How playing against humans will be different... - Page 4

WarpStorm · October 23, 2002, 07:52

Quote:

Originally posted by aahz_capone
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.

If it's a city I really wanted I take it back through force now.

Buster13 · October 23, 2002, 09:00

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm

If it's a city I really wanted I take it back through force now.

Yeah, but if it's a city you really wanted, wouldn't you have rush built a temple and a library or something there to keep the city happy? What about starving out the indigenous population?

I think I would accept a culture flip, since as has been noted, it's a sign that my culture is behind. But, like aforementioned, almost any spy missions I intercept are going to put me off...

WarpStorm · October 23, 2002, 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Buster13

Yeah, but if it's a city you really wanted, wouldn't you have rush built a temple and a library or something there to keep the city happy? What about starving out the indigenous population?

I think I would accept a culture flip, since as has been noted, it's a sign that my culture is behind. But, like aforementioned, almost any spy missions I intercept are going to put me off...

I always do this and I usually have the culture lead. Sometimnes cities flip anyway. I take this as a sign that it's time to get off my butt and start kicking a$$.

aahz_capone · October 23, 2002, 21:26

Ah, but now another question arrises. You may or may not sanction a war because a human "culturated" the city from you, but will the rest of the world sanction that? How will your MPP buddies look at you? I don't think they will be as eager to join in a war unless there is something in it for them (like YOUR land once it's been culture flipped), and those players with a "diplomatic conscience" will never allow it.

WarpStorm · October 23, 2002, 21:27

Then I guess they aren't my friends any more any I'll save a few nukes for them, too.

aahz_capone · October 23, 2002, 21:51

Oh dear! This unilateralism will never do!

What would the "oh so peaceloving" democracies say of this barbarism?!

NOTHING! 'Cause they'll be DEAD!!!!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!

Odin · October 23, 2002, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by aahz_capone
Oh dear! This unilateralism will never do!

What would the "oh so peaceloving" democracies say of this barbarism?!

NOTHING! 'Cause they'll be DEAD!!!!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!

OHHHH, i'm so scared barbarian pond scum.

TheStinger · October 24, 2002, 11:56

Secret MPP treaties which other palyers don't know about would be fun

gsmoove23 · October 24, 2002, 14:00

Ok, I like playing as a colonialist, spreading small settlements far and wide just for the luxuries and resource. I assume this would be impossible in MP, defending a small corruption ridden outpost, far from my civ core, against a player who thinks the luxury is rightfully his because it is on his landmass/near his capitol/he was going to put a settler there at some point down the road. Unless perhaps I was willing to make it worth the player's while to let me stay

. Even so, the moment it proved beneficial he would turn on me.

Inverse Icarus · October 24, 2002, 15:52

me and my friends have begun creating "out-of-game-diplomatic-deals", such as "worker contracting", "border lines", etc.

alva · October 24, 2002, 15:57

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
me and my friends have begun creating "out-of-game-diplomatic-deals", such as "worker contracting", "border lines", etc.

shouldn't you just play co-op then

I don't think this is fare to the other players, in fact IMO this borders on cheating.

Great fun fun when playing 3 against 3

, but in a normal game, hmmm, no.

Just my opinion

WarpStorm · October 24, 2002, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
me and my friends have begun creating "out-of-game-diplomatic-deals", such as "worker contracting", "border lines", etc.

This is what I hate about clans on other MP games. Rather than playing 'fair', the clans will use exploits ot get ahead. Now clan-on-clan is fine, it's just the clan on non-clan that's inherently unfair.

CiverDan · October 24, 2002, 16:45

I don't want it to become a situation where I have to find a clan in order to play in a competitive game. I'm not too worried about simple alliances from the get go, I'll just find my own to offset theirs. It's when ppl get involved with leader wars, etc. where it can pose a problem.

-proletarian- · October 24, 2002, 18:12

I wouldn't get too worried about clans, guys. In a game like Civ there are a million ways in which you could piss off someone else in your clan. There are just too many vital interests in this game, it would be super-hard to keep everyone in line without alienating people within the group. I think you'll see some try, but I really don't see any long-lasting or especially powerful alliances forming in PTW.

Chronus · October 24, 2002, 22:01

Quote:

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.

Oh, stop with this nonsense already. I'm one of them perfectionist, pacifist builders who's more than willing to play out my lousy artic beginnings.

By the way, does anyone out here ever play to the bitter end . . . even when you have obviously lost? It's quite fun actually . . . trying everything and anything you can . . . just to survive. And sometimes you learn a new trick or two because your desperate situation nearly forces you to try something totally new.

Inverse Icarus · October 25, 2002, 00:05

i usually dont play random games, i just play within my little group, thats why we have those odd "house rules".

i played civ2 online @ the zone for a while but i got tired of EoN ICSing me.

punkbass2000 · October 25, 2002, 14:42

One of my main anti-warmonger strategies is making early wars less useful. I will do this by never giving in, even if I've lost for sure. I will start disbanding cities and will never, ever pay for peace if the war in question is of the 'oscillating' variety. I'd rather die. If enough people do this, early warmongers will often find themselves with tons of land but no economy or tech. No, I'm not Russian

Pyrodrew · October 25, 2002, 22:00

Quote:

By the way, does anyone out here ever play to the bitter end . . . even when you have obviously lost? It's quite fun actually . . . And sometimes you learn a new trick or two

Moreso, it's an AMAZING RUSH when you turn the tide of battle so your mortal foe is suddenly not top dog anymore OR even better if you make a surprising come back!

Unfortunately, many do (& will

) give up after a certain point due to taking the game personally. However, if I am the only human left & playing against a sore winner... then I do abandon them since they are not worthy of learning anything new I might do... in fact even if I am winning I might stop playing if the other person is a sore winner/loser.

DAVOUT · October 28, 2002, 09:23

If the most common game is 2 humans against 6 AI or 4 humans against 4 AI, I assume that we don?t know which Civ is human and which is AI. I think that this could suggest interesting strategies consisting in imitating the AI behaviour to mislead the human opponents and induce him to do some dangerous moves.

One of the typical strange things the AI does systematically is to ask for a meeting and offer the world map against yours +several hundreds gold. Then you make a proposal offering your world map and asking what they would give; the answer is ALWAYS: world map+3 to 20 gold. Therefore, if I am proposed that kind of deal, I will think that it is made by an AI.

They are certainly much other behaviours typical of the AI which can be imitated.

aahz_capone · October 28, 2002, 11:26

there's on catch Davout. When in diplomacy with an AI you can see how much gold etc he has, when in diplomacy with a human, you cannot. This is unfortunate as it will make diplomacy take extra long and you will notice who is AI.

But I definately agree with keeping the AI/human identaties a mistery. If anything it will stop sore loosers scream "no fair, you ganged up on me!" Like, duh! thats the point of MAA.

Inverse Icarus · October 28, 2002, 14:02

abandoning cities is ghetto. i think it's the worst addition to civ as of yet.

punkbass2000 · October 28, 2002, 14:54

Heh, heh, 'ghetto'

aahz_capone · October 28, 2002, 20:47

I wouldn't mind abandoning cities if you get the workers/settlers for it. Maybe it should cost money (paying people to convince them to live somewhere else). I've only used it a few times when I didn't have the patience to buy loads of workers/settlers to disband a city (and I don't raze cities, I'm a diplomatic type).

gsmoove23 · October 29, 2002, 08:47

ah 'ghetto' I'm a native of NYC living in Britain, give me more lingo I'm homesick

Nothing wrong with abandoning cities, my empire just sees the necessity to reallocate resources, plus defending it is an unnecessary drain on resources. I often do this when I pick up small pointless cities on my frontier through cultural reversion. Its funny when the AI comes around and places another city there and I get it again a few turn down the road.

Thats something that won't be in strictly MP games, pointless settlements. Imagine it, there may actually be unsettled 'wild' places in the game that stay around till the modern age. Races to grab resources that pop up in godforsaken places later in the game.

WarpStorm · October 29, 2002, 09:01

There is no such thing as a pointless settlement. I build everywhere (just like the AI). Even if there are no resources I use it to increase my chances of a Domination or Cultural victory by building culture producing structures (even if I have to rush build them).

gsmoove23 · October 29, 2002, 09:06

Yuck

that and your communism trick makes for an ugly game

-proletarian- · October 29, 2002, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
There is no such thing as a pointless settlement. I build everywhere (just like the AI). Even if there are no resources I use it to increase my chances of a Domination or Cultural victory by building culture producing structures (even if I have to rush build them).

You filthy spammer.

Inverse Icarus · October 29, 2002, 14:53

RAZING AFTER CAPTURE is great.

ABANDONING WHEN CONQUERING LOOKS INEVITABLE is ghetto.

imagine turnless. when the last defender is standing they abaondon a city.

WarpStorm · October 29, 2002, 15:02

I have to agree with you. Abandoning just before you are destroyed in pretty lame and should be disallowed.

gsmoove23 · October 29, 2002, 15:29

How do you mean? Is their a way to disband cities other then starving and building a worker or is that what you're talking about? Forgive my ignorance.

I don't see any problem with abandoning cities though, if you know an undefeatable army is coming it would be a valid strategy obviously used to good effect in the real world, as long as it is done with some strategic value and not just to be a pain in the ass.