The problem with 2/3 player games...

Frugal_Gourmet · November 11, 2002, 00:44

Correct me I'm wrong, but so far it seems to me the problem with 2 or 3 players game .. is that they just become glorified death matches. There is no concern for treaties, politics, etc. You know there's only one (maybe two) opponents and that you have to do whatever it takes to destroy them. Period.

The game becomes extremely one-dimensional, IMO, and is just geared around churning out units..

asleepathewheel · November 11, 2002, 01:01

Thats true, so what I have played are 2 humans with 3-4 ai's. helps balance the game a bit, can team with the human to take out the ai's or vice versa.

DrFell · November 11, 2002, 05:06

Not an ideal solution though, the AIs tend to get in the way. But 2 player games are about fighting without treaties, that's why the're called duels. Things get too boring if there's no war at all.

Frugal_Gourmet · November 12, 2002, 00:50

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
Not an ideal solution though, the AIs tend to get in the way. But 2 player games are about fighting without treaties, that's why the're called duels. Things get too boring if there's no war at all.

True enough.

I guess my point is: without more players, we lose a lot of the experience of Civ3. No alliances, trade, pacts, etc.

DrFell · November 12, 2002, 08:19

Yeah. One of my fave civ2 settings was 4 player medium map. That's the setting I picked if I wanted a more diplomacy based game. Can't really play that setting in civ3 yet though.