I can't believe this..

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Which would you chose?

2 out of religous, militaristic and industrialistic.

for SP i most like rel. and ind., for MP mil. might be inevitable...

do you guys agree/disagree with this choice (for MP)?

[Velociryx]

My guess is that Mil and Rel will be the two most commonly chosen traits. More GL's and low anarchy for switching to Monarchy (and the ability to support a heniously large military for free).

The game is gonna get boiled down to its lowest common denominators.

Militaristic
Religious
Troops
Cheesy Rush Paradigms
Smash-you-before-you-smash-me

Game.

I'll betcha.

-=Vel=-

[DrSpike]

Wow, a lot of posts overnight.

Well lets push the issue of ease or difficulty of immediate rushing under the carpet for a sec, and consider how the game is going to pan out.

Most here seem to be expressing their desire to play long empire building games with several human players. I have to say I'm not sure if some people realise the difficulties in playing and continuing such games. In the civ2 community there are a few who make it work, though of course war is a necessary ingredient.

And that's the wrap. Where are the people discussing 'banning' some warring going to draw the line. Well the answer is you cant, and will never get to play the sort of game you want. You see whilst war is just one aspect of civ games in general (because it is most definitely not a wargame) it is the aspect that must be emphasised in MP. The only question is how far you emphasise war at the expense of some building. This is what determines the settings you can play MP on, such as king/deity or 1x/2x.

To summarise all my points in this thread even if really early rushing is harder (which is questionable), the support, the stacking and the lower HP are all going to favour the guy with the largest army. Civ3MP will be a tactically oriented game with lots of war, not the empire building game some here seem to expect.

[WarpStorm]

The Firaxis guys have said that expansionistic is the in house favorite for MP. The early scouting makes a huge difference in MP on random maps.

[HappySunShine]

You know vel, at first I was impressed with some of the things you wrote in the strategy forum and I thought you might be a good MP player. But I'm beginning to see now that you are one of those nerdy/geek types that feels the game isn't deep enough or complex enough for you. You feel your genius is beyond the game and the kind of game you would like is a game that nobody would want to play and would take hours and hours of time. Of course taking a year to finish would just prove its complexity and depth right? What a joke. Your draft strategy would never work. Number 1, the idea of a rush is quality, not quantity. Something your apparent genius has yet to figure out. You don't overwhelm in mass numbers, you hinder the growth of the enemy in order to gain an advantage, that's the strategy of rushing. The tactics of rushing is how you execute that strategy, another thing you don't seem to understand. Massing tons of units is complete stupidity, attacking in small numbers and making every unit last longer than your opponent is skill. For every unit you build that is production taken away from something else, whether it be settlers or temples. Therefore if your enemy is building twice as many units as you in order to defend himself you have succeeded in or forcing the enemy to overbuild. Overbuilding means less cities and less money from support. Therefore the true strategy is not to rush, but to suggest the rush and trick the opponent into a defensive mind. But of course your genius already knew this right? Obviously this kind of stuff is below your intellectual superiority. Rushing is not just churning out units, it's all about the finess and variations you employ. I guess I really should have expected as much of you though seeing as how you've only ever played SMAC and only SP at that.

[Velociryx]

English 101

G'morning Sunshine! Before I get into replying to the meat of your post (what meat there is), allow me to hearken back to page three of this glorious thread, and borrow a quote from you:

I have read most the strategies in the civ3 forum and they are a joke. The only person that seems to have any competence in there is Velociryx.

See...there's something interesting in pair of sentences that stands in direct contrast to your most recent post this morning. The implication in the above is that nobody here (or at least nobody who's posting in the strategy forum) has any competence at all, except me, and I don't have much. Given that, I'm surprised you found anything I had to say compelling or impressive. See how that works?

I told you at the outset that I didn't want to get into a flame war with you, and I still don't. If you feel you MUST make your points by continuing with name calling, I cordially invite you to write me via e-mail so we don't clutter up the board with such nonsense (WebMaster@velociryx.every1.net).

As to the draft strategy never working.....MmmmHmmm.....you're right. Never happen in a million years. It's USELESS to have a cheap, multi move scout every turn. More useless still cos he can attack, raid your workers, and at the very least cause you to have to guard them....building more troops to counter that (dropping you onto the defensive?)....ahhhh, but wait, that's more time you have to spend building troops, isn't it? And how many turns is it taking? I'm getting several a turn....you?

In the ancient age though, where the game will be won or lost, that would be pop rushing, NOT drafting, 'remember? That's 20 shields a pop for a ten shield investment. If that's not efficiency, I'm not really sure what is, and the result will be that mine will all be veterans too....

Nahhh, you're right. That'd never work.

Again, I should point out that no where on Apolyton will you EVER find me calling myself or my strategies genius. OTOH, if you look at your own posts, I think you will find ample evidence of your own over-inflated ego. But I'm the one with the problem, right? Riiiiiiight.

Take it to e-mail if you wanna continue this lovely chat.

I look forward to hearing from you.



-=Vel=-

PS: If and when you write, we can also discuss just how insulting those two italicized sentences above really are to everybody else here. There are a lot of sharp minds posting on these boards, but I guess a big dog like you can scoff at wisdom in most any form, right?

[Ming]

HappySunShine...

While I will admit that your latest post is more toned down than some of your normal posts... you are still crossing the line on personal insults.

As I've said before... attack strategies and ideas, not the people behind them.

So tone it down some more, or you and I are just going to start playing the "hunt the DL" game... sigh...

[HappySunShine]

I'm not here to win a popularity contest, I never was. Anyone who has ever played MP with me knows that. I enjoy ridiculing people and I enjoy pointing out how stupid their strategies are. By the time the draft comes along it's better to produce quality units rather than taking off population points. And pop rushing in ancient age is a bad idea considering the fact you need a size 3 city to build settlers.

"I have read most the strategies in the civ3 forum and they are a joke. The only person that seems to have any competence in there is Velociryx.

See...there's something interesting in pair of sentences that stands in direct contrast to your most recent post this morning. The implication in the above is that nobody here (or at least nobody who's posting in the strategy forum) has any competence at all, except me, and I don't have much. Given that, I'm surprised you found anything I had to say compelling or impressive. See how that works?"

Actually I don't think you're the one that sees how that works. I said "any competence", that can imply any level of competence from very little to a great deal. Therefore by saying I found SOME of your works impressive that was not to say I found all of them impressive. And if you find my calling you a geek/nerd offensive and "name calling" then perhaps you should toughen up a bit. I could have replied with any number of choice words far worse than that.

Nahhh, you're right. That'd never work.

I'm glad you agree with me on this one.

"Again, I should point out that no where on Apolyton will you EVER find me calling myself or my strategies genius."

Replying to things with responses criticizing the simplicity and then stating the real way to play the game is in a way implying your intellectual superiority. However calling rushing a tactic and not strategy kind of proves the exact opposite I guess. You're right, my mistake.

There are a lot of sharp minds posting on these boards, but I guess a big dog like you can scoff at wisdom in most any form, right?

Yeah, you're probably right on that one. I completely agree. Like I said, I'm not here to win a popularity contest.

[DrSpike]

Thing is Eyes/Happy both you and Vel are skilled civvers, both for SP and MP. The only difference is Vel has earnt the respect of a large majority of the community.

[Ming]

Let's keep this thread on topic... and not turn it into a discussion of one person vs another...

[Velociryx]

Sunshine....it's not about winning a popularity contest, it's about the basic tenents of respect for other human beings.

Same with the name calling. I frankly don't care what you call me. Been married once, thankyouverymuch, and been called far, far worse than the likes of you could even dream of.

The point there though, is that Dan and Markos don't want flame wars on their boards....again, it comes down to respect. If you wanna name call, send me a mail, and don't clutter up their board with stuff they don't want here.

As to the "any level of competence" taken in the context of the sentence just above it, slants the meaning, Your Sunshininess. Basic tenent of language.

WRT the linear/simplistic nature of rushing.... you can disagree with me on that till you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact. Rushing is the MOST linear style of play you can possibly undertake.

It works, yes. It's effective, yes.

And it's linear.

Simplistic.

If you find that offensive in some way, I am truly sorry, but that's the way it is.

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

It seems to me that there appears to be a difference in how we define "rushing" ? For me "rushing" is only an early game gambit to just produce troops without regard to improving your civ. The goal is to attack your nearest neighbour and take his cities rather than build your own. Essentially the game becomes just constant warfare. Thats the type of game I'm not personally interested in playing because constant CIV3 combat is boring.

After you've built some city infrastructures such as barracks, temples etc its just warfare rather than rushing. For me thats legitimate gameplay, its like being beside the zulus or any other AI aggressive civ. They attack me then I smash them.

[Deathwalker]

The AI civs always attack me. The one exception ws once when I was playing all the AI civs ganged up on the Zulus. Iwas the only one no at war with him

[SpencerH]

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 think it will be a matter of keeping track of who's playing style you dont like playing against. Certainly it should be possible to label ourselves as warmongers, rushers, builders etc but you may find me to be a warmonger while I think of myself as a builder.

I guess an important point that hasnt come up yet is that for the longer games (such as I'm interested in) I'm talking about PBEM rather than online.

Will we be able to mix them (where's a firaxian when you need one) ? It would be fun to start games online then finish them over time.

[Velociryx]

Rushing reduces the game to mathematics. In pen and paper strategy games (for those of you who still play them), the common term for that is "min/maxing" - which means not paying any attention to the story that surrounds the game, but focusing specifically on the mathematically precise moves that will give you the biggest bang for your buck. Execute those moves better than your opponent and you invariably win.

Lots of people love to play this way.

I'm not one of them.

Not a thing in the world wrong with playing that way, either. It's just not my thing.

From the comments here, I see that I'm not alone.

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

Yeah, I cant reduce the CIV3 to a numbers game. I always "care" about my citizens and never pop rush ( I never nerve-stapled either).

[Velociryx]

I agree. It takes something away from the game (for me) to play it as nothing but math covered up by pretty units and such.

Back in the days of pen and paper AD&D (I think I just dated myself with that one), I used to simply delight in making life hell for min/maxer who only thought about their stats and not their characters. As the DM for the group, I was interested in their stories, not their stats, and always got a kick out of people who were too much into hyper efficiency in that regard.

So....a nod to the min/maxers. Your strats and tactics work.

IMO, they're boring as three kinds of Heck, but they DO work. Good for you. Go play with other min/maxers and enjoy yourselves, looking down on the rest of us who just don't "get it."



-=Vel=-
PS: I *do* "get it" by the way....I simply have no interest in playing that way. Again, I'm not alone in that.

[Capt Dizle]

I guess I am kinda stuck in the middle of this debate. I play to win and if I can win with a rush, I guess I would until someone beat me. OTOH, I am more interested in finding an effective way to counter that tactic/strategy.

If your goal is to win by conquest then at some point you are going to have to commit totally to unit production and this is going to be far more necessary in Civ3 than say SMAC because the game mechanics will require more power and less finese.

So, in a sense, a rush is a rush whether it be warriors or tanks and the thing we should be thinking about is how we are going to keep an eye on what our opponents are doing without spies.

Playing blind will kill you everytime. As eyesofnight says, the threat of a rush can beat you.

I would rather play someone like eyes than someone who wants to play a civilized game of Civ3, but thats just me.

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

If the min/max strat works in Civ3 won't that imply that Firaxis kinda missed on balance?

[Velociryx]

As far as beating the rush game goes....as you say, Civ3 *does* open a few doors there. It may be possible to use standard rush tricks to get a big force, and use them defensively....a screen for expansion toward a specific direction....a living, moving screen that takes advantage of those defensive modifiers you mention. You expand behind the living wall, close in an opponent and bludgeon. Repeat till you secure the continent (diehard rushers will generally whine unless they get to play Pangea, so that should rarely be a problem).

Needs work, but the basic idea might stand up pretty well.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Not really missed.....after all, the game really IS mathematics covered up with graphics....but it *does* tell a compelling story if you look past that.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

The main reason I am hanging in with Civ3 is because we are going to be able to do PBEM with modded bic files. In SMAC, you really couldn't do this because the alpha.txt file wasn't bundled with the save.

I would like to play a colonialization game where all the civs start on one continent and have another full of resources wating to be discovered.

Hopefully the editor and PTW rules will allow you to set up some victory conditions like controlling a certain number of locations in the new world after a certain number of turns have expired. Eight players, no coop victory. Wonder how Mr. Sunshine would rush that.

[HappySunShine]

There is one best way to play, there's lots of other good ways to play. But there always has and always will be one kind of play that works better than any other.

1) Massive expansion and a never ending expansion. Expansion always comes before war. Yes, when it comes to cities quantity is better than quality. The best rushers can keep their expansion at incredibly high speeds while at the same time have the resources to do horse rushes.

2) Horse rushing reigns supreme. It's a fact that speed is better than power in the early game. To me swordsmen are pretty useless. They're like the archer of civilization 2. Powerful, but useless. Any number of high speed units can go in and pick them off. Only on very mountainous terrain are they a viable unit.

3) With civ3 now temples are very powerful as well. There's alot of resources that you can't use when you put down a city. Plus building a temple gives you something to build instead of a unit when you're waiting for the city to grow in size.

4) Pyramids is still the most powerful wonder and in civ3 it's even more powerful...almost over powered. Reason is that settlers cost 2 population points to build a settler. That means that pyramids will get you there 50% faster and therefore it is safe to say you have a 50% faster expansion rate.

5) The "mathematics" of the game are still there. Vel is right that rushing comes down to math, but it is a strategy nonetheless. Any strategy can be whittled down to the bare basics. The fact is civilization has always been a game of math and always will be.

So put it all together and the only real changes in the game are temples are now needed, settlers take 2 pop, and a horrible combat system is now in place. But the core strategy is still there. Expand quickly, horesrush the opponent early, use the rush to outbuild and expand. Sounds simple, but it's really not. Any strategy sounds simple when you lay out the exact gameplan.

As for beating a rush, very simple. Pick greeks and build a few horsemen. There really is no way to kill the greeks early until you get knights, and even then. The aztec UU is a nice unit, but its speed is the only real advantage of it. You're not going to overrun people with it fast enough before they get bronze working. Instead it will be used more to attack settlers, pillage, etc. Overpowering? Certainly not. However I will say that civilizations with access to an early UU do have a huge advantage. And I disagree on the power of the militaristic civ attribute. It's powerful, yes, but a industrial is better. Industrial/religious has an incredibly powerful early economy. Remember you have to build roads to all your resources in order to build horsemen. Plus you can get mines on your grassland much faster and with less workers which in turn means more settler production. Economy is more important than military. That's why the idea of a rush is to slow down the opponents economy, not completely annihlate them. In civ2 it was a viable way to play simply by killing them early, in civ3 that's not really an ideal option.

[SpencerH]

JT, how will that work? I guess everyone will have to have the same bic before startup? If there are added units you'll also need the flcs inis etc.

[Capt Dizle]

All I know is that I asked some of the Firaxis guys about it in a chat and they said it would work, but I dunno if there might have been some miscommunication. Chats are kinda hectic.

The first player will save the game and apparently the bic is bundled and sent along so that when the next player loads the game he will be using the same bic file for his turn.

Now, I am pretty ignorant about mods as I refuse to waste my time on them until a final version of a game is released and patched so there might be some reason this won't work that I just didn't have enough knowledge to ask about.

[Capt Dizle]

Sunshine seems to be talking about strictly 1v1 online games. I am more attuned to PBEM games with 4 or more players. Big difference.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
However calling rushing a tactic and not strategy kind of proves the exact opposite I guess. You're right, my mistake.

A point of semantics: Strategy is a somewhat slippery word.

In the context of the Civil War, Lee's march into Pennsylvania was certainly strategic. Not only did he intend to cut the Union in two, but he was also trying to force the North into peace negotiations.

From the point of view of Civ3, his move would be "merely" tactical. Move your stack north a couple of squares, have a short battle, then retreat after significant loses. Meanwhile, the Grant stack is in the West finishing up a cannon and rifleman siege of Vicksburg. The battles of Richmond and Atlanta are just standard city attacks (with pillage). That's pretty much the whole Civil War.

[Velociryx]

The main question will be whether or not UU's are commonly allowed.

If they are, then Sunny's quite right....The Greek will be a defensive minded player's best friend. The Aztec will be a horror of horrors for two reasons though:

1) Early game scouting and terrorizing. If you start close to an opponent who doesn't start with Bronzeworking, they're toast.

2) Once you get Ironworking, you have, for all practical purposes, Mounted Warriors, as your jags can take advantage of their two movement points, and upgrade to swords when you get them where you want them.

If UU's are NOT allowed, then my guess is that neither will Civ traits be allowed, and we're back to everybody using generic civs. Makes no difference who you pick at that point, and rests the entire game on variance of starting position. *yawn.*

Industrious has some sweet advantages (if civ traits are gonna be a staple of MP), but the half price barracks of Militaristic (over and above the easier promotions) are what gives it the edge in my book. Especially if you're planning to rush, you will capture workers to send home....more workers = faster improvements of your land without needing the Industrious trait, AND you still get your barracks half off.

Again, reducing the game to its barest components, I'd see Militaristic as having advantages over Industrious, cos the game won't, in all probability, get out of the ancient age before it's decided. Especially not on Pangea maps.

That there is the perception of only one "best way" to play speaks of a flaw in game design and a general systemic imbalance, not the natural inherent superiority of a particular style of play. If there *is* only one "best way" to go about a given thing, then the greater portion of strategy is lost to the game.....only in the face of multiple, equally viable approaches can you have a truly deep strategic game.

-=Vel=-

And once more I'll point out that by itself, rushing is a tactic, NOT a strategy. Rushing, when combined with a rapid expansion paradigm, etc. etc. (the points you outlined)....taken together, as a cohesive whole....THAT's strategy. Rushing is....rushing.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine 5) The fact is civilization has always been a game of math and always will be.

I hope not.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The main question will be whether or not UU's are commonly allowed.

If they are, then Sunny's quite right....The Greek will be a defensive minded player's best friend. The Aztec will be a horror of horrors for two reasons though:

It seems to me that a way to minimize some of these favorite strategies is to have random civ assignment. Would you want to rush with the greeks? Conversely, would you build with the zulus?