential bugs for MP then i agree to leave it for the game. I'm happy to have a gentlemen's agreement on not going for diplomatic victory while leaving it checked. With the no city razing i don't think barb cities were an issue since the map was slightly crowded (which i think it should be again so you get eariler contacts with others) but if others think that barbs should be off then i have no issue since they are a non factor anyway. Definately a working in a starting stack, and noble is default for mp games. I can't see that its mentioned anywhere are we choosing civs or is it random __________________ "I'm altering the deal, prey I don't alter it further" Darth Vader "We shall defend what is ours. We shall never surrender" --Kosovo is Serbia!

29-09-2009, 09:36	#93
Lt. Killer M Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: HAWK!. Posts: 4,365	I am undecided wrt city razing. Allowing it opens up some unreasonable options, but banning it removes one of the most effective options of keeping large empires in check. __________________ One more turn..... just one more turn... one MORE!

29-09-2009, 13:18	#96
socralynnek Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USS Defiant Posts: 3,827	Because I think, there will be no one spamming the country with useless cities. We are not playing Civ3, so someone who spams useless cities will pay so much, that he is out of the game (especially as we will be playing No Tech Trades, so no tech gifts) And: Especially as long as culture is low, the risk to never get back a city that one has lost is so high, that we won't see someone spamming cities unprotected. I perwsonally think, that the advantages of "No city razing" for gameplay are higher than the disadvantages. __________________ Being without a signature since November 2004.

29-09-2009, 13:28	#97
Matrix Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 4,828	I myself am away from thursday till wednesday, but in the weekend I'll probably have internet and Civ4 available. I'm not afraid of the settler-spawning-bad-city-placements-tactic, because that definitely won't help towards your victory. You're just screwing it up for yourself and possibly your opponent. I think what makes the biggest difference is the presence of water. If we're playing on an archipelago map, city razing is a must IMO. On a pangaea map I agree city razing has more advantages than disadvantages. I sense a poll is coming up... __________________

29-09-2009, 15:30	#100
socralynnek Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USS Defiant Posts: 3,827	The advantages are IMO, to push the players to building solid empires themselves. This helps the players who are a little behind to stay interested in the game as a bigger player can't steamroll over them as easily as before and destroy their empire in just a few turns I guess, this might be one of the reasons why so little players quit in our pitboss games. It's because even the ones who are a little behind stay relevant in the game. __________________ Being without a signature since November 2004.

29-09-2009, 03:52	#91
Azza Chieftain Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 48	I'd also like some sort of guard against razing large cities, but I'd much prefer it to be an out of game rule. Small cities should be fair game for razing IMO. In the same vein, I think diplo checked but an agreement not to use the diplo victory is ideal.

29-09-2009, 14:28	#98
Wosret Chieftain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brazil. Posts: 194	Well... azzas option sounds good, if we put a poll up that should be considered. We can define the maximum size to a city get razed.