Accounts e-mail HP

*DO* we want something original?

What kind of game do you want?

Poll ended at Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:15 pm

I want a classic Civ game, Stone Age to Nuclear
I want something original, a scenario or some specific settings or...
No votes
Total votes : 3

*DO* we want something original?

Postby Gavran » Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:15 pm

Note by Admin: This poll is invalidated. It doesn't reference any specific setting nor it is clear how to interpret the outcome. – Sorry bro!

Yeah, business as usual. A new guy comes to the forum and starts opening new threads, pouring out ideas in old ones...

So, being a long-time Civ player (roughly 20 years now) I must say I never grew bored of the game. It's Civ. When I want to play WWII, I play Panzer General or Blitzkrieg or something. When I want space stuff I play... space stuff. And so on.

When playing Civilization, I want to play Civilization. When I registered here and saw the "we want something original", my automatic thought was: "No, we don't". Every game is original in itself. New rules and settings don't make a game of Civ original. Map, players and paths do.

So please state your preference, for future reference. Thank you.

Re: *DO* we want something original?

Postby morphles » Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:46 pm

IMO this is false dihiotomy. Even though I'm no fan of scenario games I think they are alright sometimes. As for less prefabricated things, I'm quite for it. I like emergent situations and stuff and dont mind rule changes. See for example my idea about deglaciation/constant global warming, or coming of ice age. Various tweaks on trade alliance and many other things, these are very interesting. Like changing starting conditions in chatic system, even though change is minuscule implications can be and often are very big, but basic principle remains the same: situations emerge naturally, from "uniformish" beginings. (as opposed to scnerio where initial conditions (ofte) are far less uniform).

Other variations king no king, can also cause games be more or less original. Maybe other win conditions, like firt one to reach last tech and similar. Ofc conquest will always be an option... Even then one could probably make certai andjustments (though there already are some in place: more cities -> more unhappines which can complicate things a bit for larger players, this can be turned up to eleven, so to speak; to provide less conquest oriented play)

So there are lots of things tunable.
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: *DO* we want something original?

Postby XYZ » Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:49 pm

Don't be so dogmatic Gavran! Best thing is to rotate. For example the current GT is in my opinion much more fun since you have 3 vessels not only to influence your starting position but also to have to more at the beginning because you can move quickly around the map. And as for scenarios, you can't compare any WWI game to the freeciv version. It was like playing the Supreme Army Comand in real time over a time period that was close to reality. Furthermore, it's GT 8 right now! You don't wanna play always the same thing, it gets boring.
User avatar
Contributor & Co-Admin
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: *DO* we want something original?

Postby morphles » Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:22 pm

I'll just point that I do not necessarilly agree with "it gets boring" random maps and random setup means that there is plenty of replayability. Similarly like with roguelikes and board games. I.e. chess, go, even starting position is always the same, and id say that if you are even hobyst player of those games it does not get boring, simple because of posibility space. And civ can even randomise startin conditions! :)
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests