What's wrong with remaining allied?

Ilkuul · March 20, 2001, 20:37

The Civ2 multiplayer setup is great, except for one thing: you can form alliances with other human players, but you can't STAY allied if you want to complete the game!

My question is, why not? Another multiplayer game I've played quite often is Warcraft II, and there the human players are free to form alliances against the computer and go for an 'allied victory'. A great way to avoid aggro with your friends! Also takes the pressure off, and allows you to wreak a just vengeance on those AI opponents who THEMSELVES tend to gang up on you in the end-game...

Is there anyone else like me who'd like to see an option like this included in Civ3??

sekong · March 20, 2001, 23:14

Good point. Strongly support it.
My guess is the civ was mean to be a solo game. MPG was a add-on feature. Not well done.

finbar · March 20, 2001, 23:51

See my response to your post in the Gen/Comm/Help forum.

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591

Smash · March 20, 2001, 23:53

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>The Civ2 multiplayer setup is great, except for one thing: you can form alliances with other human players, but you can't STAY allied if you want to complete the game!
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Why not?

Ilkuul · March 22, 2001, 01:04

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Smash on 03-20-2001 10:53 PM</font>

Why not?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

-- Because only one player can win! That's what I mean by 'ending' the game. In Warcraft II (and other games, I guess, tho' that's the only one I've seen), you can opt as one of your initial game choices for an "allied victory". That means that as soon as all your opponents APART from your ally/allies are knocked out, you have an allied victory. No way to do that in Civ2 without all except one ally retiring or quitting.

Ilkuul · March 22, 2001, 01:26

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by finbar on 03-20-2001 10:46 PM</font>
... if a victory - either by world conquest or space flight - has been achieved by the combined efforts of an alliance, then the alliance should be recognised as the "winner", regardless of which partner is the "winner" according to the software.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

[See Finbar's full comment in the General/Help forum.]

Thanks for that comment, Finbar (and apologies that this topic now appears on 2 forums! I realised too late that it was more appropriate for the multiplayer forum).

However, I don't see how anyone can speak of an "allied victory" by world conquest in Civ2! World conquest necessarily means that ALL players except one are out of the game at the end -- either by literal conquest, or because they've quit or retired. How does that tie in with the notion of an alliance? The only way I can see it working is that one member of the alliance is agreed to be the most powerful, and the others therefore retire to leave him/her a clear field. But that means they don't see the end of the game -- hardly a "victory" for THEM!

So the only really workable allied victory in Civ2 would be by space flight -- tho' even then, all the honours go to the single player who reaches AC.

A method that a friend and I have used (since we simply don't WANT to wipe one another out!), is that we play only until all the AI players have been defeated (by either or both of us); then we both retire and see what our JOINT scores come to! Maybe it sounds crazy, but it helps maintain the illusion of a true "allied victory".

finbar · March 22, 2001, 06:57

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Ilkuul on 03-21-2001 12:26 PM</font>

However, I don't see how anyone can speak of an "allied victory" by world conquest in Civ2! World conquest necessarily means that ALL players except one are out of the game at the end -- either by literal conquest, or because they've quit or retired. How does that tie in with the notion of an alliance?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

If you accept the notion of an alliance "victory" in Civ 2, victory by world conquest would simply mean that an alliance has cooperated in wiping out the rest of the world. There would be two civs left - assuming an alliance of two - and the alliance would be victors.

It's really no different to the concept of an alliance winning via the space route. In that case, according to the software, it's the civ whose SS lands that "wins". By calling it an alliance "victory", you're overriding (to to speak) the software. In world conquest, according to the software, you have to be the last civ standing. To acknowledge an alliance world conquest, you also override (so to speak) the software.

Not that I've heard of very many alliance world conquests. But the principle should remain the same.

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by finbar (edited March 22, 2001).]</font>

Ilkuul · March 22, 2001, 20:00

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by finbar on 03-22-2001 05:57 AM</font>
If you accept the notion of an alliance "victory" in Civ 2, victory by world conquest would simply mean that an alliance has cooperated in wiping out the rest of the world. There would be two civs left - assuming an alliance of two - and the alliance would be victors.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

OK, so on that interpretation the method my friend and I have been using IS in fact the only way to simulate an "allied victory" by world conquest. Good to know that we stumbled on it by chance!

But I'd still like to see a 'proper' allied victory option in Civ3...

finbar · March 23, 2001, 00:55

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Ilkuul on 03-22-2001 07:00 PM</font>
OK, so on that interpretation the method my friend and I have been using IS in fact the only way to simulate an "allied victory" by world conquest. Good to know that we stumbled on it by chance!
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well, put it this way - you can both stay in the game and enjoy finishing off the last enemy civ. You'll just miss out on the fanfare and stuff because the software obviously won't end the game when the last enemy civ snuffs it.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>But I'd still like to see a 'proper' allied victory option in Civ3...

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Yep.

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591