Opinion Poll: The next War - Page 2

roadcage · January 8, 2003, 21:11

Actually Arneleos is half right. The Zulu campaign is not victory enabeling, so that part is correct.

However, after a suitable period of peace, our force structure will be LARGE and our core will be either...
...producing 20 to 30 major attack pieces per turn.
or
...producing huge wealth and the occasional Spaceship Part as the techs become available.

So the idea of simply attacking Liz ie TBOE, is a yawner.

I envision either perpetual peace and a space ship victory, or another Global war and we take out the whole (A)banana(ba) on the way to a Domination victory. And for the record, I believe that the choice between these two outcomes will be made by the AI's.

We simply need to be prepared to respond to which ever ending the AI's pick.

aleion · January 8, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
Actually Arneleos is half right. The Zulu campaign is not victory enabeling, so that part is correct.

However, after a suitable period of peace, our force structure will be LARGE and our core will be either...
...producing 20 to 30 major attack pieces per turn.
or
...producing huge wealth and the occasional Spaceship Part as the techs become available.

So the idea of simply attacking Liz ie TBOE, is a yawner.

I envision either perpetual peace and a space ship victory, or another Global war and we take out the whole (A)banana(ba) on the way to a Domination victory. And for the record, I believe that the choice between these two outcomes will be made by the AI's.

We simply need to be prepared to respond to which ever ending the AI's pick.

Panzer32 · January 8, 2003, 22:20

The next war: Declare war on the entire world simeltaneously

It wouldn't be very boring then... (but not for long because we'd die soon

)

Meshelic · January 8, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Panzer32
The next war: Declare war on the entire world simeltaneously

It wouldn't be very boring then... (but not for long because we'd die soon

)

I think we could take 'em.

Kloreep · January 9, 2003, 01:11

We could in a few hundred years. Right now, we need more infrastructure; forces simply can't be generated fast enough without stunting our growth.

Epistax · January 9, 2003, 10:38

If this were my game, I'd realize that war is the only way the rest of the game will be fun. We could buckle down right now and win by diplomacy or science easily. The only challenge left is through the warpath.

So, if this were my game, I'd take over all of Abanaba after giving my infrastructure a much needed kick, and of course by the aid of tanks.

Remember, total destruction can be done tactfully. No one has to be angry about it.

Doesn't anyone want a war to end all wars?

Spiffor · January 9, 2003, 10:55

Wow Epistax, you just wrothe the 47000th post of this forum

Panag · January 9, 2003, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic

We'll be advancing in tech and military for sure, no problem. However, I suppose I'm of the class of people who think that even if the whole world declared war against us, we could still pull it off.

But I agree, we will NEED a period of peace for building, creation of Armies, Wonders, etc. As well as time to station our units in a good defensive/offensive screen. Not to mention prepare for the next war, which I'm sure we all agree will probably happen.

Meshelic

hi ,

and thats why we need loads of money and new technology , .......

its not a Q of going to war or not , its more a Q of when and how , .....

have a nice day

Arnelos · January 9, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Epistax
If this were my game, I'd realize that war is the only way the rest of the game will be fun.

I'm sorry, but this opinion is simply inane.

1. Building toward the space ship can be fun. Arguments to the contrary are forwarded by people who seem to only be capable of enjoying the game when we're at war... The idea that Civ3 is more than simply a wargame and that many (if not most) of us here enjoy the game just as much for its building aspects as for its war aspects doesn't seem to have occured to a number of them...

2. Warchats are simply aggravating to run and cause a very slow game pace. The reason is that war turns tend to last 3 hours of gameplay each now because there are so many units and so many things to do. Everyone argues over each individual stack or unit movement, the SMC is making decisions on micromanging our forces during the chat, and the turns take ages. Peacetime turns, where the various regional admins and others are concerned mostly with building priorities and the DM and President mostly worried about pollution clean-up as what to micromanage during the chat, might take only 30 minutes per turn. The net result is that the pace of the game would be SIGNIFICANTLY faster in peacetime and provide a more rewarding experience for those closest to the play of the game as well as those beyond that who might be frustrated by the game's hideously slow pace of late.

Personally, I want to WIN this game already... so playing fast peacetime turns in larger clumps of turns at a time and moving toward the completion of the space ship has an ENORMOUS appeal to me... I realize my perspective is lonely on that one because not very many people have experienced the aggravation of being trapped running a 6-hour turnchat where we only do 2 turns.

joncnunn · January 9, 2003, 17:30

I agree with Arnelos and in my own games play only with Tiny maps. Even on Tiny maps, in times of war with lots of units in the modern era it's taken over an hour for me to give orders per turn, which isn't much fun for me.

Panag · January 9, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos

I'm sorry, but this opinion is simply inane.

1. Building toward the space ship can be fun. Arguments to the contrary are forwarded by people who seem to only be capable of enjoying the game when we're at war... The idea that Civ3 is more than simply a wargame and that many (if not most) of us here enjoy the game just as much for its building aspects as for its war aspects doesn't seem to have occured to a number of them...

2. Warchats are simply aggravating to run and cause a very slow game pace. The reason is that war turns tend to last 3 hours of gameplay each now because there are so many units and so many things to do. Everyone argues over each individual stack or unit movement, the SMC is making decisions on micromanging our forces during the chat, and the turns take ages. Peacetime turns, where the various regional admins and others are concerned mostly with building priorities and the DM and President mostly worried about pollution clean-up as what to micromanage during the chat, might take only 30 minutes per turn. The net result is that the pace of the game would be SIGNIFICANTLY faster in peacetime and provide a more rewarding experience for those closest to the play of the game as well as those beyond that who might be frustrated by the game's hideously slow pace of late.

Personally, I want to WIN this game already... so playing fast peacetime turns in larger clumps of turns at a time and moving toward the completion of the space ship has an ENORMOUS appeal to me... I realize my perspective is lonely on that one because not very many people have experienced the aggravation of being trapped running a 6-hour turnchat where we only do 2 turns.

hi ,

one more reason why you should run for President again , ....

have a nice day

Epistax · January 9, 2003, 18:15

I would agree except that we have such a capacity to be far ahead in that persuit that there is no more challenge. If there's no more challenge, it's not as fun anymore.

Maybe I should just play the game myself, perhaps after this game is over, release screen shots of the conquest

So who's up for a Moo3 Demo Game?

Arnelos · January 10, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Epistax
So who's up for a Moo3 Demo Game?

I was thinking along precisely the same lines... I just want to play the game single-player a few times first

Spiffor · January 10, 2003, 05:08

I completely agree with Arnelos.
How many turns did we play this month ? 10 ? 15 ? The more we're waging war, the longer these war turns will last. We'll have more and more units to micromanage, and the enemy will have more units to oppose us.

We should win this game already, because there is simply no challenge left : we are hegemoneous. The only challenge we could have would be to declare war with the whole world right now, with our outstretched military. But since such an idea is insane, nobody will support it.

A conquest victory will drag the game for years. It represents an incredible amount of micromanagement, for units but for cities as well (doing the city planning is somehow long each turn with only 50 cities ; do you imagine what it will be with 200 ?)

Peace will simply mean that the show goes on. Finally.

Aro · January 10, 2003, 07:33

Spiffor and Arnelos:
You're right, guys. The game is already won, and build the spaceship will be fun. High scores, high culture, powerful (to keep pace) military, top 5 cities. That's our goal now. After we destroy the Zulus and Romans, of course...

pikesfan · January 10, 2003, 12:20

I find this endless slow war rather dull. Since we are at war with Germany already, I would conquer them if we can if only to stop people from wanting to have another war with Germany. Rome is too far away. I agree with the people who are willing to give cities to Russia. And who cares about the Zulus?

Beta · January 10, 2003, 15:04

President Arnelos - I vote for peace. For the compelling reasons you have stated.

This thread is interesting as it also raises the issue of when is enough enough.

For me , in the beginning, I would play my games out to the very end - first to actually 'win' the game, and then more to see the dandelion seed go floating by. To be honest - I can't remember recently the last game that I finished. Once it becomes clear you are going to win, well, a lot of the fun goes out of it.

I am relatively new to the demo game, so I am in no position to suggest anything one way or the other, but it is interesting that it has been raised.

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 15:18

I have no problem with declaring victory and beginning the preparation process for another game. What I do in most personal games, is pick some identifiable milestone, usually a key Wonder and consider that milestone as a true Victory! And I believe the proper milestone in the current game is Hoover's Dam which is what 6 turns?

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

aleion · January 12, 2003, 20:46

Peace is an extremly good option......but we should prepare for the worst