Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucdavis.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!ccrrick From: ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) Newsgroups: net.games.board Subject: Re: Civilization disasters Message-ID: <159@ucdavis.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 04:10:14 EDT Article-I.D.: ucdavis.159 Posted: Thu Oct 17 04:10:14 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 01:20:41 EDT References: <369@cstvax.UUCP> <240@ethz.UUCP> Organization: University of California, Davis Lines: 81 > 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)