How playing against humans will be different... - Page 2

Buster13 · October 11, 2002, 14:42

I think it's clear that since humans can be bluffed, feinted, and otherwise mislead where the computer simply has a standard strategy and responces will lead to many types of attempts at misinformation. It'll be like real life.

The UN thing earlier...if you're playing with a mix of humans and civs, it'll be interesting to see who the computer votes for. Before it was pretty easy to figure out who was going to vote for you after you built UN, but if you and a couple other human players are close to equal in power, and the computer civ likes you all...

Doesn't worker poaching set off war if there's not one currently brewing? Even if it doesn't, I bet it will now, regardless of whether or not this is automatic.

In a pure human game, no one will sign MPPs (at least I won't), but assisting people with war will be much more delicate and, well, selfish. If I don't see an interest in going to war, I won't. Of course, saving someone's skin in return for two techs and 200 g/turn might be enough to convince me.

I'm with you dissident, I'm afraid/looking forward to MP.

ruby_maser · October 11, 2002, 16:04

I was wondering if anyone will change how they expand? Try to be more centralized around the capital if possible, more hesitant to extend yourself beyond a more readily-defendable chokepoint, more willing to overlap cities in order to have an empire with the most defense capabilities and the minimum of borders.

I know, with the AI's attempts at strategy, these things were certainly less likely to be an issue before PTW, and I know I hated to overlap cities, etc. Hell, with the amount of distrust I would have for a human opponent vs. a AI opponent, I don't know if I would even want to expand in that direction at all... barring the fact that acquisition of resources might require it and the need to trade demands a certain grudging trust in the other guy.

Will you all still expand without regard to terrain or will you treat mountains and choke points and basically all natural barriers to invasion (or attack for that matter) with a bit more seriousness?

MoonWolf · October 12, 2002, 09:46

I think it will be a big challenge. Like with Civ2 and Test of Time... The Civ2 AI (and I haven't still really seen it in Civ3) didn't make a D-day on your coast, but a human player sure could/will.

It depends on the game I think. Among my friends, there are only one real Civ-player, and I guess we would at start with a more or less cooperate style. But playing against other humans on the internet or against other friends, would mean several changes I guess (from my point of view):

*Have a stronger army already in the beginning
*Have strong defence points (cities, chokepoints etc)
*If the map supports it, stronger naval fleet and probably a lot more aircrafts and missiles
*Maybe devestating nuclear wars, or at least a cold war like USSR and USA had(has?)
*A human player would probably leave the game if she/he get a real hard time. The AI never "surrender".
*You will feel this isn't just a game any more. This is real.
*And stuff pointed out earlier; a more careful expantion, better trades, remembering your enemy from game to game and alliances against monopolists.

I have a bad habit of saving/loading simply because of some events I find unrealistic and stupid like a spearman beating a tank or a newly taken city cultur flipping with 2 armies and 10 modern armors in it (please don't make this to an other cultur flipping discussion). This I need to change.

Maybe we'll see a world like in "1984"; 3 superpowers fighting for a continent, switching alliances often and with the homelands quite safe...

I'm also a bit afraid of this. Especially as I still need some more practice at the higher levels... But looking very much forward to it.

Inverse Icarus · October 12, 2002, 11:48

the chances of a human game (4+ players) making it to the modern age is SLIM if you have a group of 4 people you play with a lot.

Randomly online? you'll be lucky to see Industrial.

sun_tzu_159 · October 13, 2002, 06:38

Hi all,
You will get a problem with quitters in the game. If you are losing badly people will just leave. I hope there is a routine for this already built in.

There may be agreements not to attack before a certain time limit or age is reached as in AOE on-line games. Of course these are gentlemans agreements and someone may not follow the rule - interesting for trust in whole gaming community.

Will there also be an option for some computer components. Like 4 human players + 4 computer palyers in same game? Early game would be interesting, would all human gang up against AI or would human player try to make AI ally and attack another human player jointly?

The most interesting aspect I look forward to is the possibility of continental alliances. All civs on one continent would quickly make contact and cooperate in tech trading and researching each a different tech etc. to get an advantage. If there is three continents will all players on each continent be in mass alliances or have spent so much time fighting each other that they forget the other players in the game. Who gets to build GW's in such an alliance - can't wait to see the deviousness of it all.

Another Alliance could be secret alliance where you cooperate with neighbour one and are all friendly and nice while plotting war against him with neighbour two. Does the neighbour one tell neighbour two and form alliance to destroy you.

Without cooperation of some sort in the early game I think some players will leave really quickly and two players will battle it out for the majority of the game.

Anyway just a few thoughts

Regards
Sun_Tzu

sun_tzu_159 · October 13, 2002, 06:53

Moonwolf,
I have had the AI land on my coast big style. It happened in the early game when I was expanding and came across an American city in the middle of tundra on a river. I destroyed the city and created war with America for it. There was a small phony war then the Americans landed eight troops off ships next to a poorly defended coastal city. I was shocked by this in the game - I have only seen it once on this scale, otherwise just maximum of two troops landed.

The attack with armies across sea would be for sure be a major part of the human game which now has very little part with AI who usually only uses ships for expansion - not conquest. Units on ships is a big investment like settlers on land and would have to be protected by escort ships with no units on board. More AI decisions for game but for humans it is easy.

Human player could have large army on ships waiting to land as second wave behind land based attack for instance. Ooooh surprise.

Regards
Sun_Tzu

Regards
Sun_Tzu

sun_tzu_159 · October 13, 2002, 07:09

Hi all,
The memory of man will be longer than AI who only has memory for one game.

The grudge match will be played for once some opponents thought they shouldn't be beaten by you.

A good start location will be more vital than ever. You could spend three or four vital turns setting up that first city.

When PTW on-line games are finished the host/winner could post a report and downloadable file so that others may see how the game is playing. I know that it makes the game more enjoyable when you think to put a story behind it.

The decision over expansion I look forward to. I will tend against the AI to build a core of four to six superb production cities with a mass of smaller cities to defend the core and prevent AI expansion into useful territory for the later game. Against the human players you will not so much be able to do this as quickly - human players will be far more aggressive and unpredictable - sending a settler out will need two maybe three escort and/or a forward scout.

Mountains for distance look-out will become a scene for many battles as in ancient times. Sort of mini king of the hill games, especially where it overlooks a rivals territory.

Regards
Sun_Tzu

kolpo · October 13, 2002, 10:28

Quote:

Originally posted by sun_tzu_159

Will there also be an option for some computer components. Like 4 human players + 4 computer palyers in same game?
Sun_Tzu

I remember me having seen a screenshot where they did that, I think there where 8 slots who could been AI, human or closed, similar to the way AoE works.

Raion · October 13, 2002, 20:33

So, it will be like the original game without any patches, but with everything working.

Like Deity Level, perhaps!

Maybe, smaller Civ's will form together to smash larger Civ's.

Mass mayhem and confusion.

(Smiley goes here!)

Some newbies will be suckered in by the veteran players!

The game is not all that bad afterall!

(Chuckles!)

Dis · October 14, 2002, 20:25

quiters will be a problem. I had that problem with SMAC pbem's. Once they fall behind they just quit.

I think I read where there was an option where the ai would take over a civ if the human player left. This is a nice feature.

I do worry about ai civs. The humans will of course take them over to become more powerful. Or exploit them in some way. This will make starting position and starting contact very imporant.

I do think games will be won or lost in the first 30 or 40 turns. Of course the game will go on after that unless all the human players quit. But there is usally 1 human player in second place who will attempt to claw his way back.

statusperfect · October 15, 2002, 00:57

I don't think people will be eliminated/out of the game that much. The fact that Civ3 corruption is massive added to the fact that human players take full advantage of all defendive techniques (mountain ranges, fortresses, radar tower, offensive defence... you name it) will male many countries not worth to conquer.

Tiberius · October 15, 2002, 07:42

Quote:

How playing against humans will be different...

We won't see too often players paradropping archers with helicopters, behind enemy lines

-proletarian- · October 15, 2002, 17:03

Wow.....reading all this has me positively drooling for MP play.

The possibilities are endless.....just by playing against humans, so many problems in this game will be solved. Things mentioned above, such as units actually being upgraded, d-day invasions, feign attacks, retreating.....wars are going to be 1000x more complex.

This is really exciting. Well, maybe not that exciting.....

Ah hell, who am I kidding? It is that exciting!

Chronus · October 15, 2002, 21:02

Quote:

Some newbies will be suckered in by the veteran players!

True. But have you evered played a newbie who did things that were so dumb and unpredictable that he was actually . . . dangerous?

Dis · October 15, 2002, 21:09

lol

What I hope to see (maybe even here) is a site to set up game.

I know a good site for neverwinter nights ( http://www.neverwinterconnections.com/ ) to set up games. they have a great system for rating other players as well. Sure its an RPG, but that type of website could work for civ3 PTW.

That could work with civ3. We need a site with a system that can rate players. Also we should separate the games into difficulty levels. I don't want to be playing you Diety players. You will thrash me. Also like the site above it provides a calender and correct time clock which makes thing nice and easy.

-proletarian- · October 15, 2002, 22:20

Methinks they might have a player rating system set up in MP. I hear that warcraft 3 does the same thing with it's battle.net service. It rates players based on their past performances and makes their record public, so you can choose to participate in games with others who are similarly skilled to yourself. Anyone who has warcraft 3 could perhaps elaborate a little more.....but for sure, player ratings would be important. I sure know I wouldn't like to land in the middle of a deity-level players' game.

aahz_capone · October 16, 2002, 08:49

I think there should be more then just player ratings. Based on previous games, players should be classified (warmongering, builder, diplomatic, stinking traitor, thief, suicidal, nukomaniac) That way players can choose what type of people/game they want to play. It shouldn't be to hard for the computer to determine based on amount of GLs gotten, units killed/destroyed, buildings built, trade etc.

the reason people shouldn't classify themselves is a) they will lie and b) they might want to be something but can't help falling into another category.

-proletarian- · October 16, 2002, 12:38

I dunno, picking and choosing games based upon player's styles would lead to stale games, methinks. Part of the mystery of a new game would be meeting the human players and then observing their actions to determine who you could deal with.....

Myself, I'm a builder at heart, but I wouldn't want to play every game with other builders. That would become boring.

WarpStorm · October 16, 2002, 12:50

I'm a warmongering, builder, diplomatic, stinking traitor, thief, suicidal, nukomaniac myself

Buster13 · October 16, 2002, 13:30

Hey,

What happened to Backstabbing, Money Grubbing, Population Rushing, Production maximizing, gold per turn swindling, Resource Hoarder with a general disrespect for the slaves...er..um...my loyal subjects.

-proletarian- · October 16, 2002, 16:44

.....although I can easily imagine myself becoming a paranoid, delusional defence-a-holic if playing against some of the people on here.

"compared to them ,we have a strong military!

Ahhh.....sweet reassurance.

Buster13 · October 16, 2002, 17:45

"compared to them ,we have a strong military!

Ahhh.....sweet reassurance. "

Gee, almost forgot about that....

:-D :-D :-D

aahz_capone · October 17, 2002, 07:17

Quote:

Originally posted by -proletarian-
I dunno, picking and choosing games based upon player's styles would lead to stale games, methinks. Part of the mystery of a new game would be meeting the human players and then observing their actions to determine who you could deal with.....

Myself, I'm a builder at heart, but I wouldn't want to play every game with other builders. That would become boring.

Well, maybe that's why we need this, so you don't get a game full of builders. I'm sure that a "wonder whore" will make sure they don't end up playing with another "wonder whore" or that a game of only stinking traitors, backstabbers and nukoholics will make diplomacy quite a moot point.

Hail Caesar! · October 17, 2002, 17:41

This is a great thread.

Personally, since I suck at Regent, the feature I'm going to miss the most is the re-load. But just imagine being able to get Mexico and Canada to make peace and stop sending their troops across Kansas!

I remember from the Civ2 MPGE edition most of my game-playing companions were relatively peaceful. A game of 4 people might have three peaceful builders and diplomats, and one warmonger. I don't expect the entire MP Community to be belligerent. But I'm still going to stack my settlers

Oh yeah, I was ROFL at 'wonder whore'. Sometimes I quit a game if someone builds a wonder before I can finish, especially if I don't have any other wonder tech. Won't be able to do that in MP!!

BlueWaldo · October 17, 2002, 19:11

I am working on a site to rank player like you guys are talking about. It is alll based off GameLeague, which I think did a pretty good job for CIV2 and CtP. I am redoing most of it and adding a lot of improvments. It should be fully (or almost fully) functional by the time the PtW is released. the url is http://www.megaultra.com

alva · October 17, 2002, 20:24

Well, actually, having wonders could be counterproductive

. Because wondercities are more valuable to 'collect'

Hail Caesar! · October 18, 2002, 13:40

I just thought of another thing. Negotiations may be a lot different, since without the little guy saying "This deal will probably be acceptable" nobody will have a clue how much anything is actually worth.

-proletarian- · October 18, 2002, 17:08

Point taken. Finding yourself in the middle of a bunch of "wonder whores" (

) all the time could get quite repetitive. But really, looking around these boards, it seems to be quite evenly split between the builders and the warmongers. This should provide balance come MP play. It will also provide a valuable testing ground for these rival strategies to compete against each other. It will be fascinating to see how well the builders will be able to withstand a barrage of units from the warmongers. Methinks some painful re-strategizing may have to be carried out by us builders out there.

Finding the correct balance between military strength, culture, and infastructure will be a delicate thing. The fact that this correct balance will constantly change both between MP games as well was within MP games (due to changing circumstances within that particular game) will only add to the fun. MP will provide a forum for unlimited strategizing.....

Admiral PJ · October 18, 2002, 21:01

I think players could be given favorite Civs to represent their playing styles.
I might be Roman or Chinese as I like millitary expansion and money/science. These would be for millitant players.

A builder could be American, expansionist and industrious, or possibly a Religious civ like India.

Perhaps people should say what their favorite unit is too, to show what type of battles they prefer.. I like ship battles and modern era stuff.

Its like a dating service matching players

I suppose deciding what civ to be will be important for multiplayer, when you get your golden age will be important.. your enemies will stop at nothing to stop you getting your Unique units and Golden agers will probably be much more dangerous.

Remember not everyone can play the same civ, so you will have to be slightly different players to use the different attributes.. but the different civs will make it more interesting, someone playing as Roman first time might do better Next time with the Germans panzer tanks.

Ming · October 19, 2002, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Hail Caesar!
the feature I'm going to miss the most is the re-load.

That will be a "BIG" difference for many players. You have to live with your decisions... no more resetting because you didn't like something. It's a whole different game.

And there will be very little diplomacy. No more ripping off the weak civs... no more setting up your own client states that you can take anything you want from.

The good news is... there will not be AI civs who cheat