There can never be Civ3 MP - Page 2

Dev · November 30, 2001, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
well i fail to see what kind of precognition i had to have to see that the game is 'broken'

ahh so you're reduced to putting words in my mouth now ?

Show me one post where I say it's broken.

Half finished != broken.

/dev

November 30, 2001, 13:22

"LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking."

Ok, I need to set things a little straight. First of all, this isn't my real name. My real name is EyesOfNight and I am the greatest Civ2 MP player of all time. I went 2 straight years at number 1 on the ladder and I have beaten every single player there is practically on all settings, both 2x2x and 1x1x. The reason Republic is 32 turns no matter what is because I was the first one to begin researching it. That means I get penalized for being ahead. Unfortunately you Nov 2001 newbies don't know who the hell you're dealing with. As for you Grim and Larusso, you know how to reach me if you'd like a lesson in civ2 MP, and don't message me with "lets play a game against the AI and compare saves" as some of you have challenged me to. I will simply laugh at you and make you a fool on every forum known to man. And if any of you question what I say, you need only go visit other civ sites where you will see my strategies posted on them. Now, with that aside...the AI isn't difficult at all. In fact it takes forever for them to change government. All that has changed is that now there are more restrictions on the human. Plain and simple.

Barbotte · November 30, 2001, 14:02

Quote:

I am the greatest Civ2 MP player of all time.

How pathetic is that? How big was the civ2 MP crowd? 100? 200?
It`s like saying you`re the best player of Dungeon Keeper Multiplayer of all time.

Who cares. Anybody with some kind of life dont play multiplayer. It`s just too long.

Sorry, could not resist.

Jack_www · November 30, 2001, 14:12

I have never play civ2 mp, the reason for this is when I had civ2 I did not have an internet connection at home, and thus could not play Civ2 mp, although I wanted to. I dont know if this would be a good idea or not, but lets just say that Firaxis does release a editor for the game that makes it possible for scenarios to be made. I think one thing that might make Civ3 mp better is to play scenarios with other people. Does anyone else think that this might be a good idea?

HalfLotus · November 30, 2001, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Ok, I need to set things a little straight. First of all, this isn't my real name. My real name is EyesOfNight and I am the greatest Civ2 MP player of all time. I went 2 straight years at number 1 on the ladder and I have beaten every single player there is practically on all settings, both 2x2x and 1x1x. Unfortunately you Nov 2001 newbies don't know who the hell you're dealing with. As for you Grim and Larusso, you know how to reach me if you'd like a lesson in civ2 MP, and don't message me with "lets play a game against the AI and compare saves" as some of you have challenged me to. I will simply laugh at you and make you a fool on every forum known to man. And if any of you question what I say, you need only go visit other civ sites where you will see my strategies posted on them.

While civ3-general forum hasn't been my cup of tea lately, I do prefer newbies to jerks.

Kaak · November 30, 2001, 14:34

Quote:

LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking.

Hmmm...Did you tread what was posted? Expansion is not hard. Anyone of moderate skill can match the AI's Expansion. The problem comes when you hit the city limit and suffer massive corruption while your computer opponents do not. War is also not hard in civ3, just rediculous and pointless. It gains you nothing. No tech (which was a stupid thing for them to get rid of), no usable cities (corruption is so rampant, it's rediculous). It is better to either raze captured cities or auction them off. And tech is not too difficult, it just takes away the importance of strategy, which some people find to be an important aspect of a strategy game.

The other problems have been repeatedly beaten into the ground. The reason I finally quit playing the game was the Science System. The limitations are a bit rediculous, but that isn't my biggest issue. What is most frustrating to me is that you cannot have straightline tech paths. That was one of the things that made civ2 so great. You had to choose between say A) Monarchy and Early Republic B) whether to go to for gunpowder directly or maybe monotheism, etc. Here you have to get all (or almost all) techs of a certain age before you can move on. This kills a great deal of the strategy involved.

Civ2 is a great strategicly balanced game. I realize that you haven't been around that long, but for those of us who have, that is our main issue with civ3: it isn't as strategic, and it is far from balanced.

Ming · November 30, 2001, 14:59

Ahhhh... more valid points being raised by Kaak... another experienced and expert MP player.

In Civ II... you had many choices you could make, different strategies, inparticular, your choice of science paths. What did you want to go for, and what were you willing to give up...

I found that if you start off with the same civ, most games follow similar paths, without much deviation.

Most of the good improvements do lead to a more unbalanced MP game (like strategic resources). And while diplomacy is far more important, more fun, and much better done for SP... in MP, you won't have a Stupid AI to rip off.

I must concur... most of the changes have just lead to less strategy, and more unbalance.

HalfLotus · November 30, 2001, 15:13

In civ2 MP ICS is the only way to compete. ICS is a boring and formulaic strategy, I hate it. The corruption and culture takeover reduce the effectiveness of traditional ICS. That seems like an MP improvement.
Strategic resources make MP human diplomacy that much more interesting. In civ2 you had everything you needed to build and dominate the whole game without ever talking to another civ. How boring. Civ3 forces you to go get those resources from others, peacefully or not so nicely.
Wars in civ are not what they used to be. They aren't steamroller-like offensives. They must be more surgical and precise in nature. I like the new war situation.

There will be a civ3 MP, and it will not be civ2 MP.

Powerslave · November 30, 2001, 15:24

Well I have played Civ 2 MP against a couple of my friends sinced it got available and I look very much forward to MP on Civ 3. I think it gonna be much more fun and really allows for more strategies. The problem with Civ 2 was that it was to unbalanced. As soon as one of us got the lead it was most of the time just impossible to stop him. We had to change the rules constant and even introduced some house rules.

I can agree that the tech chart is screwed up and IMHO it must be changed. Though the panalty to the first empire to research a new tech is great and the 4 turn cap is no problem just change your science rate and rape the benefit of more money instead.

Sauron07 · November 30, 2001, 15:37

Im sorry but I cannot agree with the comments running through this thread that "good players" are punished by the design of CivIII or that you have less strategic options in CivIII compared to CivII. If I play chess against a 3 year old(the civII AI) I can beat him in any of 100 different ways but is that really more strategically varied or challenging? That said, I think CivIII does reward a hybrid startegy of military and building, but I also know that in SP either all out building or conquest can be successful.

The fact of the matter is that it is a game which has rules and all players play by the same rules. Your definition of what makes a "good player" is invalid. This is NOT CivII no matter how much people seem to want it to be. There are different rules implemented for a variety of reasons and to be a "good CivIII player" you need to adapt to the rules which exist in the game or change them in the editor(more on this below, and btw I believe world size has an effect on how quickly research progresses at the start of the game). If you do so I gaurantee you will be more successful than a "newbie playing for 2 weeks".

I can agree somewhat with the desire to be able to change certain predetermined rules in the editor such as the science cap, but I also think the reason it was placed in the game was to counterbalance the big new advantage techs can provide in the game, early access to strategic resources. If someone obtains a massive tech lead in CIV III they know where all the strategic resources are before any other civs and this is a HUGE advantage which can unbalance gameplay in single player let alone mp. I also think that if we are looking for "realism" in the combat side of the game which I have seen countless threads about, then you cannot complain about a little "realism" on the science side of things, namely the concept that you cant just pour unlimited amounts of money and scientists at a question and learn new techs instantly(or even every turn).

I also think most discussions about how CivIII mp will be this or that are not very worthwhile at this point in time. There are bound to be many rules changes and or tweaks to gameplay to accomodate MP and until we see the proposed rule set it is largely futile to try and predict what gameplay will be like.

In conclusion, I must also strenuosly disagree with the concept that warfare will be a dead strat in mp under the current rules. Just look at how unbalanced rushbuilding is under despotism. The easiest way to beat diety currently is to build about 4-8 core cities and then just rush build units rather than settlers, as taking over an opponents city nets you a city and takes away one of theirs! I agree you wont be able to create vassal states in mp and get all of their tech and cities in exchange for peace but I am almost certain that military rushing with an ancient UU(Mounted Warriors anyone?) will be a viable and possibly even dominant strategy in MP. Sorry this ran so long but I had to get my 2 cents in.

Special_Olympic · November 30, 2001, 16:16

This is so typical. Whenever there's a sequel to a popular game like civ2, there's always a bunch of people who b1tch about how the new game sucks and only unskilled newbies like it.

Yawn.

Ming · November 30, 2001, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Special_Olympic
This is so typical. Whenever there's a sequel to a popular game like civ2, there's always a bunch of people who b1tch about how the new game sucks and only unskilled newbies like it.
Yawn.

First... the next time you use a number (b1tch) to get pass the censor, you will get a vacation from posting on this site. The owners have the censor feature on for a reason... please respect their wishes, or post someplace else.

Second... You truely don't understand this thread. I think the Civ II MP experts are saying that the current game is not as well suited for MP play as the game they are used to.
I will admit I fall in that category... I see some real problems with the current game as a MP game. I hope some things will be modified to make it better for MP.

But as far as the game goes, I like it. I think they have developed an excellent SP game. Granted, it has some bugs, but overall, I find it as addictive as I originally found Civ.

Kuciwalker · November 30, 2001, 17:01

This "bracket" that the rules keep the player in are meant to try and simulate the rise and fall of nations by helping eliminate the snowball effect.

Grim Legacy · November 30, 2001, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
"LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking."

Ok, I need to set things a little straight. First of all, this isn't my real name. My real name is EyesOfNight and I am the greatest Civ2 MP player of all time. I went 2 straight years at number 1 on the ladder and I have beaten every single player there is practically on all settings, both 2x2x and 1x1x. The reason Republic is 32 turns no matter what is because I was the first one to begin researching it. That means I get penalized for being ahead. Unfortunately you Nov 2001 newbies don't know who the hell you're dealing with. As for you Grim and Larusso, you know how to reach me if you'd like a lesson in civ2 MP, and don't message me with "lets play a game against the AI and compare saves" as some of you have challenged me to. I will simply laugh at you and make you a fool on every forum known to man. And if any of you question what I say, you need only go visit other civ sites where you will see my strategies posted on them. Now, with that aside...the AI isn't difficult at all. In fact it takes forever for them to change government. All that has changed is that now there are more restrictions on the human. Plain and simple.

I guess I misread the post indeed. I thought you and others were complaining that some factors in Civ3 made the game too hard and thus not suitable for MP.
Now the point is that if you are ahead, you run into the 32 turns issue. The claim is then that this encourages mediocre playing.
On this issue I can partially agree. However. It could also make MP more balanced -the competition would shift to other areas. Production for instance. It may simply mean that the focus changes, but that the difficulty increases due to a more limited set of 'victory points'.

On another note, your post about your Civ2 MP skills is little high off the horn IMO. To each his own, I guess.

Grim Legacy · November 30, 2001, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaak

Hmmm...Did you tread what was posted? Expansion is not hard. Anyone of moderate skill can match the AI's Expansion. The problem comes when you hit the city limit and suffer massive corruption while your computer opponents do not. War is also not hard in civ3, just rediculous and pointless. It gains you nothing. No tech (which was a stupid thing for them to get rid of), no usable cities (corruption is so rampant, it's rediculous). It is better to either raze captured cities or auction them off. And tech is not too difficult, it just takes away the importance of strategy, which some people find to be an important aspect of a strategy game.

Uh yes, exactly like I claimed. Also see my other posts here.

Quote:

The other problems have been repeatedly beaten into the ground. The reason I finally quit playing the game was the Science System. The limitations are a bit rediculous, but that isn't my biggest issue. What is most frustrating to me is that you cannot have straightline tech paths. That was one of the things that made civ2 so great. You had to choose between say A) Monarchy and Early Republic B) whether to go to for gunpowder directly or maybe monotheism, etc. Here you have to get all (or almost all) techs of a certain age before you can move on. This kills a great deal of the strategy involved.

Civ2 is a great strategicly balanced game. I realize that you haven't been around that long, but for those of us who have, that is our main issue with civ3: it isn't as strategic, and it is far from balanced.

Well I'm not sure about the balance being off. It might initially seem so, but even with the current set of pieces on the board I think there remains much to be enjoyed, even in MP. See my reply to the avid MP'er for an answer to the 'penalty for being ahead' situation.

As for your last comment -never mind my new nick here. I have in fact been around these parts since 1997. And of course been civving since Civ1 on my 286 w/o mouse and 1Mb RAM.

Special_Olympic · November 30, 2001, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Second... You truely don't understand this thread. I think the Civ II MP experts are saying that the current game is not as well suited for MP play as the game they are used to.
I will admit I fall in that category... I see some real problems with the current game as a MP game. I hope some things will be modified to make it better for MP.

Ummm, I do understand the thread, but got a little off track with my last post, hehe. I posted earlier in this thread that I felt the game needed to be modified for MP, pretty much the same thing you said.

I agree that right now the game wouldn't work for MP. I could see this being a good MP game with a few rule changes.

War4ever · November 30, 2001, 17:28

Dont be so quick to come down on EyesofNight or Kaak...two of the best players to play civ2 MP.... their knowledge of the game is surpassed by few if any...

as for their knowledge of civ3..... listen to wise ones even if you don't like the presentation.

civ 3 will suck for MP....culture..yawn what is this..the new way to war.....i don't think so...

resources...like i am going to trade my saltpeter or rubber for 10g per turn

tech takes way too long..what you started on a river ....only 30 turns now

corruption..... watch me build that building in 80 turns.... oops , no ....watch me rush build things every 7-10 turns b/c despot will be the only way to go.....

space race in MP....hahaha the game will never be continued to get there...

civ attributes..were going to have everyone playing the same races.....

leaders..whoever gets the first one has a huge advantage no matter what they do with it..
they greatly unbalance the game

starting positions.... these are even more unbalanced than in civ2

this game isn't worthy of the civ title

November 30, 2001, 20:06

The real problem is this. The designers never really considered MP when they started developing it. You're right, not many people played MP. More than 100 or 200, but compared to the thousands that played Age of Empires it's nothing. And don't think for a second the designers don't know this. As they see it, it's more profitable to do an SP game and then rape the hardcore MPers for their money a second time around. So, all these new improvements were made with the AI in mind. That means they never even considered what the effects would be on MP. They were so bent on creating a more "challenging AI" that they found it easiest to simply create more rules. Human gets 2 pop points taken away for settlers, AI doesn't. AI gets little to no corruption, Human gets massive corruption. See a trend here? The AI isn't any more difficult than the AI in Civ2, and in fact in some ways it's worse. At least in civ2 the AI saw government changing as valuable, this AI takes forever to research a new government. Not only that, but all the AI does is horde massive amounts of warriors and spearmen. The only reason it is even challenging in a war is because the combat system is so horrible that warriors can beat just about any units on a given turn. This isn't a more difficult AI, this is a more constrained human.

P.S. My games in MP only last about 20min-1 hour depending on the skill of the player.

Ka Shima · November 30, 2001, 22:36

Quote:

All these facts look to me as some kind of limitations put on each player to be sure that whatever they do, they all end into a limited bracket of possibilities, so that the AI won't be distanced by too much. It has its advantage (more challenging, less incongruous 1500 years gap in technology between too neighbour civ, work for the human player too if he's in late), but as a whole it feel somehow cheesy, some kind of trick to slow down the best player and boost up the mediocre one that get distanced. Again something that should be optionnal (or at least moddable), to allow to people that want it a more challenging game, and people that want it a game that rewards their game abilities to the fullest.

Oh boy, second post to apolyton ever!
But, I feel a lot like Harrison Bergeron when I play Civ3.

If you know who that is, then you need no further explanation.
If you don't know who that is, well, then you need to read a bit more!

If you do know who it is and don't agree, well, you're entitled to that opinion.

Akka · November 30, 2001, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Ka Shima

Oh boy, second post to apolyton ever!
But, I feel a lot like Harrison Bergeron when I play Civ3.

If you know who that is, then you need no further explanation.
If you don't know who that is, well, then you need to read a bit more!

If you do know who it is and don't agree, well, you're entitled to that opinion.

I'm afraid I have to read more then

Rasputin · December 1, 2001, 07:39

i love the cultural takeover aspect and would love to use it in an MP game, i have palyed a few game sin civ3 where the AI coems take my city vy force but it revolts straight back to me because the people love me!!!! My type of game !!!!

yin26 · December 1, 2001, 08:06

Face it. Civ3's days are numbered.

VetLegion · December 1, 2001, 09:49

I also think civ3 is a bit "strict". more than previous titles, much more like EU.

personally I am irritated by two things:

- time. this game CAN be faster, it was design decision not to make it so. the result is, I am playing every free moment (I have the game since it was released) and I have till now finished one game on regent and one on monarch is near end. with the amount of time I could like finish 10 civ2 games or so

but come on yin, if the firaxis show at least half the dedication EU team shows (EU2 intro starts with "This game is dedicated to our fans - EU2 crew") and show it with number of patches, some 6-7 may be needed, then not all is lost.

while I like civ3, if we take out the graphics, everything else is pretty dark.

I really dont see how this can be played in MP, I mean fortifying a unit takes a second instead of being instantanweous!

VetLegion · December 1, 2001, 09:55

Quote:

This "bracket" that the rules keep the player in are meant to try and simulate the rise and fall of nations by helping eliminate the snowball effect.

yes, I know. however it irritates me to see my civ looking "by the book". I never played by the book, now I have a forbidden palace in right spot, temples, libraries, I go to war when game wants me to...

I agree with all points war4ever mentioned. while I think it can be patched for SP, MP.... how?

VetLegion · December 1, 2001, 10:00

Quote:

Half finished != broken.

did anyone think that != is much more like = then notequal (something like #)

I know some c, but the expression still looks more like 'equal' then 'not equal'.

HalfLotus · December 1, 2001, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Human gets 2 pop points taken away for settlers, AI doesn't. AI gets little to no corruption, Human gets massive corruption. See a trend here

This is simply not true. Soren has stated that the AI suffers from the same corruption, and pays the same price for settlers.

player1 · December 1, 2001, 16:43

TECH prices ARE FIX (always the same)
but some techs, like Republic are EXPENSIVE.
Some other are CHEAP.

When I play the game, in ancient age, many techs are discovered in 32 turns. But in Industrial, I discover EVERY tech in 4 turns.

And, one more thing.
The way science works now is a little more realistic then it was in civ2.
It doesn't mean that if you have huge amout of commerce that you must research advances quicker then some optimal limit.
On the other hand, if you have poor commerce that doesn't mean that your country can't discover something important.

Civ3 tech rules are just that (maybe a little to much simplified, but OK)

P.S.
But, on the other way, combat is a little more UNrealistic then in Civ2.

UncleBeef · December 2, 2001, 13:30

I've read enough of these rants for one day, thanks. The corruption improves multiplayer- just think it through before you whine about it.
Corruption evens the playing field by restriciting each player to X productive cities, regardless of how many they actually have. Therefore the game doesn't become inevitable as soon as someone conquers another empire and has twice as many cities as everyone else. That means that people give up early less often, have a fighting chance until the end of the game = more fun.
As for CivIII being like SimCity, I've never played a peaceful game of civ and I doubt the AI would let you get away with it. The cultural system has diminishing returns built into it and the most effective way to get big borders / get defections is not just to stuff every city full of everything you can build. You need to balance culture and warfare, which is as it should be. A big advantage of culture vs the computer is it makes them less likely to attack you- that's not going to happen in MP.
If you don't want to deal with any of the "sim city" aspects I hear there's a really good game called "The Operational Art Of War" that you should probably be playing instead. The same goes for you people complaining about there being no FP so you can't make your Operation Barbarossa scenario in appropriately tedious detail. The game is called Civilization, not Wargame Construction Kit.
Don't get me wrong, it sucks that they released an unfinished game that didn't have advertised features and you should be all over them for that. But there are lots of changes, including the corruption system, that are different, but in the end better than the way civII used to work, esp for MP.

LaRusso · December 3, 2001, 04:58

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Face it. Civ3's days are numbered.

oh cmon yin, you are just stealing the limelight

anyway, much praised EU is actually pretty boring. i beta tested it and played it a bit later and it kinda sucks....
too repetitive, too constrained...actually it was better before those 'realistic' patches....

you build preordained thingies, research linear techs, build armies....diplomacy is non existant and boils down to maths...you have to watch all expiration dates of the treaties....it's just plain boring after some time, unless you are a portuguese and are struggling to build trading empire....doh...

Vympel · December 6, 2001, 05:54

If you want to play the BEST wargame ever made, play the latest incarnation, Operational Art of War: Century of Warfare. You won't be disappointed. If you want to play a Civ type game, I recommend Civ 3; even though I have problems with the game I'm ADDICTED.