Self imposed restraints

[Glorgamon]

I've been trying to read/be active in the forums for the last couple weeks and I've seen two different styles of play:

#1 those who put self imposed limits on themselves that are arbitrary and the game will not enforce
#2 those who think people people who play in the style of #1 are crazy

So some #1s play by limiting their Badboy or not allowing pauses or not attacking the same religious group (unless they attack an alliance member, etc).

I'm going to start off the argument that people who set arbitrary goals are not crazy because of the following reasons:

* US Presidents in this time could very easily begin a conquest of global domination through a massive military, but do not (badboy points would be too high). So, they have the ability, but hold back (some more than others, I don't mean to start a political discussion here).
* Real leaders/people don't have a pause button and have to make quick decisions that may or may not be right. Nor can they slow down/speed up time!
* Nato and the Warsaw pact (to some extent) simulate this idea of an alliance beyond an alliance. If France attacked Britian today I have a feeling they would not be treated as a Nato member anymore, etc.

So, what do you guys think? Realistic limits or who cares, WC is what I'm about? And to those, who has more fun playing - those who place limits/set goals and those who just attempt WC?

Who lasts longer in terms of playing the game long term with multiple countries?

[Bowfling44]

Originally Posted by Glorgamon

I've been trying to read/be active in the forums for the last couple weeks and I've seen two different styles of play:

#1 those who put self imposed limits on themselves that are arbitrary and the game will not enforce
#2 those who think people people who play in the style of #1 are crazy

So some #1s play by limiting their Badboy or not allowing pauses or not attacking the same religious group (unless they attack an alliance member, etc).

I'm going to start off the argument that people who set arbitrary goals are not crazy because of the following reasons:

* US Presidents in this time could very easily begin a conquest of global domination through a massive military, but do not (badboy points would be too high). So, they have the ability, but hold back (some more than others, I don't mean to start a political discussion here).
* Real leaders/people don't have a pause button and have to make quick decisions that may or may not be right. Nor can they slow down/speed up time!
* Nato and the Warsaw pact (to some extent) simulate this idea of an alliance beyond an alliance. If France attacked Britian today I have a feeling they would not be treated as a Nato member anymore, etc.

So, what do you guys think? Realistic limits or who cares, WC is what I'm about? And to those, who has more fun playing - those who place limits/set goals and those who just attempt WC?

Who lasts longer in terms of playing the game long term with multiple countries?

Comparrisons to real life won't work out well, simply because this is a game, something that attempts to simlulate the nature of the time and the aspects of the simulation, but in no way deal with all the "real" issues. After all, how come I don't have to deal with designing the uniform of my troops, or making sure my ruler is eating enough vegetables, are sitting in on the cerremonial leaping of the frogs in bubbaboland.

Because all that stuff would just be boring.

In the end, the designers build a game to fit the time, but ultimately, can't decide for the player what will be most fun for that player. If players want to go out and set limits on themselves, because that is most fun for them, so be it. But saying that real life reasons for justifying why they do it doesn't really matter.

What matters is whether the player find that added house rule to make the game more fun or not.

[nicolajherskind]

people who go for 1. do it also to make the game harder...
I prefer to mod the diffilculty setting depending on nation I play...
Is the game too easy?? give yourself a -75% tax income and then se how easy it is!!!

[Top Gun]

Originally Posted by Glorgamon

I've been trying to read/be active in the forums for the last couple weeks and I've seen two different styles of play:

#1 those who put self imposed limits on themselves that are arbitrary and the game will not enforce
#2 those who think people people who play in the style of #1 are crazy

So some #1s play by limiting their Badboy or not allowing pauses or not attacking the same religious group (unless they attack an alliance member, etc).

I'm going to start off the argument that people who set arbitrary goals are not crazy because of the following reasons:

* US Presidents in this time could very easily begin a conquest of global domination through a massive military, but do not (badboy points would be too high). So, they have the ability, but hold back (some more than others, I don't mean to start a political discussion here).
* Real leaders/people don't have a pause button and have to make quick decisions that may or may not be right. Nor can they slow down/speed up time!
* Nato and the Warsaw pact (to some extent) simulate this idea of an alliance beyond an alliance. If France attacked Britian today I have a feeling they would not be treated as a Nato member anymore, etc.

So, what do you guys think? Realistic limits or who cares, WC is what I'm about? And to those, who has more fun playing - those who place limits/set goals and those who just attempt WC?

Who lasts longer in terms of playing the game long term with multiple countries?

The #1s are right,it is the best way to play or you are dead in 100-150 years.
Also America could not go on a war spree as the military is useless,3-4 years in Iraq and who is in charge?Look at what happened to London and Glasgow.

[spl]

They have more time to make decisions because a day is 24 hours long in real life and only 1-6 seconds here. John F. Kennedy had about a week to decide what to do during the Cuban missile crisis, so he had more than 30 seconds

[ashbery76]

I roleplay all the games I play so number 1 fits.It is not about world conquest to me at all.

[Niptium]

Originally Posted by Glorgamon

I've been trying to read/be active in the forums for the last couple weeks and I've seen two different styles of play:

#1 those who put self imposed limits on themselves that are arbitrary and the game will not enforce
#2 those who think people people who play in the style of #1 are crazy

So some #1s play by limiting their Badboy or not allowing pauses or not attacking the same religious group (unless they attack an alliance member, etc).

I'm going to start off the argument that people who set arbitrary goals are not crazy because of the following reasons:

* US Presidents in this time could very easily begin a conquest of global domination through a massive military, but do not (badboy points would be too high). So, they have the ability, but hold back (some more than others, I don't mean to start a political discussion here).
* Real leaders/people don't have a pause button and have to make quick decisions that may or may not be right. Nor can they slow down/speed up time!
* Nato and the Warsaw pact (to some extent) simulate this idea of an alliance beyond an alliance. If France attacked Britian today I have a feeling they would not be treated as a Nato member anymore, etc.

So, what do you guys think? Realistic limits or who cares, WC is what I'm about? And to those, who has more fun playing - those who place limits/set goals and those who just attempt WC?

Who lasts longer in terms of playing the game long term with multiple countries?

I know, there is also some who like to play somewhat historically or in a fashioin that resembles that. I usually won't expand in Europe in such an unhistorical way. If that means the Netherlands sticking with the Dutch cultured and maybe Flemish provinces, than it's ok with me. Seten thought I was coocoo for playing like this.

[VivaStPauli]

Originally Posted by Bowfling44

how come I don't have to deal with designing the uniform of my troops
Because all that stuff would just be boring.

Actually I would love it if the game allowed me to design the uniforms.

And to answer the question I'm in the #1 category.

[Kruniac]

Originally Posted by Bowfling44

Comparrisons to real life won't work out well, simply because this is a game, something that attempts to simlulate the nature of the time and the aspects of the simulation, but in no way deal with all the "real" issues. After all, how come I don't have to deal with designing the uniform of my troops, or making sure my ruler is eating enough vegetables, are sitting in on the cerremonial leaping of the frogs in bubbaboland.

Because all that stuff would just be boring.

In the end, the designers build a game to fit the time, but ultimately, can't decide for the player what will be most fun for that player. If players want to go out and set limits on themselves, because that is most fun for them, so be it. But saying that real life reasons for justifying why they do it doesn't really matter.

What matters is whether the player find that added house rule to make the game more fun or not.

No, thats called "immersion". Boring or not, its godlike. It is what makes a godlike game. The most non-linear, detailed, complicated, and generally free form game in the world is simply the best game in the world.

One day someone will aknowledge this and create a game in which you can simply do anything (not literally anything, but a huge variety of things).

[spl]

if you want limits on expanding that you cannot cross without a bad result play multi player, there i would not recommend attacking any human's vassals