I can't believe this.. - Page 11

vondrack · August 16, 2002, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
God, Vel, you just dissed Hungary.

Not really, jt. Although the name of the country (Hungary) might suggest a connection with Huns, it's just a problem of the English language... The people in this country call themselves Magyars and are not descendants of Huns. The English name perhaps reminds of the fact that Huns founded their "new empire" in today's Hungary once (4th-5th century AD)... but were later replaced by other nations (Avars, and from the 9th century, Magyars). So, if Vel said there is no Hunnish influence seen these days, he was right and Magyars shall not feel touched.

Or, were you just kidding?

Edit: Trip was faster... But I wouldn't say Moravians once lived in today's Hungary... part of it was part of the Great Morava, that is right - actually, the Great Morava was destroyed by the Magyars... But I do not think there were slavic tribes living/prevailing in what's Hungary now. Just some Slovaks live there - but just as Magyars live in Slovakia. Slavic rulers reigned over the territory during certain periods, but the population was never slavic.

Theseus, I understand that MP and duels especially are a lot different from SP. I do believe that I would also have my head cut off in the beginning (and I guess I will

). However, that does not give any credence to opinions stating that the Civ3 combat system is flawed (which is what the original, "topic" post suggested). I do not think we can say until we play it. The only possibility when I would consider the system flawed, would be if it was giving inconsisent results. If people won and lost on random basis. But I am 99.9% sure it will not be so. Some players will develop strategies that will make them winners most of the time. The strategies will probably be different, even if only slightly tweaked, from those used in Civ2. Just like it's with Civ3 SP. That does not mean the combat model is worse/better/flawed/perfect. It is different from Civ2, that's all.

Velociryx · August 16, 2002, 22:13

And by the way, Sir Theseus....Thank you....

-=Vel=-

Jon Shafer · August 16, 2002, 22:23

Quote:

Originally posted by vondrack
Not really, jt. Although the name of the country (Hungary) might suggest a connection with Huns, it's just a problem of the English language... The people in this country call themselves Magyars and are not descendants of Huns. The English name perhaps reminds of the fact that Huns founded their "new empire" in today's Hungary once (4th-5th century AD)... but were later replaced by other nations (Avars, and from the 9th century, Magyars). So, if Vel said there is no Hunnish influence seen these days, he was right and Magyars shall not feel touched.

Too many sentences!

The system is certainly flawed, though not for the reasons that HSS stated. Really, I'd prefer a more complex system, but that's wishful thinking.

Capt Dizle · August 16, 2002, 22:31

Since everyone says that Civ3 is a bad wargame what is the best pc wargame out on the market now?

TBS of course.

Velociryx · August 16, 2002, 22:34

If you're looking for something that a) has a decently small learning curve and b) does a better than average job at modelling combat, you could do a LOT worse than People's General. Made by a company with a long history of bada$$ wargames, they've refined it to a fine edge.

Good interface that doesn't get in the way, some interesting and challenging scenarios....top notch!

For some blasts of the past, if you don't mind dated graphics, check out Gary Grigsby's old work on Underdogs....awesome stuff!

-=Vel=-

vondrack · August 16, 2002, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
If you're looking for something that a) has a decently small learning curve and b) does a better than average job at modelling combat, you could do a LOT worse than People's General. Made by a company with a long history of bada$$ wargames, they've refined it to a fine edge.

Good interface that doesn't get in the way, some interesting and challenging scenarios....top notch!

I would give this one a try, too. I have played their aged, grey-bearded Fantasy General and it was a great game (People's General should be based on the same principles, just refined and improved). I still consider winning FG on the Hard difficulty (playing Lord Marcas) my greatest strategy game feat ever... LOTS of reloading, tho...

Edit: but be warned, at least in Fantasy General, there was randomness included, too (similar to Civ3 to an extent, IIRC) - I don't think they changed it significantly with later titles of the *Something* General series...

Capt Dizle · August 16, 2002, 22:42

But isn't People's General decended from Allied General? I think there was something like a fantasy game in between?

xposted

Jon Shafer · August 16, 2002, 22:44

I didn't like what SSI did to the Panzer General II engine regarding air power... more like Civ 3.

There was no chance to really gain 'air supremacy'.

Still though, People's General was a pretty good game. I wish SSI was still around.

I have a lot of SSI games... I would say that Panzer General II (or the first installment, especially for its time!) is the best TBS wargame I know. Europa Universalis is a good TBS/RTS hybrid (as I'm sure all you guys know). I think Steel Panthers III is also a pretty good game... the AI is kind of lame, but against another human it can be great fun.

Capt Dizle · August 16, 2002, 22:44

One game I meant to get but never got to was Operational Art of War. Anyone play that one?

Jon Shafer · August 16, 2002, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
But isn't People's General decended from Allied General? I think there was something like a fantasy game in between?

xposted

It's in the same series.

First game Panzer General. Allied General, Star General and Fantasy General came next with the same engine. Pacific General with a teaked engine that expanded a lot upon naval combat, came shortly after that, just before Panzer General II, so it didn't get as much publicity as PG2, but I still think it's a pretty good game... nice graphics update too, and the editor is pretty awesome. People's General descended from Panzer General II, which created a new engine for the series, and is best known for it's awesome hand-drawn maps. There were some other spinoffs, like Panzer General 3D, and the 'real' Panzer General III, but after People's General I ran out of money so I really couldn't tell you about the post-People's General era.

Theseus · August 16, 2002, 22:50

I just think the combat model is what it is.

As was so when each iteration of the series came out.

From what I've read, HSS really is a master of one of the ways of playing Civ2-MP (maybe more, I'm not totally clear yet).

Great... all I can say is I got my ass handed to me when I immediately went deity in my first effort at Civ3-SP, and I've been (trying) to learn ever since.

Extending beyond HSS's first post in the thread: Evidently, in certain forms of Civ2-MP, horseman rushing rules. I have no doubt that in certain forms of Civ3-MP, there will be equivalent killer strats.

When called for, I will employ whatever strats / tactics it takes to be the competitive champ. Bring it on...

I hope, though, that in certain MP configurations, the full breadth of Civ is maintained.

Capt Dizle · August 16, 2002, 22:56

The way we dealt with rushing in SMAC was to customize maps. Rover rush? Put everyone on different landmasses. Airpower, bigger map still. In the end the game came down to chop and drop. One of the problems was the tech tree that inevitably yielded high power weapons before the best defenses.

I am not sure how Civ3 will work out.

Cookie Monster · August 17, 2002, 10:32

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
One game I meant to get but never got to was Operational Art of War. Anyone play that one?

I have and it's a great game if your into wargaming.

Do you have any questions about it?

WarpStorm · August 17, 2002, 12:50

Matrixgames has a lot of current wargames. They seem to be the best now.

WarpStorm · August 17, 2002, 12:54

One question I have. Does an early rush strategy work on a random map with 8+ players or is it relegated to tamer pastures (2 players and a known map)?

Zachriel · August 17, 2002, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
One question I have. Does an early rush strategy work on a random map with 8+ players or is it relegated to tamer pastures (2 players and a known map)?

Rushing is appropriate with many positions. The key is proper reconnaissance. Find the enemy early, and catch them off guard. If the game is properly balanced, there will be effective counter-strategies to the rush.

SCENARIOS
Simplified strategies include, rush, defend, expand.

Player A: Rush.
Player B: Expand, and is caught off guard.

Player A: Rush.
Player B: Defend (building spearmen, for instance).
Player A falls behind due to defenders advantages.

Player A: Expand.
Player B: Defend, so wasting production on defensive units, preparing for a rush which never comes.

Player A: Defend.
Player B: Defend.
Both players falling behind other civs.

Player A: Rush.
Player B: Rush.
Total chaos. One player may prevail quickly and be in a strong position. Or, if the war becomes protracted, both players may fall behind other Civs.

Bleyn · August 17, 2002, 14:32

Those scenerios sound about right except for one thing, in MP with 3 or more humans, negotiations for things like tech will actually become easier. If I'm player B, and being forced to defend because Player A to the north of me is rushing, I can scream to Player C to my south for help, and just might get it, out of enlightened self-interest on Player C's part. Or perhaps Players D, E or F might give me some help for whatever reason.

The point being that I might be able to use logic and persuasion to come to a rational agreement with another human player, some sort of You-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours situation. Whereas, we all know how hard it is to negotiate with the AIs at just about any time.

And if I'm Players C, D, E or F and I really think handing over a few techs, a map and maybe a resource or two will keep a couple other players occupied with each other and out of my hair for a while, I'd do it. Might not even charge too much for it.

Jon Shafer · August 17, 2002, 15:11

BUt the problem is that if someone does an Archer rush in 2000 BC, chances are you've only met 1 or 2 civs.

Ming · August 17, 2002, 15:16

Frankly... If you have met somebody early, you may face a vet warrior rush much earlier than that. You may laugh at warriors, but a ton of vet warriors will toast you no matter what you have defending.

MP will be far different than the standard SP games that we are used to playing.

Zachriel · August 17, 2002, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Frankly... If you have met somebody early, you may face a vet warrior rush much earlier than that. You may laugh at warriors, but a ton of vet warriors will toast you no matter what you have defending.

Other things equal, the defender can build just as many warriors; but they will have the defender bonus. Also, being closer to the production center the defender can field units faster, heal units faster, plus bring new technology (horsemen) to the battlefield quicker.

The most likely game unbalancing factor I think will be CityPacking followed by the Rush. In other words there may be no defense to the CityPacking-->Rush, except CityPacking. HappySunShine's complaint about so-called randomness in the combat results are largely irrelevant. Combat is not random but is exact, known and probabalistic. However, once HappySunShine gets the hang of the combat system, I believe he will be a major threat in multiplayer.

Zachriel · August 17, 2002, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
BUt the problem is that if someone does an Archer rush in 2000 BC, chances are you've only met 1 or 2 civs.

Generally if you are rushing, you are hoping to be the only one with a significant stack in the field. Even if you know other civs, they are probably not in a position to help that early in the game. That is unless they were already rushing the same victim.

Ming · August 17, 2002, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel
Other things equal, the defender can build just as many warriors; but they will have the defender bonus. Also, being closer to the production center the defender can field units faster, heal units faster, plus bring new technology (horsemen) to the battlefield quicker.

By the time you see them coming, it maybe too late to build an appropriate defensive army. With the combat model of Civ III, even the defensive bonus won't help you much if you don't already have the "raw" number of units needed.

Jon Shafer · August 17, 2002, 22:13

So what do you think, Ming? Should they change (aka, fix) it, or would that make things too complicated for you |337 Civ 2 MP gods?

Capt Dizle · August 17, 2002, 22:26

As I said before, intel will be key and how will we get it?

In SMAC you could infiltrate and know what the opponent had and see the units that were in bases. This would allow you to be prepared if you had the tech.

Now with Civ3 this stuff is not available. Too expensive to investigate cities and spies come too late.

It seems we will be playing blind and maybe this factor will force us all to play rush games.

Zachriel · August 17, 2002, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
By the time you see them coming, it maybe too late to build an appropriate defensive army. With the combat model of Civ III, even the defensive bonus won't help you much if you don't already have the "raw" number of units needed.

Right! If you don't build military, you will be vulnerable to the rush. But other factors being equal, you can build sufficient defense cheaper than your enemy can build attackers. However, unlike paper-rock-scissors, there is a continuum between rush-defend-expand, so there are no hard and fast rules. For instance, they may not find you quickly, so you might lean towards expansion then build a horse-rush of your own. Or expecting a rush from a known player, build a defensive force.

(If you don't know how to rush, if you can't at least threaten the rush, you will always be at a serious disadvantage. Like playing paper-rock-scissors without scissors. Unlike you, your opponent will never have to build an early defensive force.)

But if you build defensively and that known player plays for expansion instead, you will be beaten. He will have grabbed all the resources, while you have cowered behind your town walls. The threat is all it took. The solution of course is reconnaissance and a flexible strategy.

Reconnaissance will be essential in multiplayer, and expansionist civs may experience a revival. Even builders will have larger militaries, earlier, to survive in a much more dangerous world.

Zachriel · August 17, 2002, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
It seems we will be playing blind

I suspect there will be a lot of border encroachment. Scouts everywhere! You may have to kill them.

Quote:

and maybe this factor will force us all to play rush games.

If everyone plays the rush, then certainly it should be possible to defend against it knowing that it is coming. Remember, everything else being equal, the defender can field more units than the attacker for less cost, and always has a terrain advantage.

HappySunShine · August 22, 2002, 19:01

Yes, I am god. I'm not trying to boast, it is just a simple statement of a fact. Does this make me somehow egotistical? I think not. We can't all be gods, but I will do my best to be a benevolent and loving god.

I've talked about how rushing will be more difficult, now I'll talk about why it's easier. You're actually forced to rush in this game. Think about it, settlers now take 2 population points. That means you have to either build units or buildings in order to keep from wasting shields. Most smart people are going to build a really cheap temple and then build units. Building a barracks really isn't all that great in early rushing. It's good if you're defending in a city, it's useless if you're not. Early rushing is about speed, not power. Only a complete idiot is going to actually attack a city. The smart player is going to surround you and make it impossible to build a city. So due to the failed attempt at curbing ICS you now have the perfect environment for warmongering and rushing. What are you peace loving rookies going to say now? Firaxis couldn't have ****ed up...could they? You are now forced to build units whereas in the past you could get away with just a few. Lets all give a big cheer for the incompetent boys at Firaxis.

And the only people who come on the internet to make friends are the people who have no friends in real life. The only friends I want on a computer are the players who have skill, the rest of you are nothing more than fodder for our insults and scorn. So please, cry me a river and tell me my ways are of the darkside. Tell me I have talent and that my evil has warped that talent. I find it all very amusing, but in the end I accomplish what you never could and that's all that matters. You talk about fun, well I find being the most hated person on apolyton fun. Something about a bunch of screaming computer geeks telling me to change my ways has just always been amusing.

Zachriel · August 22, 2002, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Yes, I am god. I'm not trying to boast, it is just a simple statement of a fact. Does this make me somehow egotistical? I think not. We can't all be gods, but I will do my best to be a benevolent and loving god.

You forgot the little winky thingy.

Theseus · August 22, 2002, 20:41

HSS,

Txurce just posted on playing deity on 1.21 (MAC), and came to some of the same conclusions. Aeson and Vel, albeit in SP, have also recommended similar strats.

The most devastating early strat thus far seems to be JW rushes (to your point: speed), with the added benefit that they are in the Sword upgrade path for a coup de grace.

I'm seriously asking, 'cause I checked, and you are indeed a hardcore MP player; if I understand, the outright best in certain cases... do you have any early thoughts on the most effective early strats when Civ3 goes MP?

Warriors? Archers? Chariots? UUs? And what buildings should be built, if any?

I'm not asking you to give away your best thinking, but I sincerely would like to try to use the interim, in SP, to "train" for MP (and hopefully giving a challenge to the best players when the time comes).

Actually, that brings up a broader question: How would you recommend an SP player play in order to get ready for MP? The type of game represented by 1337's Roman challenge?

I hope you take a shot at answering.

HappySunShine · August 22, 2002, 21:47

I think the egyptian chariot rush is best. INdustrial/religious is my preference. Only drawback is terrain might make the rush inaccessable, another really stupid idea of the moronic Firaxians. 733t whatever his name is is a moron. He's just a stupid rookie SP player that thinks he's badass. I've seen them before, they don't last. The best way to get good at MP is to play MP and then review saves of what other players do.