Accounts e-mail HP

Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end?

Anything about Greatturn in general, not related to a specific match.

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby monamipierrot » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:44 pm

Corbeau wrote:Is there a higher power that I can appeal to?

Yep! Davide, our Almighty God.
Althou be advised: I asked him to give me some nuclears at the beginning of GT09 and he didn't even reply. I didn't sacrifice enough lambs, maybe.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby Corbeau » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:06 pm

Interesting that you mention lambs, actually...
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby kevin55I » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:08 pm

I voted no on this poll for reasons I will explain below. But first a separate issue.
You cannot transform most land to ocean. I raised this as an issue before LT32.
Proposed changes to terrain alteration in civ2civ3 ruleset.
So even if we did make the transformations earlier we still couldn't do all we wanted.

Anyway in LT32 we never reached fusion after 8 months of play. So we never used geo-engineers.
Not having them meant having to race to finish the game before global warming and nuclear winter wrecked my cities.
Focussing on fighting was far more enjoyable than weeks of micromanagement transforming the tiles around each city to its optimal state.

Terrain Transformations are way too powerful to be given so early in the tech tree. Civ2Civ3 is right to push it to the end.
kevin55I
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:57 am

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby morphles » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:51 pm

kevin55l says almost what I thought. Other than that, you have to know/learn to live/use what you have. And explore for better positions. Alterations by irrigation and mining are plenty enough!
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby Corbeau » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:59 pm

kevin55I wrote:enjoyable

Just as with Morphles, it's obviously matter of personal preference. I find it more enjoyable to have less war (not necessarily zero) and to do some more building instead.

Thus the vote should be considered most relevant.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby morphles » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:15 pm

First: how much multi-player civ you played, and freeciv multi-player?

When I game to GT I also was like research build and the like, turns out not a good idea mostly. Though from my general knowledge of games I should have guessed it easily, cause thats not how competitive games work, war will happen no matter if you want or like it or not.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby Corbeau » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:28 pm

I played a number of games a while ago, but quick ones, almost RTS. And I don't know what that has to do with anything.

This dilemma boils to a simple one: I want to give the option to transform terrain early, you want to forbid it altogether (because that, in effect, is it). If this is irrelevant, as you say, because everybody goes to war anyway, then what exactly is the damage in allowing it? People who want to use it will use it, people who don't, wont. You just want to keep this option removed because you don't use it and you don't like it, and it's not really harming anyone.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby morphles » Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:20 am

Corbeau wrote:I played a number of games a while ago, but quick ones, almost RTS. And I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Quite a lot actually. You should know that basically all games try and mostly succeed in preventing "turtling". Realistically turtling is never good idea, probably not even in a real world (bar some exceptional cases), you have to get your ass moving and covering/taking more territory and resources. So your previous statments about focusing inwards and paying less attention to exploration expansion and extermination seem like a bad idea. You can also think about it from game theory perspective, turtling strategy is not really stable. If turtling is so good, everyone tries to do it as best as he can, but if somone just spares a tiny bit of resources in raiding his enemy most likely he can disproportionally affect said enemy. And thus he must defend and counter raid otherwise he will be at a disadvantage, thus this naturally tends to lessen turtling. Well that is of course if raiding units are not total crap, which they almost never are in RTS'es. Now civ games make raiding a bit more problematic, still you have to do enough defence expansion and attack to not be crushed eventually.

Corbeau wrote:This dilemma boils to a simple one: I want to give the option to transform terrain early, you want to forbid it altogether (because that, in effect, is it). If this is irrelevant, as you say, because everybody goes to war anyway, then what exactly is the damage in allowing it? People who want to use it will use it, people who don't, wont. You just want to keep this option removed because you don't use it and you don't like it, and it's not really harming anyone.

This is moderatly interesting argument, but it has some problems.

I heard you play board games, though I have no idea what kind of board games... Still I hope you know these: Chess, Go, Hex. All of them are very deep and complex games gamplay wise, but they do differ significantly in rule complexity, Chess is most complicated with variaty of different figures that move differently some special cases and stuff (en passe capture, castling), Go has quite a simple premise is incredibly deep, but it's rules need some "special casing" to clear some corners left by simple rules. Now Hex, that game is Sick stuff! Rules are dead simple, can be explained and picked up in probably less than 30 sec, but game itself is still very complex and deep. In that sense Hex delivers "most bang for the buck" so to speak. It is easier for new players to pick up, while experienced players do not really loose much in gameplay compared to other games, it's only different experience. Same here unnecesary additions make game less elegant, harder to pickup, analyze and balance, while benefits of them are likely dubious.

There is also kind of a reverse argument. You find that nice, I find some "weird ass" improvements nice, someone else finds some other stuff interesting, they do not seem to impact game too much, but people like them, so lets add them. Result will be that soon you will have mess of a game, tons of complicated rules for which the meaning and impact is hard to judge. Designing a game is not throwing as much rules at it as you can (mind you I'm not saying that your suggestion is like that).

In short I'm proponent of less rules.
(for example, I can't really stand concept of governments in civ games[well new comercial ones split govs in parts, that might be better, but I haven't played them so I can't say much], I find them very very questionable, ditto with corruption, waste [these have some serious drawbacks gameplay wise], terraforming probably is less bad than those, still as value of it seems very dubious I do not really support them)

Lastly, one of your comments had some kind of broken formatting, empty quote at the end of post, and it's unclear if it should have not been there, or if some text from it is missing.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby Corbeau » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:30 am

morphles wrote:
Corbeau wrote:I played a number of games a while ago, but quick ones, almost RTS. And I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Quite a lot actually. You should know that basically all games try and mostly succeed in preventing "turtling". Realistically turtling is never good idea, probably not even in a real world (bar some exceptional cases), you have to get your ass moving and covering/taking more territory and resources. So your previous statments about focusing inwards and paying less attention to exploration expansion and extermination seem like a bad idea.

So, you are actually protecting me from myself? Thank you very much. Still, I would like to be allowed to go through with my bad ideas. Worst case (1), I'll be defeated and learn that this is the wrong way to play. Best case (2), I'll remain competitive and start a new path for playing, giving more options to play the game. Best and worst case (3), it will turn out that I do it in the way that turns out to be superior to the old tactics. Not likely, but you never know. Actually, I'm counting on No.2.

In short I'm proponent of less rules.
(for example, I can't really stand concept of governments in civ games[well new comercial ones split govs in parts, that might be better, but I haven't played them so I can't say much], I find them very very questionable, ditto with corruption, waste [these have some serious drawbacks gameplay wise], terraforming probably is less bad than those, still as value of it seems very dubious I do not really support them)

How is this "more" rules? It's only a different rule, placing something at an earlier time than it was. Also, please note, this option is perfectly valid in Civ2 and there is nothing wrong with *that* game.

Also, I'm *not* a proponent of less rules. This is Civilization. It's supposed to be complex and with a brazillion of possibilities (you're running a civilization, remember?), but still keep a basic level of playability. Terrain transformation is an *option*, not a necessity. You don't have to do it. It costs turns and the benefits are minimal to moderate (at least short- or mid-term). It adds to complexity, but not to being complicated.

Lastly, one of your comments had some kind of broken formatting, empty quote at the end of post, and it's unclear if it should have not been there, or if some text from it is missing.

It's due to my quoting habits, it may happen again by mistake, ignore it.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby morphles » Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:44 pm

How is this "more" rules? It's only a different rule, placing something at an earlier time than it was. Also, please note, this option is perfectly valid in Civ2 and there is nothing wrong with *that* game.

Siple: no terraform, done, all explained.
Terraform: which terrain can be terraformed? Which units can do terraforming? How long does it take for each terrain? What is the result for each terrain?
Se how much more questions need to be answered? It's been done before does not mean it was necessarily a good idea or that it should be done again. People used rain dances and stuff, does not mean that it's useful to start doing that again.

So, you are actually protecting me from myself? Thank you very much. Still, I would like to be allowed to go through with my bad ideas. Worst case (1), I'll be defeated and learn that this is the wrong way to play. Best case (2), I'll remain competitive and start a new path for playing, giving more options to play the game. Best and worst case (3), it will turn out that I do it in the way that turns out to be superior to the old tactics. Not likely, but you never know. Actually, I'm counting on No.2.

Also, I'm *not* a proponent of less rules. This is Civilization. It's supposed to be complex and with a brazillion of possibilities (you're running a civilization, remember?), but still keep a basic level of playability. Terrain transformation is an *option*, not a necessity. You don't have to do it. It costs turns and the benefits are minimal to moderate (at least short- or mid-term). It adds to complexity, but not to being complicated.

You seem to be taking this personally, but is not personal at all. I was talking in generic terms about games in general.

Well first of more rules says nothing about number meaningful possibilities. It's very easy to come up with silly crap rules that add nothing. Marginal units in games that are never used, cause they suck do not really add anything to game as they have little impact, thus they have no reason to exists and distract players and clutter interface. As I said games can be insanely complex with very simple rules. Yes it's civ, and even without terraforming there are a lot of possibilities (and some rules/units/stuff could be pruned as they add very little to game) with terraforming or without, and it would also be true for other stuff. One can't seriously believe that such games approach simulation. Empire building is at best theme for civ games, and yes striving for some realism might be nice touch (but in that regard terraforming loses, as its highly unrealistic, esp with default tech level, as opposed to civ2civ3 fusion tech, but even then...), but it is not a must, and amount of "cut corners" quite large. So we are back at game as a game, and in that regard terraforming does not seem to fit well with genre. As described previously.

Also if you are arguing about added possibilities, I can argue about lost possibilities too! Without terraforming eco war is much much more viable, who are you to take such possibility from me? :)
Joking aside, again I do not see it as worthwhile addition, but as for gt9 I do not really care, I think you'll find out about irrelevance of it if you try.
Now for gt10hex, as I'm organizer, it's a different story ;)
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron