[SPOILERS - NO PLAYERS] PB41 Lurker Thread: RNG Roulette with a Shotgun

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

How do you characterize winning and losing? He razed one new city and tied up a lot of resources while accomplishing nothing. Certainly these units would have been put to better use defending his core. And if this land is shit then my game is hopeless anyway as it was the only avenue of expansion left to me.

I haven't read commodore's or lurkers' threads so I don't know about their investment but it was certainly not encouraging for me that they went after it. I couldn't afford to fight them for it and they got there just before I could have made gains.

Despite the quality of the land, it does have food resources and luxuries. More of both is almost always better in civ. If there is better land elsewhere, settle that first. If there is not, you settle the utter shit and make a shit sandwich. It's better than starving to death.

[Elkad]

I think you are exactly right: If there is a clear #1 and #2, then this is what happens. I'd just have to ask though: what is interesting in carrying on the game? Because all the decisions everyone has made has been in the context of trying to win. What makes it worth carrying on, in terms of what is interesting? Not being sarcastic here, I'm hopeful of your reply.

I can't say for Cairo, but I can for myself.  My performance in every game I've played here has been less-than-stellar.  I can't say I'm even improving.

Yet I'll happily join another game (and am - PB43) every time.  Including taking over dying civs to play out their final turns.

Would it be nice to win?  Sure.  But the game is fun, even when I'm getting ROFLstomped by knights for the 13th game in a row.  I never get to that "tedium" point that others seem to, where playing their turn becomes a chore, or all is hopeless and they might as well concede.  Maybe because of my more casual playstyle?

So every time I login, I'm eager to find out what happens next.  Even if I'm just pushing my pikes around watching the top guys duke it out with Infantry.

[Mr. Cairo]

I think you are exactly right: If there is a clear #1 and #2, then this is what happens. I'd just have to ask though: what is interesting in carrying on the game? Because all the decisions everyone has made has been in the context of trying to win. What makes it worth carrying on, in terms of what is interesting? Not being sarcastic here, I'm hopeful of your reply.

Would it be nice to win?  Sure.  But the game is fun, even when I'm getting ROFLstomped by knights for the 13th game in a row.  I never get to that "tedium" point that others seem to, where playing their turn becomes a chore, or all is hopeless and they might as well concede.  Maybe because of my more casual playstyle?

So every time I login, I'm eager to find out what happens next.  Even if I'm just pushing my pikes around watching the top guys duke it out with Infantry.

Yeah, pretty much summed it up Elkad.

Between 5 and 10 players in an FFA game will lead to the game being played in teh chosen start era and ending up to 2 eras later. So play a Medieval start, and finish in the Ind era with Inf. Ren will end with tanks, if a bit sooner depending on effectiveness of navy. Ind and later starts can actually finish pretty quickly: Pre-BtS I never saw a future era game last more than 40 turns, most ended in fewer than 20.

There's nothing stopping players from putting together a later era game, or even a later era teamer: One game type I've been thinking we might want to try are the 3v3 and 5v5 Ren and Ind era games, using ladder settings (Always war, 2, 3, or maybe even 5 city elimination and a 100-120 turn limit). As these games are self limiting, they can get played pretty quickly.

With regards to this, I completely agree, and of course the huge games with 12-20 players that go on for a long time have their own issues. So I would be absolutely on board with a later era start game, ffa or teams.

But at the same time, I think that with sufficiently motivated players and more balanced maps even smaller games like this can go on a little longer, even if the winner is 90% decided by the end of the Medieval era.

I also wonder what effect having actual diplomacy would have on a game like this. But then I look at that Civ6 game we had here with public diplo and realized that its not going to happen, no matter how much I would enjoy it

[superdeath]

You know, Cairo.. Between you, Charriu? and myself.. thats the start of a full diplo game.

Id be up for a ladder style team game. Rather not have it in later starts though, just out of lack of experience with later starts.

[Charriu]

I would still be up for a full diplo game. You had already started a thread for that. Maybe it's time to reactivate that.