@Parkin and @Seven - Do you guys have end-game sustainable science demos posted anywhere? I'd be interested in comparing.
My 20,000 feet summary of the game:
*The public diplo I thought went incredibly well. I don't want to use it in every game, but I think it did exactly what it set out to do in diplo terms.
*The unbalanced map I feel went moderately well. It was certainly exciting early (easy to say with good land), and it forced a variety of strategies. One thing that worked out very well in this game was that the civs that decided to play a high-variance rush strategy were successful at it. One option for a future game would be something like wheel or ring map, where specific tiles are random but no one has 1/4th the land of someone else.
*The limited double-move rule was a disaster. I don't think it was poorly conceptualized, and in general I think people overthink such rules, overestimate the impact of double-moves, and are too unwilling to take in-game countermeasures. But that's only true when players are at least roughly even in terms of skills and/or effort. Having a few players unmercifully take advantage of double-move opportunities while others handed them a steady stream of workers and cities was frustrating. The sad takeaway is I now have a list of at least 4 players from this game I won't play with again depending on the setting.
My 20,000 feet summary of the game:
*The public diplo I thought went incredibly well. I don't want to use it in every game, but I think it did exactly what it set out to do in diplo terms.
*The unbalanced map I feel went moderately well. It was certainly exciting early (easy to say with good land), and it forced a variety of strategies. One thing that worked out very well in this game was that the civs that decided to play a high-variance rush strategy were successful at it. One option for a future game would be something like wheel or ring map, where specific tiles are random but no one has 1/4th the land of someone else.
*The limited double-move rule was a disaster. I don't think it was poorly conceptualized, and in general I think people overthink such rules, overestimate the impact of double-moves, and are too unwilling to take in-game countermeasures. But that's only true when players are at least roughly even in terms of skills and/or effort. Having a few players unmercifully take advantage of double-move opportunities while others handed them a steady stream of workers and cities was frustrating. The sad takeaway is I now have a list of at least 4 players from this game I won't play with again depending on the setting.
I'd love to see those demos though, more curious how strong you were in the other categories.
) so you had a lot more room to grow.
