How playing against humans will be different... - Page 3

notyoueither · October 19, 2002, 04:07

Much sucking of teeth tonight. Even Ming is spreading those fables...

Can I fill you in on my dance card, big fella?

WarpStorm · October 19, 2002, 09:01

I don't know about that Ming. Most of my friends want to play 50-50 human-AI games. They want to have client states.

Ming · October 19, 2002, 10:30

Why play against idiot AI's when you can play against humans... If you need to have "client states" to be doing well, you need to learn how to play better

WarpStorm · October 19, 2002, 10:39

The real competition will be between the human states of course.

Hail Caesar! · October 19, 2002, 12:56

"Client States" makes me laugh. My little satellites, who would have been wiped out by Persia or Russia if not for me, always want 500 gold, 15 gold per turn, plus two techs, for one incense.

-proletarian- · October 19, 2002, 13:08

It'll be interesting to see if the AI is ever competitive in a 50/50 human/AI game. Will all the powerful states be human controlled? Or will the AI also find itself atop of the heap sometimes? I can easily imagine the humans fighting over which AI's are "theirs", in terms of being their vassal state.

I wonder if we can give the AI a production bonus in these kind of games? WILL there be difficulty levels in MP play for the AI's?

WarpStorm · October 19, 2002, 13:25

In the last CC chat Mike said he got his ass handed to him in a 4-on-4 human vs AI at diety level, so the answer is yes.

CiverDan · October 19, 2002, 15:00

I figure in mixed AI-human games...human players will just throttle the AI's with units early in the game. Of course someone could backstab someone else along the way if they look to be in a vulnerable position, since they probably figure one less relevant human player the better

Odin · October 19, 2002, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I think players could be given favorite Civs to represent their playing styles.

If the Vikes are Expansionist and Comercial they're mine

CiverDan · October 19, 2002, 15:21

As for whether ppl will just quit, it will depend on the type of player both in playing style and how much of a challenge they want..a perfectionist will probaby quit if he's stuck in tundra, but a warmonger will probably figure I'll take some cities, get a leader and move my palace. If someone likes those "oh..so very cold of the map generator" starts they will probably play on..but if you have to have 2 cows on a river.. forget it.

I think getting used to unfavorable starting positions and living with it will take some getting used to for myself. Who here actually plays out jungle/island/tundra/desert starts on a regular basis...probably not that many (at least I dont)

-proletarian- · October 19, 2002, 16:12

Warpstorm, ahh yes, I read that too, it must have slipped my mind.....

CiverDan, agreed. I'm a whiny little ***** sometimes when it comes to this game.

Bad starting position, being surrounded by enemy civs right away, those kind of things usually send me running for the restart.....in MP I'm determined to grit my teeth and play through to the bitter end, win or lose.

Should be interesting, no?

Hail Caesar! · October 19, 2002, 20:33

Yeah that's a good idea. I'm going to have to start practicing random starts against the AI so I can beat some Humans without two cows on a river.

aahz_capone · October 21, 2002, 07:47

I like the idea of AI satelite states. Here's the reason. On a HUGE map with maybe 8 humans and the rest AI, due to corruption reasons it's gonna be a pain to have a huge empire, but those resources are just out of reach. That's what those AI 'slave states'are for. beat them into submission or make them adore you and they will give those resources to you and only you.

However, I was fairly pissed that the diplomacy of civ3 didn't have the submission option that SMAC did. That would make this all worthwhile.

Hail Caesar! · October 21, 2002, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by aahz_capone
I like the idea of AI satelite states. Here's the reason. On a HUGE map with maybe 8 humans and the rest AI, due to corruption reasons it's gonna be a pain to have a huge empire, but those resources are just out of reach. That's what those AI 'slave states'are for. beat them into submission or make them adore you and they will give those resources to you and only you.

However, I was fairly pissed that the diplomacy of civ3 didn't have the submission option that SMAC did. That would make this all worthwhile.

Beating them into submission never makes them adore me. It makes them furious for the rest of the game.

-proletarian- · October 21, 2002, 17:08

Hail Caesar, me too.

Sir Og · October 22, 2002, 07:24

I think that in MP games a lot of people will play without civ specific abilities.
This way people won't argue over who gets to be the egyptians, persians, americans or whatever.

statusperfect · October 22, 2002, 07:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Og
I think that in MP games a lot of people will play without civ specific abilities.
This way people won't argue over who gets to be the egyptians, persians, americans or whatever.

I think random civ will be more common.

Sir Og · October 22, 2002, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect

I think random civ will be more common.

With random civs some players will start with better civs than others. The only way to eliminate that would be to play without civ specific abilities.
At least I think that in MP playing without civ specific abilities will be a lot more common than in SP.

alva · October 22, 2002, 10:27

Me thinks there are enough civs to go around, There 's at least 5 or 6 (perceived to be) best civs.

And civ abilities are one of the strong points in civ3 IMO.

WarpStorm · October 22, 2002, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Og
With random civs some players will start with better civs than others. The only way to eliminate that would be to play without civ specific abilities.
At least I think that in MP playing without civ specific abilities will be a lot more common than in SP.

I will not play a game without civ abilities. I like the flavor of the civs and I'll even play with one of the 'weak' civs. I will mainly play random pick. (But then again I'm the guy who says that expansionistic civs are strong).

Slax · October 22, 2002, 12:14

I assume there will be three ways for human players to lose:
1. Fighting to the bitter end.
2. Deciding they can't win, and playing poorly to get out of the game.
3. Deciding they can't win, and leaving the game abruptly.

Players using method #3 will take a reputation hit and may find it harder to get into other games. Players using method #2 will be harder to detect. Players using method #1 should be applauded when the game is dissected.

Buster13 · October 22, 2002, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Slax
I assume there will be three ways for human players to lose:
1. Fighting to the bitter end.
2. Deciding they can't win, and playing poorly to get out of the game.
3. Deciding they can't win, and leaving the game abruptly.

Players using method #3 will take a reputation hit and may find it harder to get into other games. Players using method #2 will be harder to detect. Players using method #1 should be applauded when the game is dissected.

One could only hope that players will hold people responsible for being babies and getting out early. Still, though...you can't say you've never restarted a game for a bad starting position, on being right next to a couple enemy civs right off of the bat. I think this will be the greatest challenge for us to overcome. ..learning how to play from ANY starting position effectively.

I hope the people who subscribe to #1 get applauded. I think it would be admirable to see, especially some of these better players on this site.

statusperfect · October 22, 2002, 15:36

You can win from ANY starting location. It's all about manipulation.

You scratch my back and i put a dagger in yours.

sun_tzu_159 · October 22, 2002, 18:09

I will play my favourite civ chinese by preference with civ specific abilities on.

From the new civs I will be trying Vikings and Celts first, these will have early advantage with UU which are very strong.

There must be a facility so that all human players can agree that they all have OK starting positions before the game is started properly, i.e. a poll, all = yes, game started, any human player = no, reposition those players.

Does this game play 8Human + 8AI, 16 civs on huge map? I will have my 2.8GHz processor on broadband connection to cope with this!!!

It is indeed a pain to run a huge empire and keeping one or two AI sweet - especially in research stakes and resources supply could tip the balance to the clever diplomat player. I do not think it will be easy to do this, other human players may hand AI's advantage as they are persuaded to stay at the side of one human player or another.

It will be interesting to see what the quicker and better AI can do at Deity level. All human players may take a nasty shock before working out new strategies.

Human player will be able to perform the sustained attack by sea. AI is poor at this - its attempts do not deliver enough units at a time to one spot.

Will there be two AI teaming against one human. This could especially happen in the early game before humans have contacted each other.

Is there a chat/taunt facility in the game other than the diplo screens or will there be extra messages you could send such as 'I am attacking xxxx next turn, theres nothing you can do about it'.

Regards
SunTzu

WarpStorm · October 22, 2002, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by sun_tzu_159
Does this game play 8Human + 8AI, 16 civs on huge map? I will have my 2.8GHz processor on broadband connection to cope with this!!!

8 players total in MP according to Mike B.

Quote:

Is there a chat/taunt facility in the game other than the diplo screens or will there be extra messages you could send such as 'I am attacking xxxx next turn, theres nothing you can do about it'.

Full chat including voice according to the last chat.

BillChin · October 23, 2002, 01:55

I am late to this thread. Here are a few:

1) Early warmongering is less useful in MP. Human players can set up their early empires so that cities burn when captured by having pop one (pop rush or build workers) and no culture. I see few humans giving techs, cities or gold in a peace treaty. A player that is losing is more likely to gift all their remaining cities to a rival than suffer this humiliation. This may be done by inviting in another nation to claim their cities rather than give them to a player who attacked. Perhaps some kind or rules of fair trade are needed for this.
A human player is going to have an entirely different response to an early war than an AI. This may be a major adjustment for players used to attacking early and often.

2) Culture is a lot less important. Cultural victories and culture pushes are probably off the table. In pure MP, trading for luxuries one-for-one, will be more common, so skipping temples and cathedrals may be common. This might be deadly in single player, but I see it as a strong option in MP for non-religious civs.

3) Diplomacy, alliances and resources are a lot more important. Negotiations demand a lot more subtlety.

4) Researching is a lot more attractive in pure MP. Without AI players with insane research rates to bully techs from, a confrontational game makes doing actual research a more attractive option. Scientific and early libraries, and Commercial for the gold and corruption bonus become more attractive.

5) Some kind of map leveler utility that insures that all players get some kind of decent starting terrain may be in high demand.
- Bill

WarpStorm · October 23, 2002, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by BillChin
I am late to this thread. Here are a few:

1) Early warmongering is less useful in MP.

Haven't played much MP have you? I see the early rush wiping out about half the players in any given game. Who cares if the city burns if it's an opponents city?

Quote:

2) Culture is a lot less important

While I don't think there will be many cultural victories in MP, culture is very important for holding your conquests and expanding your holdings.

alva · October 23, 2002, 06:08

Quote:

I will not play a game without civ abilities. I like the flavor of the civs and I'll even play with one of the 'weak' civs. I will mainly play random pick. (But then again I'm the guy who says that expansionistic civs are strong).

IF playing on the right map, your absolutely right IMO

Quote:

You can win from ANY starting location. It's all about manipulation. You scratch my back and i put a dagger in yours.

Doesn't matter to much in SP, but starting in desert or jungle will set you back alot in MP. Up to the point of never recovering

Quote:

2) Culture is a lot less important. Cultural victories and culture pushes are probably off the table. In pure MP, trading for luxuries one-for-one, will be more common, so skipping temples and cathedrals may be common. This might be deadly in single player, but I see it as a strong option in MP for non-religious civs.

Culture will still be a good thing, borders will still play an important role in MP. Knowing your enemy is about to stab you in the back just turn sooner might make a big difference

statusperfect · October 23, 2002, 06:24

Quote:

Originally posted by alva848
Doesn't matter to much in SP, but starting in desert or jungle will set you back alot in MP. Up to the point of never recovering

I have never started in desert/jungle in a 1.29 game. I don't believe people will start in such places with PtW. With ANY starting location i meant ANY staring location possible within the elimits of the game. (As far as i know the completely ****ed-up locations are a pre-patch thingy.)

aahz_capone · October 23, 2002, 07:19

I don't think culture will be useless in MP, as it is extremely important in holding borders, combating cutltural flip and getting those "just not close enough" resources. ( I hate wasting workers on colonies).

Here's a interesting conundrum:

If a human player obtains a city during peacetime from his neighbouring human via cultural flip, will said neighbour declare war?

According to the rules of war (and civ3) this is not sufficient to wage war, but I don't think many humans will care, and either demand it back in diplomacy (making a nice hostage situation) or just invade outirght.

I myself will accept a flip, seeing it as a message that my culture stinks. However, anyone trying propoganda will find their civilized head on a civilized spike.