Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game» Forums » Variants

Subject: Last man standing for military victory? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Evans
msg tools
I just finished my first game 1 on 1 and it was great fun. But it seems silly that anyone who kills a capital city should win when you have 4 players. Has anyone played where you need to distory all players in order to get military victory.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Notsteve Notlawton
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
No, it make sense. Kill one capitol and you own 50% of the world! And no, having to kill everyone would make military literally imposible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James W
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Deredbaron wrote:
No, it make sense. Kill one capitol and you own 50% of the world! And no, having to kill everyone would make military literally imposible.


You don't mean literally, you mean practically.

However, I agree with your intent.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
El-ad David Amir
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kingjames01 wrote:
You don't mean literally, you mean practically.

He know what he means, don't put words in he's mouth shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James W
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
IirionClaus wrote:
kingjames01 wrote:
You don't mean literally, you mean practically.

He know what he means, don't put words in he's mouth shake


What???

First, I know what he means too. That's why I said that I agreed with the intent.

kingjames01 wrote:
Deredbaron wrote:
No, it make sense. Kill one capitol and you own 50% of the world! And no, having to kill everyone would make military literally imposible.


You don't mean literally, you mean practically.

However, I agree with your intent.


Don't go putting words in my mouth. shake

Second, I did not put any words in his mouth. He said "literally". He meant practically.

Sigh... shake

Don't make me shake my head at you again...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Notsteve Notlawton
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game » Forums » Variants
Re: Last man standing for military victory?
Nope. It angers me every time someone says "literally" when they don't mean literally. This time however I meant it. There is no physical path that would allow you to have the army speed to take every capitol before you or another player finish another victory path. Mathematicly speaking, if I get 1 tech every turn (+1 at start, +1-4 for random chance cards/ military) it would take me between 13 and 9 turns to win tech. If I make 3 coins every turn, since turn 3 (the earliest you could get a coin except roman) it will take me 7-9 turns, without interuption. If i'm going culture, and move up two spots a turn (higher if romans or arabs) it will take me 11-12 turns. If I build up the forces to take a capitol (includes getting better techs) that takes 8 turns. If you take everyones coties, you've made 9 techs. You would win tech, unquestionably. So, yes. I meant literally.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James W
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Deredbaron wrote:
Nope. It angers me every time someone says "literally" when they don't mean literally. This time however I meant it. There is no physical path that would allow you to have the army speed to take every capitol before you or another player finish another victory path. Mathematicly speaking, if I get 1 tech every turn (+1 at start, +1-4 for random chance cards/ military) it would take me between 13 and 9 turns to win tech. If I make 3 coins every turn, since turn 3 (the earliest you could get a coin except roman) it will take me 7-9 turns, without interuption. If i'm going culture, and move up two spots a turn (higher if romans or arabs) it will take me 11-12 turns. If I build up the forces to take a capitol (includes getting better techs) that takes 8 turns. If you take everyones coties, you've made 9 techs. You would win tech, unquestionably. So, yes. I meant literally.


It is not "literally impossible". Literally impossible means under absolutely no circumstances would it be possible.

I agree with you that it is practically impossible but I do not agree with you that it is literally impossible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Notsteve Notlawton
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
Yes, but thats like saying "the earth will be hit by a meteor unless seven monkeys hula dance through eighteen rings of fire scattered around london, paris, and moscow in under 15 seconds." Sure, there may be some way using wormholes and a time pausing device to do this, but I would still call it "literally impossible" because there are no concievable ways to make this possible. Same with this military scenario. There isn't a physical way to pull that off before you or the defending players win another victory type, without the other player intentionally throwing the game or you intentionally pulling punches, at which Point I invalidate the victory, since you could pull anything off if the other players let you win. Explain to me any concievable way to pull this off with all players trying there hardest. And I am not trying to be rude, I am agreeing with no one (as the guy you were argueing with says I wasn't serious, whic I was)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
El-ad David Amir
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
IirionClaus wrote:
kingjames01 wrote:
You don't mean literally, you mean practically.

He know what he means, don't put words in he's mouth shake
[/q]
Note the underlined part... That was the hint that I'm joking...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Notsteve Notlawton
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
Damn! Yet again i've made a fool of myself on the forum pages... I'm goong to go cry in a corner and contemplate my fate. No one before this point has ever looked silly in these forums! I'm so embarassed!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James W
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Deredbaron wrote:
Yes, but thats like saying "the earth will be hit by a meteor unless seven monkeys hula dance through eighteen rings of fire scattered around london, paris, and moscow in under 15 seconds." Sure, there may be some way using wormholes and a time pausing device to do this, but I would still call it "literally impossible" because there are no concievable ways to make this possible. Same with this military scenario. There isn't a physical way to pull that off before you or the defending players win another victory type, without the other player intentionally throwing the game or you intentionally pulling punches, at which Point I invalidate the victory, since you could pull anything off if the other players let you win. Explain to me any concievable way to pull this off with all players trying there hardest. And I am not trying to be rude, I am agreeing with no one (as the guy you were argueing with says I wasn't serious, whic I was)


I'm not being rude either. I'm just pointing out that it is not literally impossible.

Literally impossible would mean that there are absolutely no circumstances where such a player could win.

If you assume that everyone knows how to play and is playing optimally then it would be practically and/or figuratively impossible.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derek McKay
Cambodia
APO
flag msg tools
Is it my turn? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.
mbmbmbmbmb
I am literally annoyed after reading all this nonsense. Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Troy Gleiter
Germany
Solingen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Refering to TO's question:
You could play it this way (Last man Standing) if military victory condition is the only one, you allow (meaning: no tech, no culutral, no economic vctory possible).
This would result in a game, that could be compared with a more complex risk variant. If that is, what you (and your group) wants to play, just play it this way. Coins, Culture and Techs will still have its reason and cause, also the game will obviously be very militarily.
Additionally I would suggest to ignore the special abilities of the different civs as it would some kind of unbalance your game.

Whatever you decide how to play it: Have fun!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Deredbaron wrote:
Yes, but thats like saying "the earth will be hit by a meteor unless seven monkeys hula dance through eighteen rings of fire scattered around london, paris, and moscow in under 15 seconds." Sure, there may be some way using wormholes and a time pausing device to do this, but I would still call it "literally impossible" because there are no concievable ways to make this possible. Same with this military scenario. There isn't a physical way to pull that off before you or the defending players win another victory type, without the other player intentionally throwing the game or you intentionally pulling punches, at which Point I invalidate the victory, since you could pull anything off if the other players let you win. Explain to me any concievable way to pull this off with all players trying there hardest. And I am not trying to be rude, I am agreeing with no one (as the guy you were argueing with says I wasn't serious, whic I was)


Check out Play by Forum game #1. If Timothy could not have crushed all other empires militarily before someone else reached a victory condition I would be amazed (perhaps even literally stunned, but perhaps not).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lindén
Sweden
Lund
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
http://xkcd.com/725/
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Amund Bisgaard
Norway
flag msg tools
According to this dictionary, you are both right and wrong:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally

lit·er·al·ly

adverb
1.
in the literal or strict sense: What does the word mean literally?
2.
in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally.
3.
actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy: The city was literally destroyed.
4.
in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.



Meaning #4 would suggest that "literally" CAN be used even if you mean "practically". In this case, it would mean pretty much the same as "almost" or "as good as".

However, the same dictionary explains how this fourth meaning arose out of many misuses of the word. So, in the strictest etymological sense, you are right.

It is perhaps sad that words become shallow, their true meaning being blurred by misuse. In the end I think I'll side with you; it seems pretty pointless to have a word that could mean "almost"/"nearly" and alternatively "completely"/"absolutely". One would have to look at the context in order to understand which meaning was intended, thus, the word would have lost its function.

The following is an excerpt from the same entry. I think the word "virtually" would be more precise in this context. Using a non-ambiguous word is always better for clear communication.

Can be confused:  figuratively, literally, virtually (see usage note at the current entry ).

Usage note
Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise. The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.