We really need allied victories

Blue Moose · September 4, 2002, 18:00

I think they should have added allied victories in PTW.

If you are playing a 16 human game....you are just going to get a lot of backstabbing eventually, because only one person can win. On the other hand, if they allowed up to 1/4 of the original number of civilations (or perhaps 1/4 of the current), then making a good ally would have a lot of benefits. The current system seems like it will encourage anti-cooperative behavior. Maybe some of the details (like a domination allied win) would need to be adjusted, but otherwise I think this would have been a great addition (maybe it is in there, but I've not heard of anything suggesting this).

-Moose

Tuberski · September 4, 2002, 18:13

Seems like a pretty good idea. The only problem I see with it is that most people that will play MP will play BECAUSE of all the backstabbing.

Blue Moose · September 4, 2002, 19:13

Well, it isn't like you couldn't still backstab...if anything, it would make backstabbing more interesting. As it is now, backstabbing will be expected...a no trust scenerio mostly.

-Moose

asleepathewheel · September 4, 2002, 21:34

I think the limit for players in an mp game is 8, though I could be wrong about that.

I hope they do have team victories and/or permanent allies. more enjoyable for me anyways

neonext · September 5, 2002, 00:23

if u could have AI players too, i would consider it a must

Wise Ass · September 5, 2002, 01:04

The limit is 8 max but they have not worked out the details.

There probably would not be all that much backstabbing after all look at most RTS games.

Firebird · September 5, 2002, 02:33

Yes, Firaxis has stated that there will be max 8 players (human and AI) in MP-games

.

I disagree with the notion that most people play because of the backstabbing. In my "group" of players backstabbing is part of the game, but so are trustworthy allies!

If there is to be no allied victory, it will be a great loss to the MP. The cut it out of Moo3 too

We will probably make some kind of our own Victory-conditions (thank god its such an openended game), to remedy this, but it is sad nevertheless.

ixnay · September 5, 2002, 02:59

Was allied victory an option in SMAC? I seem to remember it being so.

neonext · September 5, 2002, 03:28

are you sure u can have AI players in the multiplayer games? if so where is this said?

from what i've read, only one or two multiplayer modes will have AI players, if any
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=60622

Blue Moose · September 5, 2002, 03:30

It would be sort of silly and odd if you couldn't have AI players...that's pretty standard in multiplayer games like this. CivII was like that, SMAC was, and so on.....why wouldn't you be able to have AIs?

-Moose

neonext · September 5, 2002, 03:32

Quote:

Originally posted by ixnay37
Was allied victory an option in SMAC? I seem to remember it being so.

do we have to break out the list of all the wonderful things in SMAC that didn't make it into Civ3? (mainly diplomacy options)

neonext · September 5, 2002, 03:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Moose
It would be sort of silly and odd if you couldn't have AI players...that's pretty standard in multiplayer games like this. CivII was like that, SMAC was, and so on.....why wouldn't you be able to have AIs?

-Moose

IMHO having different resolutions to pick from that apply to all gameplay screens is pretty standard in today's games, but in Firaxis' latest titles they are non-existant. why should we expect anything different here?

Traelin · September 5, 2002, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Moose
I think they should have added allied victories in PTW.

YES, YES, YES. That would be very cool, and I'd almost be willing to bet you can. I could be wrong though.

Blue Moose · September 5, 2002, 15:03

Quote:

Originally posted by neonext

do we have to break out the list of all the wonderful things in SMAC that didn't make it into Civ3? (mainly diplomacy options)

I think the government system in SMAC really kicked ass too...and it makes a lot more sense than the Civ1/2/3 style systems. It easily could have been adapted. The unit system could have been adapted too, and then you wouldn't need this UU business.....it would have been nice to see some of the possibilities there....have a "sherman" tank by using low armor and firepower values...and so forth. Though, I guess though would have needed to improve the combat system. Hard to believe the same company made both games....you'd think they'd use their past innovations. Doesn't make any sense, really.

-Moose

Galvatron · September 6, 2002, 08:53

Yes allied victory would be really cool. It would be a great incentive for people to stick together, trade techs and also support each other militarily. Than in the end we have two big blocks and they clash for ultimate world domination wohoo. It's like AoE II and I loved it

Traelin · September 6, 2002, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Galvatron
Than in the end we have two big blocks and they clash for ultimate world domination wohoo.

HAHA that would be cool, like WWIII or something. Talk about a potential nuclear holocaust!

I also agree about the govt. system in SMAC. Naysayers keep saying "it's too sci-fi", or "it's too unrealistic", but in actuality bit and pieces of it are implemented in our real-world politics. I mean not every govt. in the real world that's a democratic regime functions in exactly the same way. There should be variations on each govt. type.