This is not a joke.Without terraforming eco war is much much more viable
morphles wrote: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?
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.
You are taking a "If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it" approach. It's bureaucratic and designed at inventing artificial problems to prevent something from happening. What I'm taking personally is not the issue of terraforming, it's your conservativism and lack of any proper argument except "it's questionable", "it's difficult", "it's not needed", and all of it regarding an issue that already EXISTS in other rulesets and Civ variations. You are being ridiculous and almost offensive in this.
How exactly does this apply to this particular case?
kevin55l wrote:This is not a joke.
In fact it seems to be a standard tactic. The small poxers fight dirty!
morphles wrote:Actually I'm less conservative than you. You are basically saying it (teraforming) was in game previously, we should keep it!
I'm saying that it is needles rule.
Less rules again is basically antithesis of bureaucracy and designs by commity, those tend to pile and pile rules upon rules and workarounds for problems cause by previous loads of rules.
I'm saying that there is no problem that needs teraforming
and it adds nothing,
thus there is no reason for it to be in game.
I explained my arguments pretty well.
Terraforming does not add anything to the game,
maybe even makes game more campy/turtly and it is additional rule.
You know as some smart people said: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." and "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler".
So unless there is good case for rule, terraforming in this case, there is zero need for it.
I used it and it was there are pretty weak arguments too.
I see little addition to gameplay from terraforming. First of there already are transformation by irrigation and mining, thats the most important thing.
Second it slightly diminishes the need to find better lands, thus explore and wage wars, basically promoting turtling.
Related to that it lessens the impact of GW and NW instead of finding ways to deal with it of pushing faster to end game you can employ same army of workers to drag game needlessly.
Also making all terrain malleable means there is less adaptation pressure, again loosing facet of game. Ruleset's author, brado, also expressed his ideas similarly.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests