I can't believe this.. - Page 7

Capt Dizle · August 15, 2002, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH

The only victory that makes sense if you play a rush is to obliterate your enemies

histograph points for culture etc are meaningless.

Correct. As the game is now. Just give a negative one billion points to the civ that eliminates all others and the winner would be the highest score among the dead civs. Not too farfetched, if we had a poll on the top civs in world history I am sure that some dead civs would rate high and one might actually win.

I had another idea for a way to curb the rush. Make a set of territorial limits and when a civ hits those limits unlease a plauge on them reducing their pop and military and creating unhappiness and low troop morale for a period of time. Not totally unhistoric and it would make a nice set of speed bumps to slow down the Alexanders, Napoleons, and Hitlers among us.

Sending infected caravans into far flung empires might be fun too.

I guess that might make the rusher build a few hospitals.

Cookie Monster · August 15, 2002, 21:24

Boy this thread really took off like a rocket!!!!!!!!!!!

All this talk about rushing really has me bummed. If that's the way the majority of players are going to play PTW then that's really too bad.

I guess what I'll do then is play PTW hotseat against myself. I know that I can trust myself not to rush myself. I want to play a TBS game without any references to an RTS game. There's a reason why I like TBS and not RTS.

I'm glad that this discussion is taking place. Where were we back when they announced PTW. I sincerely hope, although I will admit I am pessimistic, that Firaxis has included mechanisms to defeat the rushing tactic.

I guess the best thing to do is either play against yourself or find a friend who enjoys TBS games the way they were truely meant to be played.

Jon Shafer · August 15, 2002, 21:28

Like I said earlier, maybe we should start up a list of people who we know to be 'real' civ players, and not just rush-players. We could put it in a thread and sticky it in the Civ 3 MP forum, and keep a tally of the number of complaints for each person on the list. With, say, 3 complaints of 'devious tactics' (

), then they get blacklisted and can go play the AI for a while.

Whaddya guys think?

If the rush is as rampant as we fear it will be, certainly something like that will be necassary to keep the integrity of the game?

Tuberski · August 15, 2002, 21:31

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick

I had another idea for a way to curb the rush. Make a set of territorial limits and when a civ hits those limits unlease a plauge on them reducing their pop and military and creating unhappiness and low troop morale for a period of time. Not totally unhistoric and it would make a nice set of speed bumps to slow down the Alexanders, Napoleons, and Hitlers among us.

That's not really a bad idea. It could even use the cultrural borders model. but from the capitol of your empire outwards.

notyoueither · August 15, 2002, 21:32

It'll be dicey Haupt. Dietrich.

By no means would a warrior rush, or any other kind, be a sure thing against any kind of good opponent. They will prepare, and as Jimmy pointed out they have some powerful defensive advantages (like pop rushing or drafting right in the front lines).

What it will do though, is give the player who starts in very bad terrain an option in larger games. You can hitch your star to one of your neighbours with more promising position and hope to come out on top as the game progresses, or you can sharpen your sword and fall on them early to make their land yours.

I think it adds more choices.

Tuberski · August 15, 2002, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
It'll be dicey Haupt. Dietrich.

By no means would a warrior rush, or any other kind, be a sure thing against any kind of good opponent. They will prepare, and as Jimmy pointed out they have some powerful defensive advantages (like pop rushing or drafting right in the front lines).

Pop rushing and the draft........hmmmm

Weren't people saying a couple of months ago that drafting would make the game unbalanced?

notyoueither · August 15, 2002, 21:39

The draft kill the game? I don't think so.

It's an act of desperation. Turn your valuable pop into low quality units that die like flies to the power of vetern and elite fast attackers. It will provide the builder with a needed respite in some cases though.

Velociryx · August 15, 2002, 21:57

Drafting could wind up being a *very* strong defensive option, IMO, and need not be an act of desperation. All those defensive advantages JT pointed out earlier will make it a real bear to tackle a prepared opponent. With artillery shelling advancing units from a variety of positions, a 2hp conscript can and will do fairly well against wounded attacking units. Might be worthwhile to set up extraneous cities expressly for the purpose of drafting (on the thinking that, they're only producing one shield anyway, so what the hell, draft and toss another body on the front line. The hits he absorbs mean that your veterans can hang back and counter attack).

Dunno, but it's an intriguing notion....

-=Vel=-

Capt Dizle · August 15, 2002, 22:09

Good thinking Vel. Kinda like the idea of surrounding your land bases in SMAC with sea bases to act as the first line of defense. Given the relatively low value of specialists I can't see any reason not to pack bases a bit. A base wouldn't need more than a few squares to produces some conscripts. I may just start experimenting on that. Lets see...can't I run some of my 10,000 captured workers in there and pop out a conscript every turn?

Time to fire up a little test game....

Jon Shafer · August 15, 2002, 22:11

Mmmm, what a good spot a flood plain would be as draft fodder.

Zachriel · August 15, 2002, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
However for all the fixes one of the biggest problems still exists...the battle model. Is it that difficult to fix? . . . The simple fact is that the biggest part of the game has a major flaw in it. No game can survive in MP if it doesn't have some sort of consistency to its play, nor can it be called strategy when the outcome of battles are random. Is this going to be fixed in PTW?

Back to HappySunShine's original post. . .

I still strongly disagree with the assertion that randomness (relatively high variance in combat results) makes the game less strategic. Indeed, if anything, by making it harder on the early rusher (HappySunShine being a dedicated exemplar), the game may very well have more strategy.

Ironic, heh?

Velociryx · August 15, 2002, 22:14

Uh oh....just figured out exactly how it'll go.....

Get this:

Set up your cities such that you've got at least a couple of size sixers that can pump out a worker every turn. Have other cities 2 tiles from these.

Make lots of workers.

Send all said workers to your fringe cities, joining the population the same turn they're built (size six city goes from six to five, growing next turn if you set it up right).

Make ALL population points in your "troop training cities" specialists (entertainers, no unhappiness), draft conscript unit (poprush in the early game).

You totally circumvent the penalties of rushing/drafting, and get an endless slew of units. Rush away.

-=Vel=-

Capt Dizle · August 15, 2002, 22:21

Oh boy.

Just see how the ole gray matter churns just thinking of multiplayer.

Capt Dizle · August 15, 2002, 22:23

anyway, I told Firaxis eons ago that the movement system would prove highly beneficial to the defender. we shall see what we shall see...

Velociryx · August 15, 2002, 22:24

Yeah, and under that plan, you don't even have to worry about starvation effect. Your "troop city" stays at size one. Temporarily goes to size two when you add in the worker, but you draft/rush immediately, it goes back to one. City tile produces two food, which is enough to keep the "troop city" fed at one pop point, and you get a new troop.

Game.

*sigh*

-=Vel=-

Cookie Monster · August 15, 2002, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

Like I said earlier, maybe we should start up a list of people who we know to be 'real' civ players, and not just rush-players. We could put it in a thread and sticky it in the Civ 3 MP forum, and keep a tally of the number of complaints for each person on the list. With, say, 3 complaints of 'devious tactics' (

), then they get blacklisted and can go play the AI for a while.

Whaddya guys think?

If the rush is as rampant as we fear it will be, certainly something like that will be necassary to keep the integrity of the game?

I'll second that

I guess we'll see if the mods have considered this idea when the time comes. Learn from Locutus from the CtP forums and his MP signup Topped threads

sabrewolf · August 16, 2002, 04:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

Like I said earlier, maybe we should start up a list of people who we know to be 'real' civ players, and not just rush-players. We could put it in a thread and sticky it in the Civ 3 MP forum, and keep a tally of the number of complaints for each person on the list. With, say, 3 complaints of 'devious tactics' (

), then they get blacklisted and can go play the AI for a while.

Whaddya guys think?

If the rush is as rampant as we fear it will be, certainly something like that will be necassary to keep the integrity of the game?

i'd join in here too...

but what do you define as rushing? just warrors? or chariot/horsemen too? what should players of civs like aztecs, zulu or iroquois do? they want to trigger GA but if rushing isn't allowed?

don't get me wrong: i sucked in AoE2 MP because my first barrack was built when the enemy stormed my village with 20+ soldiers... that's why i hate rushing

sabrewolf · August 16, 2002, 04:36

ming: i'd love to see a free choice of traits and maybe even UUs!

but noone would choose scientific, commercial and expansionist... even less than in SP...

notyoueither · August 16, 2002, 05:55

You wouldn't chose expansionist? Never say never.

Grumbold · August 16, 2002, 06:05

I choose them all in SP because I decide which nation I want to play, not which traits. Commercial certainly used to be one of my favourites before patches and tweaks to the optimum city numbers made corruption less crippling. I won't be playing MP for the sorts of reasons Vel highlights. If you need to employ trick tactics to circumvent the games' intended rules to keep your head above water then I don't want to play.

sabrewolf · August 16, 2002, 06:12

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
You wouldn't chose expansionist? Never say never.

not in MP.
MP-games should go reasonably fast --> smaller world sizes --> expansionist trait far weaker than on huge maps.

commercial is disadvantageous for the same reason... because it won't be endless building, corruption shouldn't be that big issue as in SP.

notyoueither · August 16, 2002, 06:28

How does religious or scientific help you when you get rushed by the exp-mil civ on a small map?

sabrewolf · August 16, 2002, 06:41

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
How does religious or scientific help you when you get rushed by the exp-mil civ on a small map?

in my earlier post i also said, scientific won't be chosen.

religious: cheap temples...
not good against warrior rush, but it does help to have bigger cities and so usually better production. q.e.d

notyoueither · August 16, 2002, 06:56

Which would you chose?

Grumbold · August 16, 2002, 06:58

The bigger culture border from temples might give you that extra turn or two to prepare defences and rush a few more troops....

notyoueither · August 16, 2002, 07:04

Not really. Think about it.

Grumbold · August 16, 2002, 07:06

Think about what? Are you presupposing a rush so early that there are no roads yet?

notyoueither · August 16, 2002, 07:07

You don't get road bonus in territory you do not have ROP with. There are no roads were the warriors or horsemen approach from. What difference does it make?

vondrack · August 16, 2002, 07:10

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
You don't get road bonus in territory you do not have ROP with. There are no roads were the warriors or horsemen approach from. What difference does it make?

nye, I think Grumbold referred to the fact that you can "see" a larger territory, so you are warned a bit earlier there is an invasion force coming.

notyoueither · August 16, 2002, 07:21

That is true. 1 extra turn, maybe 2.

I hope it's worth it.