Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Mega Civilization» Forums » General

Subject: Trading - Total value no longer revealed? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel King
msg tools
My group has been playing the Gibson version for years, I've just purchased Mega Civ and have been reading through the manual. Now trading in normal civ was, state the number of cards, reveal 1 card, and state the total value of the cards.

This allowed you to at least guess if a calamity was being offered, and sometimes know for definite

Mega Civ scraps the need to tell the total value, this seems like a terrible idea, as now you have no way of knowing if you are being traded a calamity or not? Water being a 0 muddies this further, is the intention simply to remove some of the skill element from trading and reduce it to luck?

Can anyone explain why this is like this? Or should we house rule stating the total value still? I presume there's a great reason why this rule was changed, but so far I'm not seeing it.

(I'm aware this may have been changed in Advanced Civ too, but not the reason behind it)

Cheers,

Daniel.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
H-B-G
United Kingdom
Halesowen
West Midlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the1darklord wrote:
My group has been playing the Gibson version for years, I've just purchased Mega Civ and have been reading through the manual. Now trading in normal civ was, state the number of cards, reveal 1 card, and state the total value of the cards.

This allowed you to at least guess if a calamity was being offered, and sometimes know for definite

Mega Civ scraps the need to tell the total value, this seems like a terrible idea, as now you have no way of knowing if you are being traded a calamity or not? Water being a 0 muddies this further, is the intention simply to remove some of the skill element from trading and reduce it to luck?

Can anyone explain why this is like this? Or should we house rule stating the total value still? I presume there's a great reason why this rule was changed, but so far I'm not seeing it.

(I'm aware this may have been changed in Advanced Civ too, but not the reason behind it)

Cheers,

Daniel.



According to the designer's notes in Advanced Civ, the change was to simplify the trading, also allowing a player to know for sure the identity of 2 of the cards in the trade.

I think the rule is an improvement over the original rules precisely because it was easier to work out if a calamity was coming.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cheb
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's a bit of discussion on this from the designers in this thread here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1468481/trading/page/1

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't see how the modified trade rules would decrease the skill involved in trading.

Generally trade works better when you can't just calculate whether a calamity is included or not.

Trading calamities is one of the few ways to catch up to a leader, especially in the first version of Civilization (I have only played the Avalon Hill version but I believe it is the same as the Gibson version).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel King
msg tools
Cheers guys, I had a read through that thread and I think I'm missing how stating two makes it easier to see a calamity is coming?

That 3rd card is a complete mystery so could be anything. Where as if you state the total then you can potentially work out, that it must either a water or a calamity, and if you are watching carefully you may even know if they have a water or not.

Daniel.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel King
msg tools
Mattias wrote:
Generally trade works better when you can't just calculate whether a calamity is included or not.


I've always enjoyed the skill involved in trading in Civ, this seems to strip that away.

Do you guys think we could stick with the original method of trading without any particular hardship to the game?

Daniel.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
-=::) Dante (::=-
United States
KEW GARDENS
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Don't forget that virtually everything about Mega Civ was designed with massive player count games in mind. The designer points out here that this style of trading was implemented to maximize the highest number of trades when playing with a huge group:

Flodehaan wrote:
For MegaCiv however we have set the rules, which we tested thoroughly. We have tried many options. If you want a quick way to do as many trades as possible with 18 players, in a 10 minute time limit, our option proved to be the best way to do so. Whenever you prefer something else, your own personal house-rules, please do.


The other designer in the thread linked above also echoes Flo's comment that it's okay to trade using whatever method you prefer, so neither seem to have any concerns that it would cause problems in Mega Civ. (apart from slowing down trading within a larger group)

So especially in smaller games of only 6-9 players classic Civ or Adv. Civ trading should be perfectly fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel King
msg tools
Perfect, cheers!

Daniel.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
H-B-G
United Kingdom
Halesowen
West Midlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the1darklord wrote:
Cheers guys, I had a read through that thread and I think I'm missing how stating two makes it easier to see a calamity is coming?

That 3rd card is a complete mystery so could be anything. Where as if you state the total then you can potentially work out, that it must either a water or a calamity, and if you are watching carefully you may even know if they have a water or not.

Daniel.


I don't think anyone said that it was easier to spot a calamity by having to state 2 cards. It was easier (as you are saying) when you had to state the total because you could potentially work it out.

That is why I think the Advanced (and now Mega) version is a better rule.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel King
msg tools
DaveD wrote:

I don't think anyone said that it was easier to spot a calamity by having to state 2 cards. It was easier (as you are saying) when you had to state the total because you could potentially work it out.

That is why I think the Advanced (and now Mega) version is a better rule.


No worries I misread, cheers for the help!

Daniel.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the1darklord wrote:
Mattias wrote:
Generally trade works better when you can't just calculate whether a calamity is included or not.


I've always enjoyed the skill involved in trading in Civ, this seems to strip that away.

Do you guys think we could stick with the original method of trading without any particular hardship to the game?

Daniel.

Although you could probably house rule the trade any number of ways I suggest you try it as written at least once.

One of the problems with the original Civilization game (a game which I love and have played countless times) is that it is almost deterministic. Given competent players, if you pick one of two civilizations you will not be able to win the game. If you buy Mysticism you are also out of the running. If you are the first player to be hit by civil war you will not win.

Advanced Civilization solved several of these problems by tweaking the victory conditions and allowing more advances to be held.

Mega Civilization plays more like Advanced and you are in for a pleasant surprise if you have only played the original.

All that said, trade is not about avoiding calamities. In all versions of Civ you will generally be better off just accepting the calamities you get and mitigate them as well as you can (except for civil war early - but that is not a tradeable calamity).

The skill in trading is much more about collecting the best sets you can. Ignoring any worries about getting calamities in trade is almost always a good way to collect what you need.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cheb
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:

All that said, trade is not about avoiding calamities. In all versions of Civ you will generally be better off just accepting the calamities you get and mitigate them as well as you can (except for civil war early - but that is not a tradeable calamity).

The skill in trading is much more about collecting the best sets you can. Ignoring any worries about getting calamities in trade is almost always a good way to collect what you need.


This x1000000

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel King
msg tools
Ah go on then, we'll try it as written for the first game and see how it goes.

It's going to be weird as I've been playing classic Civ once or twice a year for around 20 years. It's good to see that so much has stayed the same , which will make it easy to pick up.

But, I'm really looking forward to all new bits, especially as I haven't played Advanced, having so more variety of tech and calamities etc sounds great! I can't wait to see barbarians and pirate cities and such!

Daniel.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Maggi
United States
Loudonville
NY
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I hate base Civilization because my brain doesn't work quick enough to add up the numbers of a trade proposed to me to determine if it is good or not. I love Advanced Civ. because the trade rules are easier for me to understand.
 
 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.