Experience with all 16 civs important in MP?

CiverDan · September 14, 2002, 07:12

Hey, this is my first post

I think to succed in MP one would need to be able to play with all 16 civs, because of civ specific traits/units (unless ur playing in a game with them turned off). Otherwise, lets say u have always played the Persians, and have depended on those Immortals and industrious workers. What are you going to due if you find yourself playing the English or Americans?

WarpStorm · September 14, 2002, 09:06

All 24 civs.

Both America and England have the Expansionistic trait which in MP will be very valuable (getting 4-5 extra techs and knowing the good spots early is a good trait). Sure their UUs stink, but their traits are very competative.

alva · September 14, 2002, 15:41

Isn't the max for MP set at 8 players?
I think I read this somewhere, no need to quote me on it though

WarpStorm · September 14, 2002, 19:42

Yes, I was refering to the need to learn how to play all 24 teams to master MP.

Minmaster · September 14, 2002, 21:30

i agree with civerdan 100%. hopefully i'll be ok since about 90% of my games, i dont choose the civ and leave it on random.

alva · September 14, 2002, 23:03

I euh somewhat misread the question

, my bad

and yes, agree 100%

I think btw, that alot of games are going to be set up with; No x civ here, Can't take civ x,......

WarpStorm · September 15, 2002, 08:46

I can just see the lame No Celts, No Persians, No Iriquois games now. Plus the after game whining from the poor sport losers, "I would have one if I wasn't stuck with the English in this random civs game".

des-esseintes · September 15, 2002, 09:04

I believe "no civ abilities" games will be more standard than "no persians".

XOR · September 15, 2002, 10:52

Ugh, if I get a civ that I dont want I disconnect from the game and go find myself a fun one.

I'm not going to bother with playing russians against chinese, I get what I want or go to some other game where I can get it.

No Celts and no Iroquis I can understand as they are overpowered a bit, horsemen that attack as much as a swordman is too powerfull, and swordmen that move as fast as horsemen is even more overpowered in ancient ages. If you think the Mounted Warrior being 3.1.2 is overpowered, the Celt swordman costs THE SAME and is 3.2.2!

Ming · September 15, 2002, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by XOR
Ugh, if I get a civ that I dont want I disconnect from the game and go find myself a fun one.

I'm afraid that this will be the case with many people.
It's hard enough to set up a MP game as it is... And you are asking for a long time commitment to do so.

Some might just respond, It's part of the game, deal with it... but from experiences with Civ II MP games, many people aren't going to be willing to play a game that is totally unbalanced from the beginning. The one thing most MP'ers I know want is a balanced and fair start.

This is just another element that will make it even worse. And I'm not looking forward to listening to all the whining like... If I don't get to play "Blah"... I'm not playing...

candybo · September 15, 2002, 11:11

I agree, and for what it's worth, I rarely use "Civ Abilities" in my own games, anyway. To me, all human players shouldn't have a head start on each other.

An alternative may be if, say, more than one player could use the same "civ", but named and colored differently. Imagine, 8 people all going at it with, umm, panzers, but none of them specifically being the Germans. Could work....

WarpStorm · September 15, 2002, 11:21

Unfortunately, lamers who won't play the hand they're dealt will be what makes MP worthless. A no civ abilities game seems too bland to be fun. A one-on-one duel on guaranteed even terrain sounds worse. Sorry, that's my opinion. A 100% balanced game sound booooooooring. If I want that I'd play chess. I want flavor. I'm only planning on playing random starts, and keeping who I get, they're all decent (even the English if you know how to play 'em). I guess I won't be playing with XOR, oh well.

Ming · September 15, 2002, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Unfortunately, lamers who won't play the hand they're dealt will be what makes MP worthless. A no civ abilities game seems too bland to be fun.

You of course welcome to your opinion... But you are being a tad harsh on people who just want an equal chance to win not totally based on luck or who was able to pick a civ the fastest... Did you play much Civ II MP?

In Civ II, MP Ladders and tournaments were set up which really helped getting people interested. Whether you play to win or just to play, many people play to win... And they will not find it exceptable to add another unbalancing condition to a game. Anybody stuck with a civ with a UU that doesn't come until after the game will probably be over is at too much of a disadvantge... Plus, some of the UU are just lame compared to others.

People want a "chance" to win... You can say "It's about the game... and not winning"... But I don't know many people who play games who don't want to win

alva · September 15, 2002, 11:40

What's so bad about not winning???
Being put in a defensive role can be very fun IMO. Hell that's why I want MP. SP isn't much of 'real' challenge is it?!. (well, it is (sometimes), but in a different way)
This way you will have the chance to really learn the game, because you are going to have to be creative and improvise. And not follow a set of tactics/strategies we all picked up on this forum.
You will on your own for good and for worse

Edit: lol, pretty good reply since I haddn't even seen your post because I was typing this one

alva · September 15, 2002, 11:45

btw: there are at least 8 good/strong civs, and since this is going to be the max of players allowed in mp, there shouldn't be much of a problem.
ok, I can still hope , can't I

Ming · September 15, 2002, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by alva848
What's so bad about not winning???

Nothing

I don't win all the time when I play Civ II MP, and I still play. I've been in many games where I know I don't have a chance, but I continue to play (not quit like "some" people do) and try do the best I can... and I have fun.

There is already enough random factors in the game... (and you should hear the whining begin when somebody starts on bad land) Again... some of the civs really suck (and this will vary depending on what Victory Conditions are selected for the game)... Many people will not commit to a large chunk of time knowing that they have no chance to win because a civ selection.

If you have ever played Civ II MP at the zone... you will know what I mean. Heck, some people drop after the first turn if they don't have the right kind of specials or huts on the opening screen

WarpStorm · September 15, 2002, 11:56

Yes, I play to win, but I don't care if I'm the best horseman-rusher in Civ3-dom.

Some things to try in Civ3 MP to have a game go past the first horseman/chariot/archer/whatever rush:

8 players even if you have to fill slots with AI

Restless or stronger barbs

80% water Archipeligo games (yeah, I know the terrain generator doesn't always give you what you ask for)

Time limit games with score based victories only

Elimination Game - this means that the first city you lose knocks you out of the game. This means that defense of cities is much more important than expansion. You won't send out a settler without a heavy escort. This is the builder's game (Regicide is the opposite, the attacker's game).

WarpStorm · September 15, 2002, 11:57

BTW, quitting a game = losing, IMHO.

alva · September 15, 2002, 12:06

So i'm guessing we will be seeing this too: no rushes in first x turns?

Well, I never played civmp, let's see what happens. We can allways b*tch about it later

I'm too slow anyway

, so it's PBEM for me. In wich case you/I might get more 'serious' players.
Is PBEM a better format ?

Ming · September 15, 2002, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
BTW, quitting a game = losing, IMHO.

I always felt that way too

But you would just "love" some of the stuff that we hear with Civ II MP...

person one: "I Have NEVER lost a game"

person two: "But what about the last game you played with me... I was kicking your ***"

person one: "You got lucky... my land sucked, you got a horse from an early hut, and I got a barb... It was totally unfair, so I dropped before 3500 BC... so it doesn't count..."

person two: "What do you mean it doesn't count"

person one: "You had luck, I didn't... that's not a loss"

person two: "But you quit... that means you LOST"

person one: "I didn't lose, you just got lucky"

person two: "How is quiting not losing"

person one: "Pure luck... I'm the best... I've never lost a game"

Don't laugh... I've seen many conversations like this one.

WarpStorm · September 15, 2002, 12:23

Well, we can always hope for good games and good players.

candybo · September 15, 2002, 12:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Don't laugh... I've seen many conversations like this one.

In other words, it only counts if you win, huh?

Big-time OT: I was at a hockey game once, with an overtime shootout. The announcer said the home team would "shoot til we win". Really.

XOR · September 15, 2002, 19:05

Yup, quitting=losing.

But I dont mind about losing or winning, I just care if I'm having fun or not, if I get to participate in the fight or if I get to just stand there and watch someone just walk over my empire as if he was picking up goody huts. Being a Russian without even having any iron and having to put up with some n00b and his 3 city empire just because he has supermighty celt swordmen is no fun.

I dont see persians being overpowered, their immortals are, at least, killable and even if persian armies advance with such horrendous attack power their cities dont have the defense power that Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians get. But the overpowered ones are the mobile/mounted units of ancient times with 3 of attack. You still stand a chance fighting horsemen, but 3 of attack on a mounted ancient unit is an abomination.

I suspect that there will be a small array of scenarios that will amount for more than 90% of the games. probably with similar terrain for 8 players and like 6 pre-built cities. That's what happens with StarCraft, I think, I dont play SC but each time I see someone playing it it's on that same "hunters" map.

WarpStorm · September 16, 2002, 07:31

Quote:

Originally posted by XOR
I suspect that there will be a small array of scenarios that will amount for more than 90% of the games. probably with similar terrain for 8 players and like 6 pre-built cities. That's what happens with StarCraft, I think, I dont play SC but each time I see someone playing it it's on that same "hunters" map.

Sad to say, but you are probably right. This is why I stopped playing StarCraft online.