Re: Advanced Civ

From: ac829@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Hopkinson)

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 16:10:12 +0000

In a previous article, rschuler@iastate.edu (Rodney Schuler) says:

>In article <CI4z8G.BF8@freenet.carleton.ca> ac829@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Hopkinson) writes:
>>In a previous article, rschuler@iastate.edu (Rodney Schuler) says:
>>>In article <CI3AHL.8Hy@freenet.carleton.ca> ac829@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Hopkinson) writes:
>>>> [thinking about advanced civilization by email]
>>>> [Asks for suggestions for trading]]
>>>
>>>How I would do it:
>>> [Centralized Database Idea]
>>For the CDB are you talking about all kinds of software or just a guy
>>doing it manually? One of the problems of trading over a long period is
>
>Either.

I am not really a programmer. I run a game a friend of mine made up called
Castlerock which I use a few programs but I mostly do it by hand. It seems
to me CIV would *very* annoying to do by hand. Are you a programmer? Do
you think you could handle it?

>
>>that you can get a ton of points in one turn, as opposed to real-time
>>version where there's a time limit. You would probably have to say that
>
>Have a holding limit.  If after a trade you are over a preset number of
>cards some must be spent on civilization cards or discarded before you are
>allowed to trade again.  I think that re-trading should be allowed.  This
>allows some semblance of three (or more) way deals.

I like the idea of continuous trading during the turn. Maybe you could say
that you're only allowed to trade a certain number of times, just to keep
things under control. That would allow for multiple trades but not allow
players to build up too many points. It would also have to make you think
more about your trades.

>>> [suggests 1 player moves per day]
>>
>>Movement would be tricky. Even if you had 1 move per day, you would have
>>to send the results to all the players for each move. Your looking at a
>>fairly long time lag. You could just have simultaneous movement, except
>>for those with military, but that would eliminate a critical part of the
>>game. It WOULD allow for greater expansion, however, since what inevitably
>>happens in the realtime version is that you attack someone, get big, move
>>first, get crushed, move last, attack back etc.
>
>Since moves are public knowledge just set up an email list that sends the
>positions after each day's move to all players.

At the beginning it would be easy but later on.....Automation certainly
would help.

>
>>As for calamities I think they should be done randomly. I never really
>>understood why players got to choose what other players lost during a
>>calamity, except as an alternative way to attack. If you did
>>it randomly you wouldn't need to contact anyone, just dish it out.
>
>True.  I agree, just had not thought it completely through.  Opposing
>player controlled calamities bring some balance to the game.  ie My
>neighbor, Egypt, is looking strong, I'll have the famine effect them worse
>that the other civilizations.
>

In the old game it was difficult to stop players in the lead and
calamities are MUCH more effective than attacks. With AC though, it's
easier to stop people. The only good thing about players dishing out damage is
that the person who deserves usually gets it whereas if it was random it
could really hurt down and out players (unless you use the calamity limit
rule).

--
Andrew Hopkinson            | "Life is like a pool full of jello. You want
ac829@freenet.carleton.ca   |  to jump in and flail around but it's too damn
                            |  sticky."

References

Re: Advanced Civ
rschuler@iastate.edu (Rodney Schuler)
Mon, 20 Dec 1993 02:37:16 +0000
Re: Advanced Civ
rschuler@iastate.edu (Rodney Schuler)
Wed, 15 Dec 1993 21:38:26 +0000
Advanced Civ
ac829@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Hopkinson)
Wed, 15 Dec 1993 18:39:21 +0000