Epic 20 - T-hawk

[Sullla]

Originally Posted by Broker33

Speaking of bad dice rolls in my game Cathrine canceled the mutual defense pact she had previously offered while pleased so she could send in the Cosacks in the 1800's. Cosacks against axmen and archers just dosent work well

Begging the question: why did you have axemen and archers in the 1800s? Eh?

I think that we'll have to close the book on this one by saying that the scenario just didn't work out. Somtimes that happens, unfortunately. The good news is that there are several intriguing ideas for new games on the way, most of them coming from the community. I have two different very interesting proposals that are in development right now. So hopefully, things will go better in the next event.

[Broker33]

[QUOTE=Sullla]Begging the question: why did you have axemen and archers in the 1800s? Eh?


I am not very good. Worked on economy thought I was safe with mutual defense pact. Monty got vassalized and wasnt a threat anymore everybody liked me and were actually gifting techs (was way behind). I didnt have money to upgrade my military. Planned on turtling until I caught up ( which I finally was starting to do) and would fight a late war.

My first real game on Civ. Actually keep replaying it as a learning tool.

[sooooo]

I can see both sides of the argument here. I think the exact same scenario, but replacing Cathy and Hannibal with, say, Mansa and Hatty would have been slightly better. That gives you more reliable neighbours. Monty you know will attack so you can reinforce that front. The other two you know will be your friend if you butter up to them so that gives you a strategy in that direction. Having someone like Cathy up there with a massive front to defend is very troublesome because she can just be bribed into war (or start one at pleased) for very little.

[haphazard1]

Interesting discussion on the problems of scenario design.

Count me as another who fought off an attack by Monty and then got crushed by Catherine. I was trying to improve relations, despite being locked in on religion, but it obviously was not enough.

I did learn some things about digging out of an economic hole, and setting priorities on workers and builds. So this was time well spent despite the shortness of the lesson.

[darrelljs]

Originally Posted by T-hawk

Catherine declared on me on turn thirty. What could I even have done on the diplomatic front in that time frame?

Yeah, that is pretty well outside your control!

Darrell

[sylvanllewelyn]

I played this game as patch 3.17, so I decided to step out. Didn't finish this game, but I did eventually get rolling.

The lucky break for me was Montezuma declaring war on me before the AD years, throwing and suiciding all his units at me, for a thousand years, until my muskets and catapults take all his lands out, while Catherine and I were buddies.

My objection to this game is that there's too much luck element. Like it was said before, if Catherine declared war on me rather than Montezuma, I would've been toasted by her superior units.

<edit>Oh and also, Sulla, this was not a bad scenario, not at all. This was a GOOD scenario. Players really shouldn't be too used to building up a technological edge before engaging in war. No seriously - getting feudalism early means you'll lose the liberalism race, but so what? I mean, think about all the cursing and swearing that goes on in your mind when you're marching towards the AI city with your stack-of-doom, and then you see 4 CG3 longbows. Now imagine what 7 of them can do to the AI's offensive stack... why did I say CG3? Protective, theocracy plus barracks means drill 1 and CG3 coming out immediately.

The flaw with the scenario, of course, is having Catherine near you. No seriously, I don't mind the warmongers, but Catherine is the WORST neighbour. It's warmonger and economic powerhouse together.</edit>

[T-hawk]

Ok, I concede that my game was clearly the outlier in terms of AI war declarations. I suffered six within the first millennium, while tops among the other reports seems to be two.

However, that assessment is still a bit inconclusive, since there were so many retired games. When did this community turn up with so many wimps? I lost a city, and kept on fighting myself back into the game, and only quit at true hopelessness when my capital and another city both fell together and my army was destroyed. By my count (the report details are sketchy), Darrell and LKendter both quit after a single city loss, and DerangedDuck was actually on the offensive against Montezuma.

Perhaps that's a clue that the currently active members of the community don't want difficult games? Maybe we want games with the label and appearance of difficulty, but that turn out easily winnable (Winter Wasteland, The Gauntlet) so we can feel good about ourselves?

[sylvanllewelyn]

Maybe we want games with the label and appearance of difficulty, but that turn out easily winnable (Winter Wasteland, The Gauntlet) so we can feel good about ourselves?

I'm sure some of us are that way. I'm even bold enough to go out of my way and say that all of us has some of that in ourselves. Both bravery and cowardness are both instincts that we need to call upon, that's why we have it. But to say something that harsh and cruel and imply that it applies to the majority did make me feel a little nervous. We do have gentle and extreme adventures too, it's just that when the games are not labelled correctly, then people get upset, that's all. In general people want to know what kind of game to expect, or if something is meant to be kept as a surprise, then the surprise better be really fun. It's hard to make a game fun by rudely shocking the sentiments of a player.

Holiday surprise was the perfect counter-example. It was mostly unwinnable, but look at all the reports anyway! Here's the deal: we don't mind difficult, we just want FUN. And actually, yeah, that's why I posted my imcomplete game. I did eventually win it, I just didn't write a report or keep the save because I didn't find it entertaining once everything stablized.

[LKendter]

Originally Posted by sylvanllewelyn

Here's the deal: we don't mind difficult, we just want FUN.

That sums up why I quit perfectly. The game was already painful and not enjoyable for me BEFORE the second war. The thought of a game where I was going to be constantly stuck with war using backwards units isn't my fun.

I had a bad feeling about this epic before I played a turn do to being stuck as religiously isolated, a situation I avoid at all cost.

I don't know if I will finish Colonization, but at least I am having fun...

[T-hawk]

Apologies if I sounded accusatory; that wasn't rhetorical, I'm actually asking the questions. "No" is a perfectly valid answer. sylvan, you make good points about fun; it's certainly understandable for a player to abandon a game he's not enjoying. Holiday Surprise is an extremely interesting counterexample for many aspects of this game.

So what makes a scenario like this so discouraging, while Holiday Surprise encouraged playing on through the storm? Was it the time horizon of the challenge, where Holiday let the player easily play on for a thousand years even in the losing cause? Was it that tying the player's hands with so many restrictions here left the player feeling powerless (hi LKendter)? Was it simply the "Extreme" label and a case of matching or mismatching expectations? Would the "Extreme" label have inspired the "bring it on!" RB attitude of old? As the saying goes, one learns more from one's mistakes than successes, and we can learn a lot from this experience if we ask the right questions.

I'd also like to point out that since we haven't had any actual (complete and non-shadow) victories, any one of us could have registered the best result by simply playing it out to the conquest loss. (I'm guilty too.) Ultimately we grade on a curve, analyzing not absolute performance against the AIs, but relative performance as compared to other players.