Colorado Newbie game starting (hopefully)

Sly Frog · #1 May 11th, 2004, 12:06 AM

I would really, really prefer graphs off. They have been on in my one multiplayer game to date that has progressed anywhere, and they suck.

You don't have to be a non-newbie to exploit the graph. "Who has the most according to the graph, gang up and beat on them, never finish the game" is not hard to figure out. I think it is also a bad habit to get into; it lets you get away with not having to learn how to use spies (which I still suck at). Finally, it penalizes those nations, to a degree, who get good spies (which I don't think Jotun has, so I'm not trying to benefit me here).

Sly "Still At Work, Pretender is Still Coming When I Get Home" Frog

[ May 10, 2004, 23:09: Message edited by: Sly Frog ]

Huzurdaddi · #2 May 11th, 2004, 01:41 AM

It's too bad that you can not have anonymous graphs. That would be nice that way you could know how you were doing, but could not beat on the big bad guy.

All right if we are voting I guess my vote has to be for of..

Oh and I'll ask for something else while I am at it how about cranking up the magic sites ratio? I kind of like the high gem income kind of game without having to resort to "tricks."

Heck we can even out-law "tricks" if we want to. It seems like a lot of games around here do.

JJ_Colorado · #3 May 11th, 2004, 01:47 AM

Ok, it sounds like enough ppl are voting to turn graphs off. I'll turn em off.

re: higher ratio of magic sites. I'd like to leave it at normal so that we don't end up with tons and tons of global enchanments and general badness happening too fast.

re: tricks. I don't know what they all are but it seems like it would be tough to enforce a "no tricks" rule because it's pretty open-ended and how would we even know what was being done?

We've outlawed Vampire Queen (VQ) pretenders which should help?

If you want to propose outlawing something elese and you know how to define what you are outlawing, and most games outlaw it then suggest it.

Best,
John

Huzurdaddi · #4 May 11th, 2004, 02:12 AM

*sigh*

well I guess I should mention clams...

*sigh*

They really are pretty darn good.

They are kind of the reason why I want more magic sites. If we outlaw clams then more magic sites are ok.

Or we could keep clams. It's not like we can enforce the rule ( but we can be pretty darn peeved if someone uses them ).

Huzurdaddi · #5 May 11th, 2004, 02:12 AM

*sigh*

well I guess I should mention clams...

*sigh*

They really are pretty darn good.

They are kind of the reason why I want more magic sites. If we outlaw clams then more magic sites are ok.

Or we could keep clams. It's not like we can enforce the rule ( but we can be pretty darn peeved if someone uses them ).

CUnknown · #6 May 11th, 2004, 02:24 AM

How about we keep clams, but have a maximum of about 5? Could something like that work? Clams would be okay as long as people don't go crazy and build 20 of them or something. I don't know how you would police it, but you couldn't police a no-clam rule, either.

JJ_Colorado · #7 May 11th, 2004, 02:43 AM

Ok, well, let's just go on an honor system that no one can build more than 5 clams I guess. Let's leave magic sites at default - that is still a lot of gems available I think. On a map of 154 provinces we might each expect to expand to hold about 19 provinces without any wars.

Regds,
John