Adventure 50 Results

[sooooo]

Thanks to all who played this game - I enjoyed reading all of the reports . From earliest to latest, the following players conquered Rome:

• Ronald 525 BC

• timmy827 200 BC

• haphazard1 500 AD

• spacetyrantxenu 1300 AD

• Square Leg 1735 AD

But bonus points to Square Leg for the domination victory shortly afterwards!

My only comments from the sponsor are that I was disappointed with my design this time - I have done better. I didn't make it difficult enough given that you don't have to go on to win the game afterwards. Rome should have been further away (maybe on a difference continent?) and/or have had even more bonuses. Also, a fastest finish city-raze game inherently has some problems. You could just ruin your civ to build an early stack and not suffer any consequences, which turns the game into a bit of a lottery. I still enjoy designing games (more than I enjoy playing them now!) and may put up another game some time that will hopefully be better designed.

[Square Leg]

Please do - It was really refreshing to have another adventure to play! thanks sooooo

[haphazard1]

Completely agree with Square Leg -- thanks for the adventure, sooooo!

[timmy827]

Re game design: yes, you could be quite shortsighted in this one. I think that is not desirable for most RB games, but having one on occasion is fine. I was pretty busy during the playing period and might well have passed if it was a full-length game; quite enjoyed having a short and different scenario and it rekindled my interest after not playing much Civ for a year. And of course a less-than-optimal scenario that draws some reports is infinitely better than no Adventure at all.

So sooooo, thanks again and don't be too hard on yourself

[spacetyrantxenu]

Agreed. Anytime you'd like to put together a fun scenario like this I'm sure you'll find people who want to play it.

[Ronald]

It was a fun thing to play. If you have any more ideas, please post them.
Thanks sooooo

[T-hawk]

With Sullla absent, it seems reasonable for me to take over the reins of single-player event scheduling. One concern is that "small" seems to be a required aspect to get significant interest. I don't think players would have the patience for a world-spanning epic like Pax Americana or some Always War game. That does limit what we can do to some extent, but on the other hand restrictions do breed creativity.

I'm open for scenario ideas from potential sponsors. For best results, write up a full-fledged proposal, basically a full info page as per previous events. One sentence is not a proposal. The answer to "How about a game where we do X, could that be interesting?" is always yes, then the devil is in the details to turn it into a fully realized vision. Include things like map script and civilization leader and difficulty and any other game options, and fully defined scenario goals and variant rules. More detail is always better.

(If you think a page of writing is too much work, then your heart isn't fully in it. Take your time to fully explore the idea and we'll all be in for a richer experience. For each event I ever sponsored, I wrote up probably three other drafts that went unused or discarded for one reason or another.)

A wide open area is some sort of multiplayer Epic involving teams of players. Sullla and I have bounced around various ideas on occasion, but none has really developed. One wouldn't want an actual MP game as an Epic, taking the better part of a year; but just a succession game approach wouldn't really be much different than a regular single-player game either. Perhaps teams of three could play the same game individually, with some sort of scoring that links together the three games. That get anyone's creative juices flowing?