I can't believe this..

[Velociryx]

Okay....gonna do the polite thing and try sending you an e-mail. You'll probably not answer it, but....*shrug* this is getting out of hand and you're probably verging on an anurism....

-=Vel=-

[HappySunShine]

Keep it here and reply. That's not even my real email address. If you want to just admit the fact that you're an SP rookie and your knowledge doesn't extend beyond the AI we can end this right now.

[Velociryx]

in that case, I just sent you a pm. Anything is better than subjecting the board to any more of....this....see you there?

-=Vel=-

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
And of course 1 HP isn't really that big a difference with this combat system.

That is incorrect. Neglecting retreat, a regular unit with attack two v. a regular unit with defense two fortified will win 36% of the time. A veteran attack will win 51%, a very significant increase. Of course, sometimes it is still better to not build the barracks and rely on speed and numbers, but if you want to implement a successful rush strategy, it is important to understand the combat system.

Do you think that you could successfully defend against the rush? Consider that while you build chariots, the defender can build an equal force of defenders.

[vondrack]

Vel, I told you...

But thanks for the show, it's fun to watch...

BTW, where is Ming?

[Velociryx]

*sigh* I know...I know...I got baited for another few posts....but I really *did* just send him a PM and refuse to reply further to him here....hopefully that'll help calm things down.

Of course, I have my doubts that he'll respond to my pm....after all, I'm just a no-talent peon....what is that to a god? Probably not even worthy of a reply, but....of course I had to try....

-=Vel=-

[Theseus]

I would add that the increased retreat odds also have another benefit... by not losing a higher percentage of battles, you decrease the defending enemy's chances of promotion. This is especially important given the relative parity of offense and defense strength this early, with the resulting less than opverwhelming odds of winning a given individual battle.

[Velociryx]

Total agreement. With the combat model vastly simplified, each addtional hp is a HUGE boon....makes an enormous amount of difference in combat. Add to that fast-mover's increasing chance of retreat (and therefore, survival), and barracks are a good value for the money (esp. for militaristic civs).

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Dang....he logged off without even opening my PM....I'm crushed!

-=Vel=-

[Hagbart]

This thread is too long. Close it.

[Bleyn]

Why would an Egyptian WC rush be superior to say a Chinese horseman rush, or an Iroquois Mounted Warrior rush?

As I see it the only advantages to the Egyptian WC rush is the factor that you have to research only 1 tech, The Wheel. And WCs cost 20 to the 30 of horse or MW.

With a horseman-based rush, you would have to research two techs, The Wheel and Horseback Riding. I realize that. But horsemen, have what I see as a significant advantage over chariots. That is the ability to go through any terrain. That chariots are not allowed to go through unroaded mountains or jungle is a significant disadvantage in my mind. I've hit maps before where chariots had to go turns out of their way to get through a mountain range at a particular spot, when horsemen would have plowed right through in far less time.

And I don't see that Egypt's Civ-Abilities would be all that significant compared to the Chinese, Iroquois, or the Japanese for that matter.

China has the same industrious trait as Egypt, which really only counts in cities 7 or larger, and it has military, which cuts the barracks down to a 20 cost from 40, making it as cheap as a chariot and cheaper than a horseman. True, the chinese horseman isn't a UU and can't trigger a GA like the WC, but the GA only last so long, and a lot of time in the early stages can be taken up just moving.

Iroquois has religious which is also the same as Egypt, but I can't believe that trait would be significant in such an early rush. After all no government swaps would happen and surely happiness wouldn't be a problem. And expansionist would give you cheap two move units useful for scouting out the territory faster so you can attack directly at your enemies (along with the better goody hut selection that might just hit a useful tech or two). Not to mention that the MW is a UU with a stronger attack than the WC.

The Japanese also look somewhat reasonable to me. Mil, religous with The Wheel as an automatic tech. So, barracks are cheaper, and chariots are available as soon as you can get a supply of horses. Only one tech to research, and you are up to horsemen.

Anyway, thats my take on that aspect of rushing. *yawn*

[Theseus]

Bleyn, if you look back a page or so, I made the argument for Japan as a Horse rush champ. I think the deciding factor is as simple as researching only 1 tech instead of 2.

I haven't played Japan in a while, certainly not since I've become proficient at very early rushes... it's gotta be devastating against anybody except Greece, and in SP at least, no way is Alexander ready for that much aggression that soon.

[spy14]

Just read this page after a few days absence... nice to see everyones quoting good evidence ("rookie", "moron" ) and generally getting along

[spy14]

"Everyones" perhaps being the wrong way of putting it

[Theseus]

I have been trying to bring it back to a somewhat interesting discussion... what early tactics from SP might have relevance in MP, and what civ attributes might be preferable.

(I really am interested)

My efforts have been, uh, marginally successful.

[rendelnep]

just one crazy thought, how about a culture rush?

[DrSpike]

Yeah that is crazy.

[Capt Dizle]

Mr. Sunshine tells us that
"In a 2 movement war a regular chariot is going to kill a veteran chariot just as easily as a veteran chariot kills a regular."

Is it not true that multiple move units do not disengage from a battle with another multiple move unit? If this is true, then Sunshine's statement is mathematically unsound. If disengagement is possible, I would still like someone to show me the math that proves his statement.

[Capt Dizle]

I would add, that I think barracks are cheaper for military civs, therefore in rush with such a civ it might been easier to build barracks before the rush. It might very feasible.

And again, rushing is a one dimensional strategy that cannot be counted on in a real multiplayer environment (more than a 1v1).

[GeneralTacticus]

Is it not true that multiple move units do not disengage from a battle with another multiple move unit? If this is true, then Sunshine's statement is mathematically unsound. If disengagement is possible, I would still like someone to show me the math that proves his statement.

no, it's not possible. This is why the Zulus are hated by those who like to use Jag/horse/WC rushes.

[Velociryx]

Preach on, brother JT! Preach on! A 1v1 "duel" in a non-wargame like Civ is....I dunno....the thought of it kinna leaves me cold. That's like playing the card game "War" to find out who the better chess player is....

At any rate, I have a slightly different take on Militaristic civs. I've not thought this all the way through, but it strikes me that an aggressive defensive stance by a Militaristic/Religious civ would be a sound, safe game. Here's why:

1) Cheap temples = easy happiness.
2) Cheap barracks = easy road to veteran troopers, both offensive and defensive (and for an aggressive defense, you would need both).
3) Militaristic civ = easier troop rank upgrades = wider hp margin on average with your opponents = bigger chance of winning any given battle.
4) More elites = more gl possibilities. If you are attacked, and generate a gl, he's only 1, 2 turns max from being home for army construction or wonder rushing, pretty handily nixing an industrious civ's edge in early game terraforming if you can complete the Pyramids in a single turn. (contrast this to a would-be attacker who generates a gl and has almost zero probability of getting him home. In all liklihood, he'd get cut off (your guys have access to and free use of your road network, while yonder leader is moving on open terrain), and killed long before he ever saw the gates of a friendly city.

The goal, in my mind, would be to keep a strong army (a rush-style, rush-sized army) in the vicinity of your cities. If you don't get attacked, consider it insurance. If you DO get attacked, reinforcements are close at hand, and they'll be veterans to boot. A mix of spear and horse, making use of your road network, should be able to out-maneuver any would-be attacker, and if the rusher in question is REALLY linear, then worker traps could be set up.....lure the enemy horse/chariot/whatever in for an "easy kill," then ambush him (word has it that the gods of the game don't care much for spotter units, information being a non-consideration in civ you know, so this should work splendidly).

Your early game scouts reveal the lay of the land/poisiton of the other civs, so you don't have to worry about having your army on the "wrong side" of your empire, expand toward your enemy, using the army as cover. Then, it's not a matter of beating the lone spearman guarding the latest settler, it's a matter of defeating all your elites.

-=Vel=-

[metalhead]

You guys can try whatever you want, but unit rushing will always be the best way to defeat anyone, AI, human, or any other life form.

That being said, I find it absolutely hilarious that HappySunShine takes that condescending tone with everyone, because he doesn't risk a punch in the mouth

I really have to laugh to myself when I read the comments of someone who wouldn't dare talk to anyone in person the way he talks to people in this forum (or in Civ2 MP according to Ming). You have to realize, Vel and your allies, that HSS only talks the way he does because he has absolutely no balls to try to talk the way he does when face-to-face with another person.

And just to pre-empt the vitriolic post from HSS, there is no way you would ever say to me in person the crap that you post on this forum. Trust me on this one.

Oh yeah, in case I didn't say it already, HSS definitely will rule all of you in MP. Rushing (well, not really rushing, but building) units as fast as you can is the best way to beat anybody. You can build libraries and marketplaces all you want, if I own all of your cities, they really don't do you much good, now do they?

[notyoueither]

Out of the mouths of settlers. New blood is always good.

Except marketplaces are well past the rush stages they are discussing.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by vondrack
BTW, where is Ming?

Sitting back about ready to tell us he's going to ban anyone arguing with HSS while telling us to get a thicker skin.

[HappySunShine]

This is pointless. Everytime an SP player comes into MP in civ2 they think they're badass, but they usually don't last past 3000BC. All an MP game is is a series of rushes and 1v1's. I will play the exact same way in an MP game as I will in a 1v1. And just as in civ2 all the rookies refuse to play 1 on 1. There's no difference between the civ3 rookies and the civ2 rookies. The fact is you guys really have no idea what you're talking about. I've played MP since 1999 and I have done everything there is to do in an MP game. I know about all the rushes, I know about all the mid-game strategies and I know all the team strategies. Compared to that what are all of you? Half of you have never even played civ2 so how can you even begin to talk to me about civ3? And no I don't talk in real life the same way I do on a computer. That's kind of the whole point. Why would I want to act on a computer as if it were real life? I come on here to be the opposite of what I would normally be. I don't want to be your friends. I don't want to know about your lives. I won't even give you the time of day if I don't feel you have some skill in the game. You guys are trying to argue tactics and strategies with the greatest civ2 player ever. I think I give the rookies on here too much credit by even associating with. And lets be honest here, do you really think I'm going to tell you everything I know with MP about to come out? You guys aren't even in my league and the only reason I have responded to you thus far is because I've found it amusing. So don't get mad at me, get mad at yourself for giving me something to go on. If you guys had just stopped posting, so would I.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine All an MP game is is a series of rushes and 1v1's.

Though multi-player games tend to be more rushed, if they degenerate into a simplistic combat game many potentially good players won't play. You'll end up playing newbies and other people like yourself, without the breadth of thought available to more subtle games like chess or bridge.

That would be a fault of the game design, but nothing is certain at this point.

And no I don't talk in real life the same way I do on a computer. That's kind of the whole point. Why would I want to act on a computer as if it were real life? I come on here to be the opposite of what I would normally be.

You must be a really great person.

[Ironikinit]

But it's so funny.

Anyway, you assume that the guys at Fireaxis are fools because of things like how the chariot is wheeled. Um, could it be that that was intentional to put a brake on chariot rushes? Hmm?

Your complaints about the randomness of combat are weak. See, most wargames have these things called dice, or they used to. Now they have random numbers supplied by the computer. The random element is there to stay whether you like it or not, so don't cry about it.

I play other games than just Civ, and some of y'all seem to be hothouse types, but so long as you're having fun, whatever. In one of those games there's a concept of the cheap-ass point whore. The cheap-ass point whore only plays games that suit their style of play, because they don't care how they win and usually aren't all that smart. You seem to fit the type, Happy. What will you do if you can't get your little way, if the other player wants, say, "your" civ, or wants a map type that doesn't suit your style, or (oh no) wants more than one opponent?

Some of your conclusions are suspect. To me it seems a no-brainer that if you're all about rushing, you want a militaristic civ, mainly for the promotions, not the barracks. The additional leaders are a nice bonus. You probably don't want to get too hung up on a certain unit because can't count on getting the resources. Er, wait, I forgot I what I was addressing, of course you'll have to stack the deck your way or you'll face getting your clock cleaned.

The idea of not needing recon units... er, how do you know which direction to point your rush?

Whether you're good at Civ 2 or not isn't that important. Civ 3 is a much different game. It's fun to speculate on how multiplayer will work out, but unless you don't mind looking a fool when your assumptions fail, it's best to keep them to yourself so wait and see. Also, don't forget that the patches for Civ 3 have often been intended to block cheap tactics, Mr. Point Whore, which should give you pause.

[HappySunShine]

What part of "who the **** are you to talk to me?" did you not understand? What part of SP rookies did you not understand? What the **** would you know about MP? I guess we'll see when PTW comes out. I have a feeling most of you won't break the top 100.

[Bleyn]

Among other things, right now, I keep a firm grasp on the fact that other than the few dribs and drabs that we've been fed, we all have Absolutely No Clue what PTW will hold in store, most especially the details of exactly how MP will work and what MP modes will be popular once its released.

And yes, we really do know very little about the additions. Sure we know all of the civs. But do we know what all of their Civ-abilities will be? Do we know the stats on all the UUs yet? Do really know all of the other units being added, or all of the other improvements? No. Most of that info is being fairly closely held by Firaxis and Infogrames.

Personally, right now I would say most of this talk of Civ3 MP is like the early morning fog. It will burn away in the harsh light of the new day when we have PTW. Some of what we say may have merit, some may not. But until we actually have our hands on the game, its all just talk.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
What part of "who the **** are you to talk to me?" did you not understand?

Reviewing the thread, it appears that you started the discussion because you were having troubles making the combat system conform to your notions of how the game should be played. In particular, you had avoided combat until the Age of Chivalry, then your Knights were destroyed for reasons you did not quite understand. Many respondents, some quite experienced in the intricacies Civ3, made helpful hints with the sole goal of helping you learn the game.

Wait till you get to city flipping, when someone "attacks" you with a temple!