we can make a rule. no trading or attacking an ai player perhaps
Is there anyway to police that?
I think you might be making a mountain of a mole hill.
Then again I know nothing about Civ VI but what do I know.
I will say, shit happens. Like my starting position sucks. Sometimes someone just gets a lucky break and pushes far ahead. Maybe they do that exploiting the one AI in the game, maybe they do that some other way.
This game is going to be pretty zany anyway. If someone gets far ahead, thatās just a challenge weāll have to face.
Iām not here to win personally. Iām just hear to survive as long as possible. So some Gary Mitchell player will just be another challenge to try to survive.
Oh, and the only victory condition is domination. No one can like science their way to an easy win while the rest of us are toiling away.
Merely for clarity, I am not concerned about ai either.
For further transparency, I now learn there is only one victory condition, as well as there being zombies.
Best practice is to publish this kind of stuff before the game starts so people can make informed decisions about whether they want to participate.
Do you know somebody who can play and can your substitute?
Sadly, no.
So I can make the game youāre looking for Zarquon. How about we do that as a compromise.
Because, I donāt know about you, but I donāt have enough play by cloud games going. I only have like 2 or 3. So Iām fine getting a couple more going and having a healthy rotation. So I have some comp stomps, I have a crazy zany apocalypse survival game ā Iām happy to make a game more to your specifications.
And then, if you were willing, we can just play both games and have a best of both worlds.
What victory conditions are you looking for? Cause Iāve heard a lot of them are easy to cheese, and it can be frustrating for other people. Especially in this long game when you might spend forever building something up just to have someone shoot a rocket into space and go āneener neenerā
Since these games are so long and often never end anyway, I just choose domination victory, but really the victor in our minds will be who has the most points whenever we all give up on this, or maybe we get to a stalemate and do it based on points then, or maybe we give out more than one winner, and award like merit based awards āYou built the most cities but he was better at warā or whatever. Or maybe one of use manages to kill the other and then sure heāll be the winner.
But Civilization, to me, isnāt about winning or losing. Itās about building. Weāre embarking on building a world people, with many great nations!
Get excited! For the life you are about to create.
Not because it is interesting, just for clarity:ā¦
I have enough games going at present, so I would not be looking for more. The reason I chose this game is because I have a fetish for huge maps, have only played a very few epics, and with 10-12 players each move would be very slow to come around. By the time this game sped up, I would have finished some of the others and could adjust the overall pace. I have a few other games where I am making 3 - 5 moves per day every day.
Having domination only as a victory condition would not (at least right now) stop me joining, but zombies is a killer.
I am used to games that last for years. I have finished 73 games, with another 12 still in progress. Of these I have lost 70, so I never join a game expecting to win - just a chance to win. However I do not want to spend this amount of time on a lost cause.
I would be happy to now join any other huge epic you started with a large number of players (in fact i mistakenly joined the other game you recently set up - before realising it was civ5 and withdrew) and am not too fussy about any of the conditions - except zombies.
I very much agree with your line about not being about winning etc, but with zombies the building thing gets to rapidly look like a sad joke.
how many zombie games have you played?
That was enough.
Someone was telling me that heād only played two. And he was saying that both games were vastly different experiences. So he has no clue what a normal zombies game looks like.
Could it be maybe you just had a really bad zombie game? Maybe every zombie game is different and yours just really sucked?
This dude was telling me one of his two games, they barely even were a thing at all. They were a complete non issue.
And then the other game they were more overwhelming ā so I mean it sounds like a roll of a die sort of thing. It sounds like maybe your only Zombie game was a nightmare ā¦ but itās not like every zombie game is a nightmare ā and maybe since you know how bad it can get you can prepare for the worst and then really prosper when itās not that bad.
I also do not like that the game is with zombies, and that there was no warning about it. I suggest restarting the game without the zombies.
lol domination only with zombies is going to be interesting
1 Like
Zombies for the win
1 Like
All I can say to the naysayers is, Give it a chance Jack. And whatever doesnāt work, I promise I wont do it again next time. But lets make connections now and have a good time and see how it goes.
aGREED
Anyone wanna join my 6v6 game Iām putting together? There are 6 more slots.
https://www.playyourdamnturn.com/game/f3072ac8-8ee1-4ab1-8a67-99ab82805a89
something is wrong here i canāt pass the turn. I canāt revert it either and it says Pete is still playing.
The expectation set here was a long slow game āover months to perhaps a yearā.
The reality is going to be measured in decadesā¦
If you know anyone who wants to take my place, please let them have it.
Months are very optimistic. Iām in games that started in 2019 
1 Like
Zarquonwhereareyou and I played several games very quickly. For example, one 4-player game started on April 2nd and ended on May 22nd.