"House Rule" games...No crows, etc.

[SCIkick]

I started a game called "No Crows", and in the comments I put that players should be under the honors system not to produce or use any crows in the game. Well, one player just completely disregarded it, which was kind of annoying if the other players agreed to it. I ended up surrendering early anyway because my hero died on the second turn and had lost all my units with some bad luck failing to take some cities.

Is there anything wrong with starting games with such a rule? Some times I just get annoyed by crows, how some players just have like hundreds of them swarming all over the map, ready to swoop in and take an empty city and capitalize. How exactly does a flock of birds take a city anyway?

Any thoughts? I'd like to start another game like it, but not if it's not allowed or the players just laughingly disregard it. I mean, if you want swarms of crows, play another game.

[LPhillips]

Crows force you to defend your back lines, which forces balanced play. It's actually a pretty important unit in the game.

That said, if someone plays your game titled "no crows", they ought to have the courtesy to respect the rules. When I saw a game with a name like that, I just didn't join. Like you said: we have the choice to participate.

[MrBofa]

to be fair, maybe they didnt speak english?

[SCIkick]

No, the player said in english.. "Who do you think you are, God? My crows will fly."

Oh well, no big deal. I also see how crows are a key unit for keeping an advancing enemy honest by forcing him to keep troops behind the lines. But, if the rule is specified why join a game just to be a jerk to defy the whole idea from the beginning? I had bad luck from the beginning anyway, but still the player's complete disregard added to my decision to be the 1st to surrender.

Just saying, not being polite is a pet peeve of mine. Also, really ridiculous sexually explicit hero and city names too. I mean grow up. Do you need to name your hero "Analingus" ? Yes, a someone does that.

To each their own I guess.

[Pillager]

Crows are a useful unit, but I barely built any until beta 3 (when we got bless temples)...and I was winning a fair number of games, so clearly crows aren't necessary.

Joining a 'no crows' game and building crows...well, that just ain't right.

I get annoyed with folks who quit as soon as I get a slight upper hand against them. This is fine in 2 player games, but totally screws up the balance in multiplayer. I just do not understand some folks and their completely selfish behavior.

[KGB]

SCIkick,

You are best off making a password game called no crows then asking players to send you an PM asking for the password for the game. That doesn't guarantee someone won't make crows but it will at least deter casual player from doing so.

I too passed on that game because it was called No Crows and you asked not to use them.

Pillager,

Why shouldn't players resign if they are losing/not having fun. Their prerogative. I resign in many games once it's clear to me I've lost. I don't care whether it's 1-1 or MP and I certainly don't care about the balance in a game once I resign. Plus resigning is a sign of respect for your opponents play.

This is why I HATE the fact that resigning doesn't raze your cities but instead turns them neutral. If it razed all the cities then there would not be a balance issue.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

As it currently stands, resigning can cause a major power vacuum (especially if the resigning player has a significant number of cities). So, one player quitting can totally unbalance the game for all the other players...sure it is their prerogative to ruin everyone else's fun...but it is also a jerk move.

I agree that having all of resigning player's cities auto raze would do a lot to minimize the unbalancing effect.

[KGB]

Pillager,

There are really 2 types of 'resigns' going on.

1) Player drops out due to inactivity
2) Player actually resigns

#1 is annoying and happens a lot since players seem to come and go a fair bit. It would be nice to be able to replace such a player on more than turn 1. In this instance I can see turning everything to neutral if no one wants to replace them. There really is no good choice here since often a drop out's position is hopeless anyway so a replacing player may just resign instantly regardless.

#2 I don't mind at all since it's a conscious decision by a player who believes he can no longer win. In this case the game should raze all their cities to the ground.

If you don't let a player quit then they can make a bigger jerk move and simply turn all their cities over to a 3rd player by letting them occupy them with a bat while they continue to make your life miserable. I've seen this happen in more than one game too. Hence I'd much prefer the resign just razes everything immediately.

Personally I don't mind when a player resigns. It just makes my job that much easier as there is one less opponent.

KGB

[Pillager]

If you don't let a player quit then they can make a bigger jerk move and simply turn all their cities over to a 3rd player by letting them occupy them with a bat while they continue to make your life miserable. I've seen this happen in more than one game too. Hence I'd much prefer the resign just razes everything immediately.

Yeah, this is often referred to as 'Kingmaking'...when you stop trying to actually win the game, and instead focus on trying to make another player win or lose. Kingmaking is considered to be pretty bad etiquette amongst the wargames groups I have played with.

I'm not suggesting that players shouldn't be allowed to quit, but that they exercise restraint when doing so...instead of packing it in when the first little thing doesn't go their way.

[KGB]

Pillager,

I often 'Kingmake' players who treachery me in an alliance. I'm not talking about someone who gives me warning that the alliance is dissolving but rather someone who purely stabs me in the back. At that point I must punish the traitor so that he has no chance to win either. It's the only way to ensure it doesn't happen again to me in the future.

KGB