|
Post by SirPartyMan on Dec 6, 2005 22:00:24 GMT -5
Dear Friends:
I wanted to start a discussion about a new game option, which I have been experimenting with, called "NO CITY RAZING".
Most games so far have been played with a number of options set to their default value. The default for this option is unchecked, which means in the game that whenever a city is conquered militarily it disappears.
This option isn't all bad. But consider the alternative for a minute.
If you check NO CITY RAZING the effect is that cities now will remain - they CANNOT be razed, period. However, **IMPORTANT CHANGE**, it only counts towards elimination when you lose a city you planted yourself. Cities you conquer and which are then conquered again by someone else don't count against you from an elimination perspective (1 city, 2 city, etc).
I think this option makes the game more interesting. The attacker gains the extra land squares and city production, as long as they can hold the city they've taken, from its original owner or from others. Of course the defender gets a chance to get the city back, too. It opens up more strategic options than where the city is wiped from the map.
Just my 2 cents. Hosts and players make the ultimate choice - we don't have any rule or preference. In the CCC I'm going to split it up. Odd numbered events will have NO CITY RAZING checked. Even numbered events won't.
I considered making this a poll, but I don't want to make it so there's one preferred way. Ultimately, it's up to hosts and the players in their games.
Let the debate begin.
Best, SPM
|
|
reptile
Worker
in desperate need of a new avatar
Posts: 106
|
Post by reptile on Dec 6, 2005 22:11:32 GMT -5
I think it´s a great option, it gives enough reward for successful attacks to catch up to the builders that could develop freely. I wish it would become the standard in our games, and I guess it hasn´t happened yet just because it´s a mostly unknown feature.
There is just one thing I am not sure about: You can get your cities back and they won´t count for elimination anymore... but does this also happen if one of my teammates takes that city back? Or would he at least be able to trade that city to me?
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Dec 6, 2005 22:25:26 GMT -5
I like it for the reasons stated above. "Take and Hold" dedmonstrates military mastery, while "Assasination" demonstrates military surprise. I would humbly submit that the first is the mark of a superior civilization, while the second is merely the mark of a superior tactician.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Dec 7, 2005 1:51:41 GMT -5
Why is there no option to select if you want to raze the city? Capturing a city long away from your own empire will cost you quite a bit in distant cost.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Dec 7, 2005 4:55:28 GMT -5
It depends: in 1 vs 1 it has to be turned off - nearly imposible to hold a far city +no use for smeaky back city tries which makes civ interesting - same for big map teamers - there yilars statement applies - on standard map a citie u take can be 50 tiles away (or more?) - its just a burden for the attcker - in real histroy such useless cities have alos just been razed
in cton and ironman i thnk it has to be turned on - u should be honoured for taking cities - at least somewhat - there s also some option where u can decide wether to keep city or not - I think this 1 is alos very interesting espacially for ironman - as u dont get burdened with cities in bad placement if u dont want to
sry spm, just splitting it into odd and even shows as map sizes and map pikings that u dont have enough experience with the different settings - some are just quite unplayable - or at least favour total randoms or boring buildfests
quite often espacially if u have worse land (like no uran resource in nuking game) - u have just no option as to try something "tactical" - I tend to try to outaxe my opponents in 1 vs 1s - but somewhat i m not sure if its really a matter of skill to chop every forest u find.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Dec 7, 2005 7:58:04 GMT -5
SPM has been playing this game for about nine months more than you. Perhaps you just need to ... how did it go... demonstrate skill in multiple kinds of games and playstyles? ;D
By the way... no uranium in a nuking game? Build SDI and bunkers as soon as you realize it, pre-Manhattan. Makes nuking a total waste of time. But I guess I might have no experience with the settings, too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Dec 7, 2005 11:25:53 GMT -5
I know that very well, still I think I played far too much latly - tried lot of different settings and maps - all i wana do is give this experience as a input - and if 15 players agree to scrap some special map setting - i can say that my experience is backed up.
I dont wana discuss my own skill in "multiple kinds of games and playstyles" - but i try to do good in 1 vs 1 on duel mirror aswell as in cton in ren eara and hub map
also having no uran was just a example for lack of resource or bad land in general - no question that u can do better in modern or in futre game without uran if u are not a noob and never played it
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Dec 7, 2005 11:37:42 GMT -5
Personally, I think a cool setting would be "no razing" but you have to keep it for so many turns or the barbs immediately take it over (i.e. Baghad, lol)
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Dec 7, 2005 11:43:46 GMT -5
TommyNT:
Not only was I involved in the beta test, I also have been hosting and playing a lot of games to get a feel for the options.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The other day I hosted a game using WHEEL map and someone made your complaint, this is going to be a buildfest. There were two kills in first 30 moves. Some buildfest.
The CCC takes advantage of the diversity of the maps available to us. The map sizes were judiciously chosen to BALANCE between battle and building.
As to the City Razing option, I think it is worthwhile which is why I am promoting it. Yes the odds/evens thing is somewhat arbitrary but it was a way to begin a dialog as to the value of the feature. Actually I woudn't be surprised if once exposed to this choice it becomes the standard for ladder play. I felt it would be too abrupt to insert it into all 9 matches so I decided to split the difference.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by snotty on Dec 7, 2005 14:24:08 GMT -5
I played with no razing today, and had some fun back and forth with the cities I took.
But why cant we have the option in game to raze or not as the changing situation demands it?
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Dec 7, 2005 17:20:53 GMT -5
Well, of course, that's up to the game developers. We can only chose from the options given us.
I'm glad you enjoyed the new choice. I encourage more hosts to try it. Click "No City Razing" ON!!
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by tonia on Dec 7, 2005 17:20:56 GMT -5
If you are playing with the no city raising option unchecked in SP, it does ask you if you want to raze it or not. Is this different in MP?
SPM:
I can understand you want to incorporate this option into the CCC. I think rather than doing the odds/evens situation, perhaps a better idea would be to look at each event individually to make sure it won't unbalance the settings already there.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Dec 7, 2005 17:22:37 GMT -5
And what options would this balance against? I think its a totally independent choice whether you're playing the Ironman, or the Grudge, or the Big Game, etc.
I did it the way I did to gain some experience and to obtain feedback. That will determine our future steps.
SPM
|
|
|
Post by tonia on Dec 7, 2005 17:34:30 GMT -5
I'm not saying it will unbalance the other settings. I'm just saying to double check first to make sure it doesn't. It will save complaining down the road for the td's.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Dec 7, 2005 18:02:52 GMT -5
The reason we can't have City Razing optional in MP is this...
Player A takes Joe's Villa. "Would you like to raze or keep Joe's Villa?"
While A is considering, Joe retakes his Villa, or B takes the villa.
A then clicks "raze" a quarter-second too late.
Can we say "OOS bait?" Or "Clickfest bait?"
It's too much of a nightmare and this is a decent solution.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Dec 7, 2005 18:59:14 GMT -5
I was hosted booth no raze and raze cite games, and had different pleasure. Somethimes non razed cite give me won, sometimes that ocupied cite (from me) was ocupied from second player and he had benefites. I think that is my tactics about atack or no cite still same for booth raze or no raze cite option while lose of ocupied town is not scored in our 1-2 cite elim option.
Sorry for translation i have hadache.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Dec 8, 2005 0:37:47 GMT -5
The reason we can't have City Razing optional in MP is this... Player A takes Joe's Villa. "Would you like to raze or keep Joe's Villa?" While A is considering, Joe retakes his Villa, or B takes the villa. A then clicks "raze" a quarter-second too late. Can we say "OOS bait?" Or "Clickfest bait?" It's too much of a nightmare and this is a decent solution. Sloppy programmers?
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Dec 8, 2005 7:32:41 GMT -5
Obnoxious players?
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Dec 8, 2005 7:56:39 GMT -5
with the greatest of respect, that isnt hard to code around
simply prevent attack on a city that is in limbo - decision waiting on raize or keep
maybe with a 10 second timer? - or even less, but nonetheless, i think its fairly easy to code around an oos there
the real question is whether people want a pop-up when they take a city, although its usually a pretty significant event so i wouldnt of thought, on balance, it would have been a problem
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Dec 8, 2005 9:20:16 GMT -5
I really don't understand the "arguement" as both options are now available to those who wish to play either one.
Since we now have a choice as to which we play (where we didn't before), yes, I'd say that's good programming.
|
|