I can't believe this..

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
I find it amusing vel that you associate strategy with slower gameplay. You never played civilization multiplayer. Creating a unique rush is in fact a strategy, otherwise I wouldn't have written those papers I call strategy in the civ 2 forums. The simple fact is that rushes are what win. The ability to attack, defend, expand, and keep your infrastructure all at once is what seperates the good players from the bad. Building up an empire for 3 hours and then massing units is not strategy. And nobody said there was no way to defend against rushing. There's lots of ways to play without rushing. Rushing has its drawbacks just as defending has its drawbacks. I think the real problem is that some people here think it's pure genius to build their civilization without doing anything else. How can you call rushing boring then? What you should really say is "I feel that my strategical genius is so far beyond these petty rushers that I will look down upon my intellectually challenged brethern as I spend months planning my brilliant strategical maneuver." Which really means "I can't find a way to beat rushing so I will simply call it a 'tactic' unworthy of my genius." Lets face it, you guys should be playing simcity, not civilization. There's a reason why 2x2x King was the most played setting of them all in civ2.

Sorry to bring this back up but I have limited time tonight..

Rushing is a gameplay strategy, and an effective one. The problem with playing against rushers is that my defense is to rush as well and I'm not interested in that kind of game. CIV3 is not a wargame. IMO, the combat portion of the game, though important, sucks big time. If I wanted to compete at rushing (and wear out my carpal tendons) I'd play AoE MP.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


Maybe... maybe not.

What if every player was given the option of choosing his two "traits"... and to choose a UU... therefore creating their own civ. This would stop the RACE for people picking the "best" civ, and would allow all players to set up a combination that they would be happy with.

I've always thought that the choice of civ should be random.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
and I'm not interested in that kind of game. CIV3 is not a wargame.

Civ3 is what "the players" make it. For some, it is a wargame... for others, it's not.

I just hope there are enough options provided to allow a group of players to play the type of game they wish to play.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Bleyn
All this talk of rushing in MP puts me in mind of one thing. And that is that I am so very glad my favorite MP games are ones were rushing is almost completely impossible. I don't say completely impossible because someone would probably find a way to do it.

The games are Firaxis's Gettysburg, and Talonsoft's Battleground series (The Napoleonic Wars ones are my favorites). Essentially they are games about the art of manuever. Putting the right forces in the right place at the right time to break the fighting spirit of the enemy.

I for one am glad that rushing may be much more difficult in Civ3 than it was in Civ2. I don't like rushing. I consider it the most simplistic tactic anyone can use. It probably takes AI programmers all of maybe half a day to teach their games to build a giant mass of units as fast as possible and throw them at you until they win. It probably takes them months to teach the games to perform scouting probes, feints, and other more subtle manuevers to keep you off balance as to where the real center of mass is and where your defense and counter-offense should be.

And if I'm going to lose a game to someone else, I would much rather it be an enjoyable one where I can say afterwords "I really thought you were going to come at me from the north with your Cavalry. I never expected a sea-ward invasion from the southwest." or other words to that effect. Not "Well I guess it is pretty hard to win against 500 warriors coming at me head-on."

Those are wargames CIV3 is not.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I've always thought that the choice of civ should be random.

From my point of view... that would suck big time. It's a pain in the neck to set up a MP game. Getting everybody to agree on a time... getting them to show up... agreeing on the settings... and the rules...

The last thing I want after going through all this effort is to get stuck with a crappy civ on a random basis. That would take all the fun out of it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming

Civ3 is what "the players" make it. For some, it is a wargame... for others, it's not.

Of course its what the players make it, but if CIV3 is a wargame, its a pretty crappy one.

I just hope there are enough options provided to allow a group of players to play the type of game they wish to play.

I think thats the crux of the matter.

[Velociryx]

Gotta disagree with you there, Ming....true, some players TREAT Civ as a wargame, but Civ has *always* lacked some of the most basic, fundamental things that are the staples of the wargame genre.

That's okay though, cos civ is....well, not a wargame per se. Sure there's combat....the whole of human history has been filled with it....woudn't be Civ without the combat, BUT....Civ uses a vastly simplified combat model (even Civ2, with it's FP rating was heinously simplified) so as to abstract that angle of the game, cos there was always so much more to do.

That's why I always get a little tickled when I hear 'bout people who like to brag on being complete bada$$es makin' war in Civ games. That's like bragging about having mastered riding the tricycle. Combat in Civ is combat with training wheels. (and that's not a slam on the game, that's just the type of game Civ is and always has been). Nothing to get overly excited about when you win a smashing victory.

OTOH, if you suddenly had to worry about supply lines, keeping your troops in ammo and out of fatigue, keeping your soldiers organized so they *could* fight, increasing support costs due to distance, line of sight, different types of ammo and their effects on various armor types (and on troops with no armor).....now we're talking! The person who can win a stunning victory, taking all those factors and then some into account....wow!

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Well, again, I must say that the problem is the inability to create a real defensive perimeter that invaders can only breach with losses and giving away their position. I had hope that Firaxis would add military camps that could be built by workers and or engineer units, have a border that couldn't be erased by culture and provide defensive bonuses. Their should be rivers and other terrain that can be used as choke points. This would all lend to tactical options and if you add special units like engineers and stuff like that we could have some fun.

It would be more interesting than who can ICS and churn out the most troops.

Also, we need spies so that we can infiltrate for the purpose of seeing what the others are doing. Expensive but a strategic tool. Let my wish list continue, randomly available mercenaries and leaders and so on and so .......

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


From my point of view... that would suck big time. It's a pain in the neck to set up a MP game. Getting everybody to agree on a time... getting them to show up... agreeing on the settings... and the rules...

The last thing I want after going through all this effort is to get stuck with a crappy civ on a random basis. That would take all the fun out of it.

Wheres your sense of adventure? Standard rules random map, and you get the worst civ. BTW whats the worst civ? Thats a test As far as the rush discussion goes there is no crappy civ since they can all make warriors .

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Wheres your sense of adventure? Standard rules random map, and you get the worst civ. BTW whats the worst civ? Thats a test

It would just add more luck to a game that already has enough of it. This would kill any attempts for true competitions and ladders... And I can already hear the whining... of course you won... you had a better civ to start. If I had had that civ... blah, blah, blah...

[SpencerH]

While I would have loved to have seen a more complex combat model in CIV3 we'll have to face the fact that its not there and its not going to happen. We'll have to wait for candlebre and hope.

[Velociryx]

Well, keep the ideas coming in the CB forums, especially as it relates to the combat model! I think we're close.....definitely moving in the right direction!

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


It would just add more luck to a game that already has enough of it. This would kill any attempts for true competitions and ladders... And I can already hear the whining... of course you won... you had a better civ to start. If I had had that civ... blah, blah, blah...

I guess thats true but it seems to me I've seen many similar type posts while lurking on civ2MP forums.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Gotta disagree with you there, Ming....true, some players TREAT Civ as a wargame, but Civ has *always* lacked some of the most basic, fundamental things that are the staples of the wargame genre.
-=Vel=-

And I will disagree with you... A game is what you make of it. Yeah, it is a piss poor wargame, but it is a wargame. I don't know how much experience you have at Civ MP games... but they are wargames. If you sit back and play it like you do against a stupid AI... you are toast. I'm sure you see it as this great empire building game... and against the computer... it is.

But in MP mode, it can be a whole different story.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well, keep the ideas coming in the CB forums, especially as it relates to the combat model! I think we're close.....definitely moving in the right direction!

-=Vel=-

I've looked, but havent seen anything new. I must have missed it, I assumed you were all chugging along happily for the while.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
it seems to me I've seen many similar type posts while lurking on civ2MP forums.

Name ANY element of the game, and somebody will whine about it.

It's simply amazing on some of the excuses given by a person that losses a game.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I'll not argue that point....I'm just saying that I can take most anything and MAKE it into a wargame. Even a simple deck of cards (War). But when the dust settles, there's wargames, and then there's WARgames. Civ is the first kind....at best.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Spencer - yep....chugging along slow and steady....granted, our first versions will use a more simplified, more abstracted combat system than the one we're working toward. It'll be an ongoing process to get us to that point, but that's where the magic is, IMO....the game will be a living system, constantly tweaked, improved, and updated from where we begin. As we discover things that don't work, they'll get eliminated in favor of things that do. We've gotten a lot of work done so far, and still miles to go, but by degrees, we're getting it done. Soon as we have some graphics to write home about, and expand on a few more currently roughed out areas, we'll have something to show and tell....

-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, I'll not argue that point....I'm just saying that I can take most anything and MAKE it into a wargame. Even a simple deck of cards (War). But when the dust settles, there's wargames, and then there's WARgames. Civ is the first kind....at best.

-=Vel=-

We shall see... Our experience with Civ II MP would lead us to believe that it will only be a war game.

People had to start playing "Diplomatic" games. A set of rules established to make it more of an empire building game vs war game... where you formally had to declare war, and the world community could presure you into changing your mind, or forcing you to make compensation... And even those games started degenerating into war games.

I hope you are right... but the basic nature of MP games leads to a wargame playing style.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ming


We shall see... Our experience with Civ II MP would lead us to believe that it will only be a war game.

People had to start playing "Diplomatic" games. A set of rules established to make it more of an empire building game vs war game... where you formally had to declare war, and the world community could presure you into changing your mind, or forcing you to make compensation... And even those games started degenerating into war games.

I hope you are right... but the basic nature of MP games leads to a wargame playing style.

"Diplomatic" seems to be the best way to actually enjoy the flavor and the spirit of this type of game.

[Velociryx]

Nahhh....people will, in all liklihood, boil it down to its lowest common denominator. Rush, or some variant thereof. A pity too, cos that shuts out, what? 80-90% of the game? It takes what really is a quite beautiful "macro-view" system and tries to make it into something it's just not very good at.

But, in all probability, that's exactly what'll happen.

-=Vel=-

[Jon Shafer]

You hit the nail on the head Vel.

Unfortunately, Ming is also probably right.
I seriously think that Civ 3 MP will degenerate into a wargame (which it was clearly not designed to be), which will lead to a neverending flow of Archers, Horsemen, Cavalry and Modern Armor. It'll be a race to the particular techs, and very little will hinge on empire building...
At least, that's how competitive play will work. We should try to get some house rules going to prevent this... because I'm sure that's what Civ 3 will digress to unless we stop it somehow.

Originally posted by Velociryx
OTOH, if you suddenly had to worry about supply lines, keeping your troops in ammo and out of fatigue, keeping your soldiers organized so they *could* fight, increasing support costs due to distance, line of sight, different types of ammo and their effects on various armor types (and on troops with no armor).....now we're talking! The person who can win a stunning victory, taking all those factors and then some into account....wow!

Hear hear!

I really wish Civ had a much more complex combat system. It's really the only game that has the correct 'scope' that I'm looking for, and there's actually 'grand strategy'. All other wargames you have a scenario, and you have an objective. I want to set my own objectives... I want to know why I'm fighting, and I want to see results after I've won. That's the kind of game I want to play.

Unfortunately, Civ is the closest we have to that, and the vastly simplified combat engine makes wars less than satisfying, for the most part.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nahhh....people will, in all liklihood, boil it down to its lowest common denominator. Rush, or some variant thereof. A pity too, cos that shuts out, what? 80-90% of the game? It takes what really is a quite beautiful "macro-view" system and tries to make it into something it's just not very good at.

But, in all probability, that's exactly what'll happen.

-=Vel=-

On this... we can agree 100%

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


And I will disagree with you... A game is what you make of it. Yeah, it is a piss poor wargame, but it is a wargame. I don't know how much experience you have at Civ MP games... but they are wargames. If you sit back and play it like you do against a stupid AI... you are toast. I'm sure you see it as this great empire building game... and against the computer... it is.

But in MP mode, it can be a whole different story.

But if you (not necessarily you specifically) want to play a wargame why not play a good one such as total war or gettysburg/antietam. There is little to no skill to the war in civ. Whats to discriminate between two players rushing warriors in PtW compared to two player "tournament" clickfests of AoE (where connection speed and cpu are a factor) ?

[Capt Dizle]

Okay, what about using on the histograph as a victory condition and Firaxis giving us the chance to tweak it so that we can add stuff to force gameplay the way we want it. Negative points for loss of reputation, less points for territory, more points for happy people, points for culture, points lost for atrocities and genocide. Points for discoverys, both land and tech as opposed to no points for just buying stuff. Ectera ad finitum.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Okay, what about using on the histograph as a victory condition and Firaxis giving us the chance to tweak it so that we can add stuff to force gameplay the way we want it. Negative points for loss of reputation, less points for territory, more points for happy people, points for culture, points lost for atrocities and genocide. Points for discoverys, both land and tech as opposed to no points for just buying stuff. Ectera ad finitum.

The only victory that makes sense if you play a rush is to obliterate your enemies histograph points for culture etc are meaningless.

[Jon Shafer]

Kind of like EU2, eh JT?

I'm really curious why they factored territory in so much in the final score.
I certainly don't think Canada would ever be very high on the real histograph charts.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Trip
I certainly don't think Canada would ever be very high on the real histograph charts.

The game ain't over yet Yankee!

We're counting on a late game surge when most of the lower 48 turn to desert from climate change and everyone emigrates North.

Either that or the cultural assimilation will be successful. Our great wonder, National Healthcare may come in handy yet.

[Ming]

We will have to see how the many different victory conditions that you can choose (based on the info provided so far) will effect the style of play. Maybe the "capture the flag" type condition will appeal to the traditional "one night stand" crowd... while other victory conditions may make for a more typical Civ game.

The problem with a histograph would be the same as we see with the Powergraph in Civ II. Being ahead on the powergraph is no guarantee that you are actually winning the game... it's just a snapshot in time, subject to short term variations

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


A vet warrior will win against a regular fortified spearman in a town one in five tries. If I have a vet spearman fortified on a hilled town you will fail 95%+ of the time. Bring it.

Yes. Then when the second warrior attacks? What are the odds then?

You won't have long to wait, I'm sure someone will be along at an early date.