Lord Parkin Wrote:Well, I guess that's a difference of mindset. I'd rather play one game very carefully all the way to the end (win or loss) than just blitz through each game to the point where I thought the winner was clear and start a new one. It's tempting to just say "oh well, player X will probably win from here, let's start afresh" when you hit the point where it looks hopeless, but I often find it rewarding to keep playing on regardless.
"playing carefully to the end" is exactly what I want to do. I just don't want to artificially extend the game past the end, by giving ridiculous bonuses to the players that are behind. And I would play carefully because I know that, with NTT, if you fall behind it's very hard to catch up, whereas with tech trading on being temporarily ahead or behind in techs barely even matters. I definitely respect people that will keep playing to the bitter end (I hate when people quit early), but I also want some sort of clear end to the game. If you're never going to give up, well, how long is too long? Would you keep playing a game that had been going on for 1000 turns over 10 years, where every time a leader emerged everyone else allied against him and dragged him down?
Lord Parkin Wrote:To add to my post above, I would say that I don't believe any amount of diplomatic skill can compensate for a complete lack of civ skill. The best negotiator in the world isn't going to win if he has no clue how to play the game competitively. It's not the case for the reverse though: a certain threshold of civ skill can certainly compensate for a lack of diplomatic skill.Of course the basic civ management skills are always important. Just... much less so, the more diplomacy you allow. For example, if you can research 20% faster than anyone else, that's impressive- but if you join a 3 team tech trading alliance, you triple your research speed, and the 20% edge doesn't look so good any more.
So basically, civ skill still trumps diplomatic skill in all cases. But diplomatic skill can sometimes make things turn out a little more differently than expected, which allows for a bit more variety and unpredictability in games. Anyway, that's my opinion at least.
Even with no tech trading, diplomacy is often the deciding factor. The clearest example I suppose is pitboss 2, where Sullla/Speaker had a big lead in all demographics early on, but still almost died because they were diplomatically isolated. If that had been a tech-trading game, they would have had no chance, because their enemies would quickly outtech them. You might say it's good to have variety and unpredictability... but I think that mainly just makes people hate each other, and want to give up playing the game.
My opinion is colored from playing the board game Diplomacy, which is all about alliances and betrayals. It's a game that's famous for being fun at first, but quickly turning real life friends into enemies, and for never finishing because people get so angry at it. Usually the only way someone can win is if everyone else gets so mad at each other that they're willing to help the leader, just to get the game to end faster. That's not what I want civilization to be like!
Lord Parkin Wrote:Interesting. The thing is, it doesn't make much logical sense (why is my entire civ's mind wiped when I teach someone else how to do something I've learnt?), and I doubt whether it would be much fun to play. Could be interesting for a variant, though.Yeah there's no real-life explanation for it, just an idea for a varient game rule that I had.

