Would anybody here be up for a CIV IV tournament??? Post if interested.
What a stupid idea.
Yes! Of course! Count me in :D
I would be honored
Count me in, of course. And considering everything, I'll also say that I'll probably be the host of this particular tournament.
Double-post, of course, but I'd just like to log an official entry:
Leader: Willem van Oranje (Custom Name: Emperor Zechario Magni)
Civ: Netherlands (Custom Name: Nyancat Dynastic Empire)
Put me in for Player 1, cause I feel the NEED to host this ****!
I will be paying a lifetime PF account for the winner and a free year account for the second place!!
Leader: George Washington (Custom Name: Ivan the Great)
Civ: American (Custom Name: Roman Empire)
Leader: I have no idea (Custom Name: Peng is better than Ivan)
Probably a case of, if you have to ask...., but I'll ask anyway... What's CIV? and What's CIV IV?
Civilization IV the turn-based strategy game
Oooohh.. I think we have that here somewhere.. My son plays that sometimes but is big on Age of Empires (online).
Love that game.
I think I'll be the Incans.
What are the rules? (vassal states, tech trading, etc..)
Rules are yet to be determined. As of now, we are just interested in seeing who would be willing to play. lol
I only have Civ V :(
A couple of rules I am proposing:
1. No random events or villages.
2. Vassal states are allowed. Permanent alliances are not.
3. Time, Diplomatic, and Religious victories are disabled.
4. If you are Incan, do not Quechua rush.
Note that these are just my opinion. My justifications are as follows:
1. If random events or villages are on, it's easy for a player to gain a huge advantage by pure luck. One example of this is when I was playing with a friend of mine, and he got a settler from a village in turn 2. Turning these off is in the interest of fairness.
2. Why allow Vassal states?Simple: I couldn't think of a reason why not. Permanent Alliances are disabled for the simple reason that we need one winner... not two.
3. Diplomatic and religious victories are disabled because it would be impossible to win them in a human game anyway. Time is disabled because it's kind of embarrassing to win by time.
4. It is my personal opinion that the Quechua rush is overpowered. Huayna Capac is a very good leader without it, but with it he turns into a monster.
EDIT: Also, it might be good to add in a roster. Here we go:
1. Char. Limit (of the Dutch)
2. Ivan92 (of the Americans)
3. Pengwuino (unknown)
4. Disregardthat (of the Incans)
And Greg, I personally feel you should get Civ IV and try it out!
I was hoping for a friendly game, let's leave the stuff on. I wouldn't expect anyone to cheese their way to a cheap victory anyway, like warrior rushing. Civ IV is as imbalanced as you can get it as a competitive multiplayer game in any case.
Understood, although Permanent Alliances will still need to be disabled for obvious reasons. (We really can't have two winners)
Same here. Maybe the next event can be with V? Although, I probably won't even have the time to participate.
I'll agree with that. What do you think of tech trading though? It's basically game over for the ones not getting a piece of the cake. Kind of opportunistic. To me it's a single player feature, but I'll go either way.
Separate names with a comma.