heeb@ethz.UUCP (Hansruedi Heeb) (10/14/85)
In article <369@cstvax.UUCP> db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) writes: > >... > However, after playing a few times with the new cards, it became >obvious that there was now a flaw in the game. Experience showed that >anyone who fell behind on the AST would very rarely win the game as the >disasters came too few & far between to cause all of those ahead of him/her >to also fall back to his/her level. In the original game the disasters >appeared often enough to at least give someone a chance of catching up. > With this in mind a few new disaster cards have been designed to >fit in with the expansion kit. >... On the contrary! If all players play it 'tough' (meaning that they always unite against the winning player) it is far too easy to stop a player. This is done by giving him the side-effects of all catastrophies and by evading him from all sides thus reducing him to no city at all in very short a time (and this means falling *back* on the AST). In this way it is usually the 3rd or 4th potential winner who really wins and the last stage of the game is mostly diplomacy (trying to look innocent as long as you can ...). Since this spoils the game a bit I would rather have extra-rules which make it harder to stop a player. Maybe restriction of the number of disaster-side-effects that can be directed against a player is the solution. If anyone has an extra-rule in this direction let me know. Hansruedi Heeb seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!heeb
ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) (10/17/85)
> In article <369@cstvax.UUCP> db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) writes: > > > >... > > However, after playing a few times with the new cards, it became > >obvious that there was now a flaw in the game. Experience showed that > >anyone who fell behind on the AST would very rarely win the game as the > >disasters came too few & far between to cause all of those ahead of him/her > >to also fall back to his/her level. In the original game the disasters > >appeared often enough to at least give someone a chance of catching up. > > With this in mind a few new disaster cards have been designed to > >fit in with the expansion kit. > >... I think your disasters, while a nice idea, are far too drastic. They would ruin the game for me because of their potential to so severely wipe out a person with one blow. When I play Civvy, I am simply very careful to just never fall behind on the AST, i.e. never fail to advance. IF I must fail to advance, I do my utmost to make sure that nobody else advances either. On the other hand, I've always regretted that there is no calamity in the "1" pile and have actually proposed that a red backed "Storms at Sea" card be placed there. It would remove all the ships of all players in one particular sea. The drawing player would get to choose among seas in which he has ships. So far we've never tested it however. I also designed a new Civilization Card, "Enology", a Blue-Brown card worth 45 points giving a 10 point bonus for other Brown cards and a 5 point bonus for other Blues. There was only 1 in the deck. It conferred the special advantage of allowing the effects of Agriculture in 5 or fewer of the owner's areas. This is to reflect the importance of wine in the ancient world; if anyone doubts me I can send a long list of justifications. This card worked pretty well, particularly in helping the poor African in getting a start. Unfortunately, it is often gobbled up by a smart-trading Egyptian. > > On the contrary! If all players play it 'tough' (meaning that they always > unite against the winning player) it is far too easy to stop a player. > This is done by giving him the side-effects of all catastrophies and by > evading him from all sides thus reducing him to no city at all in very > short a time (and this means falling *back* on the AST). > Well, a cautious player can still avoid a lot of these. He can build his cities in the back area. He can encourage rancor among those who are supposedly united by playing favorites with trade & calamities. Also, because he is so far advanced he is probably less vulnerable to calamities because he has the high priced Civilization Cards. Additionally, he probably collects a lot of trade cards every turn, so people can't afford to screw him over with trades too much... they'll hurt themselves as well. Most importantly, he shouldn't LOOK too far ahead and there are lots of ways to accomplish that. I think that the game is pretty balanced right now, if I may risk choosing a viewpoint between the two of you. However, one should not play with the expanded card set without using the rules that go with it. This will ruin the game for you. The cards and rules were meant to go together. Use them that way, don't pretend the rules don't exist as is happening at far too many tournaments these days. However, I wouldn't use the rule on cohabitation, unless you want the most peaceful and boring game you've ever seen. > In this way it is usually the 3rd or 4th potential winner who really wins > and the last stage of the game is mostly diplomacy (trying to look > innocent as long as you can ...). > > Since this spoils the game a bit I would rather have extra-rules which > make it harder to stop a player. Maybe restriction of the number of > disaster-side-effects that can be directed against a player is the > solution. > -- --rick heli (... ucbvax!ucdavis!ccrrick)
db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) (10/18/85)
[If I was a line-eater ...]
The following article appeared in "Mellow Yellow", a postal
games zine which occasionally does this sort of thing inbetween running
Diplomacy & Empires of the Middle Ages by post. MY is published by
Eddie Duralski. I can give you his address if you're interested.
The article was written by Mike Ferguson.
Having played Civilisation for some years I eventually went out &
purchased my own copy. As Avalon Hill had brought out a version with an
expansion kit of trade cards, I bought their version + the expansion kit.
However, after playing a few times with the new cards, it became
obvious that there was now a flaw in the game. Experience showed that
anyone who fell behind on the AST would very rarely win the game as the
disasters came too few & far between to cause all of those ahead of him/her
to also fall back to his/her level. In the original game the disasters
appeared often enough to at least give someone a chance of catching up.
With this in mind a few new disaster cards have been designed to
fit in with the expansion kit. They have been play tested a few times,
and those with experience of using them (Eddie & the typist for two) seem
to think they definitely restore some of the balance.
Those that work best are:
BARBARIAN INVASION: Level 2 Red-backed disaster.
When this disaster is resolved all tokens in the player's treasury
are returned to his/her stock pile. In addition, for each treasury token
returned one population unit (or the city equivalent) must be removed from the
board and returned to stock. Cities count as 5 units and are destroyed,
not reduced.
DESERTIFICATION AND EROSION: Level 3 Red-backed disaster.
This disaster affects only those races that have the agriculture
civilisation card, and is the result of over-grazing and not knowing
about crop rotation. All areas that normally support a population of 2
or more (without agriculture) now support 1 less. This is effectively
a reduction of two, since the effect of agriculture is nullified as well.
In the case of cohabitation, the loss of tokens is shared, with the drawer
of the card removing tokens last.
At the end of the disaster phase all areas are returned to their
normal levels.
RECESSION: (aka as slave revolt!) Level 4 Red-backed disaster.
At the end of the disaster phase all trade cards held by the
player are returned to the deck.
ANARCHY: Level 6 Normal-backed disaster.
This disaster card may be traded as part of a deal. Once traded
it is revealed. The person who receives this card may not advance on the
AST this turn. It has no effect if he/she cannot advance anyway.
The following disaster is a new version of an earlier one that definitely
did not work:
MISSIONARY CONVERSION: Level 5 Red-backed disaster.
The drawer of this card loses 2 cities to the player with the greatest
number of tokens cohabiting with his/her own. In the case that there are no
such tokens, then 1 city is lost to the player with the greatest number of
tokens adjacent to areas occupied by the drawer. If the drawer possesses
Mysticism then the no. of cities lost is reduced by 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie notes that the last disaster may be cumbersome to play.
An earlier level 5 red-backed disaster was INFLATION, which forced
the drawer to return Coinage if he/she had it.
I would like to see more Normal-backed disasters, since they can be
traded to winning players to drag them back.
I think that the RECESSION card should only apply after the AST phase -
This reduces its effect somewhat, but means that people can't be caught
by it on the last turn of the game.
My favorite idea for a disaster is
DECADENCE: Level 8 Normal-backed disaster.
This may be traded, and is revealed once received in a trade.
It does not count against the two disaster limit, and is 'resolved'
first. It has the effect of nullifying any positive advantage any
Civiliztion cards have when that player resolves his/her other
disasters. Bad effects remain. So Pottery cannot be used to reduce
the effects of Famine, but Agriculture means that Desertification
does apply.
This is a sort of 'meta-disaster', and maybe doesn't fit with the game system
too well. I haven't tried it either - I just like the idea!
And finally ....
Shaun Derrick suggests some similar disasters in issue 2 of Play It!
a semi-professional games zine available for 75p an issue from
Trevor Mendham, 53 Towncourt Crescent, Petts Wood, KENT. England.
--
Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh
...mcvax!ukc!{hwcs,kcl-cs}!cstvax!db