I claim victory in LT31.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri May 24, 2013 8:01 pm

It's official. I claim victory.

Who dares object? =)

Dimitril · Post by **Dimitril** » Fri May 24, 2013 9:09 pm

I claim victory.

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Sat May 25, 2013 6:20 am

Did you win this games by yourselfs and split or together? I am not good in inteligence this time. Did you ever read a winning post in Longturn?

IllvilJa · Post by **IllvilJa** » Sat May 25, 2013 12:09 pm

I declare myself belonging to the formal losers of this game.

...as well as one of the survivors, which means I fullfill my own personal success criteria

.

Actually, even if I had NOT gotten that crippled as I did (I neglected building a strong enough military to defend myself, got attacked and ended up only surviving with a couple of small colonies intact) and instead had managed to become a big nation with a score among the top 7, I would STILL have declared myself a formal loser

.

I really don't care about my own score (and caring about one's own ranking score is optional in Longturn, not a requirement for participating), hence me founding the church the way I did (with focus on the survival of peaceful nations, not on formal victory for myself).

Xercise · Post by **Xercise** » Sat May 25, 2013 12:22 pm

Illvilja, you are a winner! Even if not recognised by all... The Church Experiment worked... we proved that a bunch of SimCityers that only attack aggressors or allies of aggressors can become a major force and even get close to conquering the world! And the philosophy for that was yours!

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Sat May 25, 2013 12:46 pm

Xercise wrote:Illvilja, you are a winner! Even if not recognised by all... The Church Experiment worked... we proved that a bunch of SimCityers that only attack aggressors or allies of aggressors can become a major force and even get close to conquering the world! And the philosophy for that was yours!

It is still pack of wolfes strategy, when you get more players then your opponet can has you are winner, thats all. When you deciding to get in string ally more players then can achive win you are pre-backstabber, because you know that you will need to cut of some players in specyfic time.

Not every time pack of wolfes can win, it depends if in small ally are good players, if they have time for playing and heart for winning even 15vs5 can loose. And thats what i call "good game", of course for smaller group. For me "pack of wolfes strategy" is honourless, but it is my opinion and for some players winning are much more needed then honour game (is it xapple here in different name?).

Marduk · Post by **Marduk** » Sat May 25, 2013 4:22 pm

There should be a stronger incentive to backstab when you're in a huge coalition. So the more players you have bunched together, the more tension and uncertainty there will be about what comes next. In bicyle racing it's no problem if half of the race most people drive in a big peloton, but it's only fun because we know that they're watching each other and guessing who will make the first move, who will leave the rest behind to go for his own glory.

I think some players still don't fully accept backstabbing as a fun aspect of the game, but then as soon as a big coalition forms the game ossifies. Longturn could be more like Game of Thrones, we should all be a bit more evil

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Sun May 26, 2013 7:08 am

Marduk wrote:I think some players still don't fully accept backstabbing as a fun aspect of the game, but then as soon as a big coalition forms the game ossifies. Longturn could be more like Game of Thrones, we should all be a bit more evil

Yes, we all know Marduk, that you are evil.

Dimitril · Post by **Dimitril** » Sun May 26, 2013 7:32 am

If it wasn't for turn 180 limits, the Church wouldn't have been so big I think. There was simply no time for eliminating all those players, and often no reason too. So it was easier to make them agree to some sort of ''who get the most merit in the alliance win''.

Also, there was no reason to backstab someone who never had any interest in who win or ranking. I doubt outsider may know the story of the Red Tide. The Church was a strange bunch for sure.

Marduk · Post by **Marduk** » Sun May 26, 2013 9:09 am

edrim wrote:
Marduk wrote:I think some players still don't fully accept backstabbing as a fun aspect of the game, but then as soon as a big coalition forms the game ossifies. Longturn could be more like Game of Thrones, we should all be a bit more evil
Yes, we all know Marduk, that you are evil.

Join me, I know you want to

Marduk · Post by **Marduk** » Sun May 26, 2013 9:13 am

Dimitril wrote:If it wasn't for turn 180 limits, the Church wouldn't have been so big I think. There was simply no time for eliminating all those players, and often no reason too. So it was easier to make them agree to some sort of ''who get the most merit in the alliance win''.

Yea the time limit did not have the intended effect: it was supposed to make it more likely that people backstab in big alliances (otherwise everybody loses), but it instead discouraged people from even trying to win because it seemed unrealistic (so they might as well just stick together). In earlier games it was quite different, often there was a situation in which backstabbing some allies would result in world domination within say 20 turns, that's a much stronger incentive. Conclusion (as we already knew): much smaller map, no pre-set time limit.

Also, there was no reason to backstab someone who never had any interest in who win or ranking. I doubt outsider may know the story of the Red Tide. The Church was a strange bunch for sure.

We can't force people to try to win the game. But I'm quite sure the game is more fun if everyone tries to win, even if it's a long shot. It simply increases the tension and unpredictability of the game. But again, a smaller map makes it more realistic for people to give it a try.

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Sun May 26, 2013 1:38 pm

Marduk wrote:Join me, I know you want to

Sorry man but i am not backstabber, still.