Civilization 3 MP: A diplo gamer’s dream

Zylka · March 25, 2002, 20:20

With the near impossibility of conducting realistic warfare, warmonger games in civilization have been rendered obsolete. There is, however, a promising alternative. Done right, multiplayer will provide for an unbelievable diplo-game format. This is the kind of game that will last over many nights, perhaps many months, slowly but surely, with a group of tested friends. May I reiterate, it must be done right:

1 – Double production and double moves is an absolute must.
2 – The option to turn border persuasion and cultural takeover of cities off must be included. Borders will be just fine in a diplo game, quite advantageous in fact, if they stay just that: BORDERS only.
3 – The ability to rush produce wonders must be included. Great leaders must be an option. Having them included is a nightmare compared to unequal goody-hut reults.
6 - Warfare must still be revised, or the games will turn out to be complete building matches.
5 – More options, more options, more options.

Now, for all of the diplo gamers out there, what would you like to see to make for a perfect civ3 multiplayer?

Thrawn05 · March 26, 2002, 09:06

I like most of your ideas, an option for borders on/off will keep everyone happy.

But I would keep it on, since I wouldn't want you placing cities around my captial (or units for that fact).

Tarquelne · March 26, 2002, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
With the near impossibility of conducting realistic warfare, warmonger games in civilization have been rendered obsolete.

I just can't get past that sentence.

It _seems_ to imply, first of all, that previously civ-game warfare was realistic, and secondly, that it's difficult to win civ3 via warfare.
The first is fantastically bizzare, and the second is utterly wrong*. What's Zylka really trying to say here?

*Note the lack of anything like "in my expereince" or "IMO"

Thrawn05 · March 26, 2002, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquelne

I just can't get past that sentence.

It _seems_ to imply, first of all, that previously civ-game warfare was realistic, and secondly, that it's difficult to win civ3 via warfare.
The first is fantastically bizzare, and the second is utterly wrong*. What's Zylka really trying to say here?

*Note the lack of anything like "in my expereince" or "IMO"

Well, the only other civ game I played was for the SNES, and that was really hard. Mostly because you had more units to use, and the fact that the senate wouldn't let me destroy those 10 knights that are moving around my capital.

Civ3 is someone dumb in combat with the fact that if I destroy a civ, 9/10 another city of theirs pops up in some blank part of the map. I really hate that and that's why I don't fight until industrial age.

ColdWizard · March 26, 2002, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquelne
*Note the lack of anything like "in my expereince" or "IMO"

who else's experience or opinion would he have?

OzzyKP · March 26, 2002, 13:16

While I haven't played Civ3 yet (still boycotting) I do think it would be great for a MP Diplogame. I was hoping HOTW3 would be able to use Civ3, but we got started early it seems.

Just with all the different deal making potential, the different treaties and such sound great. And the feature I am salivating over most is the new trade system and resource system. Attacking your neighbor to get their iron is an incredible possibility for diplogaming.

But again I haven't played civ3 yet, so I'm not sure how this all works in practice. I think whatever problems people have could be ironed out by human players against each other in a diplogame atmosphere.

We'll see.

Zylka · March 27, 2002, 02:45

Ozz, remember that Eurodip game we played with Markus, Berz, SF et. all... the deal making in that kind of game would be amazing. I have fond memories of exploiting Dangime for cities (he was a sub), simply by telling him I had previous border greements with SF

Just imagine the dirty politics possible with C3's layout!

Zylka · March 27, 2002, 02:52

Speaking of which - where are Markus, Arri, Ming, Rah, SF, Berz, War4, the Aussies, etc? They're the dip vets.. this debate is nothing without input of the experienced

Is civ2 mp just too timeless for you old timers to give up?

Ming · March 27, 2002, 03:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Speaking of which - where are Markus, Arri, Ming, Rah, SF, Berz, War4, the Aussies, etc? They're the dip vets.. this debate is nothing without input of the experienced

Huh....

Rah and I are not what anybody would consider diplo vets.
MP, that's another thing... We prefer MP vs playing against the stupid computer. And that's the reason why we still hang on to Civ II... it has MP... Unlike Civ III

Alfonsus71 · March 27, 2002, 08:39

Well, the main problem of civ3, in my opinion, is that there are a lot of "hints" or ways to play unrealistically to achieve victory. P.e. you conquer another civ capitol city and then you exchange it for all their other cities, and then you capture again the capitol and they´re out. In the other hand, ai sometimes "molest" you entering your borders turn after turn.
Multiplayer should fix both things, as players are guessed not to be as "idiots" in negotiation as ai is.
In my opinion, land BORDERS should be impassable (except in case of war, alliance or right of passage), cause that stupid threating messages requesting "go away" and answering "i will go" have no sense in multiplayer. Sea movement should not consider borders, cause trirremes would be useless for exploration if.
A workable simultaneus turn system should be implemented, not to make you "waste" more than 1 hour in a single turns, as happened in advanced games in CIV2 MGE.
New multiplayer options: PLEDGE or JOIN EMPIRE: A player could join other player´s empire, giving the emperor 50% of their final score and 50% of the taxes and research points for each turn of domination. This would allow that players that are about to be eliminated could continue in the game working for the players who invaded them. They could even had the option of REBEL against the empire after some turns, starting a war of liberation, probably with other players help. I know, this sound a like a dream for diplo players

DrFell · March 27, 2002, 10:04

From what I've heard of diplogaming, civ3 would work well... civs have borders, colonies might even become useful, lots of new diplomatic options and the bargaining table, per-turn payments and resource/luxury exchange, etc. But how many people play diplogames? A lot of people don't have the time/patience and anyway, war is the most interesting part of the game. Plus you can't have a ladder or anything with only diplogames.

OzzyKP · March 27, 2002, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Speaking of which - where are Markus, Arri, Ming, Rah, SF, Berz, War4, the Aussies, etc? They're the dip vets.. this debate is nothing without input of the experienced

I concur with Ming, few if any of those names would I consider a diplo vet. People always have different misleading ideas of diplogames. Some think they are games without any war, others (you perhaps) think they are just big multiplayer games that last a long time. This is not the case either. Sure the above people play in big games, and are honorable enough to play them to the end, but that doesn't make it a diplogame.

Anyways, for many reasons Civ3 should be good for Diplogames.

Yes, it may not be the most widely played form of Civ, and no it probably won't save the game. But its damn nice for me

OzzyKP · March 27, 2002, 11:37

btw, Zylka, is that a pic of Michael Bolton?

Thrawn05 · March 27, 2002, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
btw, Zylka, is that a pic of Michael Bolton?

I thought it was that Aundre Reu (i think that's how you spell it) guy that my mom watchs on PBS or somthing.

Zylka · March 27, 2002, 22:27

I haven't the slightest who it is...

From your points, Ozz - My personal view of Diplogames would lean towards a simple "large mp game that lasts a long time" - but those can have pretty intense politics... I've only been in a single hardcore dip game, most of which seem to be played on a euromap.

Either way, this game makes warmonger ladder crap obsolete. Unless they add something like 3x3x, I don't think the potential for quickies and duels is there

DrFell · March 27, 2002, 22:49

Problem is without the 'warmonger ladder crap' much less people will get into MP, the most common complaint of SPers is 'MP turns take too long', a quick way of playing need to be in there, with an option for equal starts too.

Ming · March 27, 2002, 22:56

Zylka...
I will still disagree with you on the value of war in Civ III. This game is a war mongers dream. In the early game, 10 warriors can wipe out a nation... The more "random" combat system makes it far easier to go on the offensive even if you are behind in science. In Civ II, you put a spearman fortified in a mountain city, it was almost impossible to take. Now, you send 10 wimp units at it, and it's toast.

DrFell · March 27, 2002, 23:17

Early war is made even better by making expansion harder... now settlers take off 2 pop points you're effectively spending 30 shields on something that's going to start paying back in about 20 turns, not straight away as they did in civ2. If someone goes all out expansion, they're going to have real problems when they meet a stack of 10-15 vet archers early on (one city can build a good 10 archers and support them long enough to get to your enemy). Plus there is no stack killings anymore, so it's much more difficult to take out those units. When you add on the UUs with super conquest abilities, then early war will be important.