What's wrong with remaining allied?

Ilkuul · March 20, 2001, 20:11

The Civ2 multiplayer setup is great, except for one thing: you can form alliances with other human players, but you can't STAY allied if you want to complete the game!

My question is, why not? Another multiplayer game I've played quite often is Warcraft II, and there the human players are free to form alliances against the computer and go for an 'allied victory'. A great way to avoid aggro with your friends! Also takes the pressure off, and allows you to wreak a just vengeance on those AI opponents who THEMSELVES tend to gang up on you in the end-game...

Is there anyone else like me who'd like to see an option like this included in Civ3??

------------------

finbar · March 20, 2001, 23:46

Well, you can stay allied with another human and complete the game providing you accept the notion that an alliance - rather than one of its component parts - can win a game. It's basically a question of philosophy, and it has been batted around on these forums from time to time.

Some argue that it's ridiculous, that the game doesn't cater, technically, for an alliance to win, therefore a win by an alliance should be discounted. This doesn't stop them forming alliances in games, just that the alliances must end at some point. Others argue that if a victory - either by world conquest or space flight - has been achieved by the combined efforts of an alliance, then the alliance should be recognised as the "winner", regardless of which partner is the "winner" according to the software.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that alliances can "win" games. I think the counter argument is a far too literal interpretation of the notion of "winning".

Just one of the many, varied and wonderful debates that have graced these forums over the years.

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591
[This message has been edited by finbar (edited March 20, 2001).]

Gatekeeper · March 21, 2001, 02:39

Ilkuul, et al.:

Ha! IMHO, those anti-alliance endgame folks might change their tune if a truly intelligent, savage and cunning AI is ever unleashed on them. Then they'll be screaming to form into alliances as massive, merciless AI armies rumble over their soon-to-be-outlying-provinces-in-a-mighty-empire civilization.

I'm hoping Civ III AI's even better than Civ II's, which I consider to be decent.

CYBERAmazon

N35t0r · March 21, 2001, 14:52

At home, me and The Hogfather used to start games until we got two settlers, and then control one each, and everything which came out of them.

Each city must be able to pay for its own improvements, and all NONE units were set to one of the owner's city and homed there.

it was quite complicated in the later part of the game, but manageable.

also, all cities were renamed so that we could distinguish them...

Ilkuul · March 21, 2001, 16:19

quote:

Originally posted by HsFB on 03-21-2001 01:52 PM
At home, me and The Hogfather used to start games until we got two settlers, and then control one each, and everything which came out of them.

I'm fascinated -- how did this work? You mean, you were sitting side by side at the same machine, both alternately controlling cities of the SAME civilization? Great idea, but not possible over the internet! Or is there some trick I'm missing here?

Ilkuul · March 22, 2001, 01:20

quote:

Originally posted by finbar on 03-20-2001 10:46 PM
... if a victory - either by world conquest or space flight - has been achieved by the combined efforts of an alliance, then the alliance should be recognised as the "winner", regardless of which partner is the "winner" according to the software

Thanks for that insightful comment, Finbar (and apologies that this topic now appears on 2 forums! I realised belatedly that it was more appropriate for the multiplayer forum).

However, I don't see how anyone can speak of an "allied victory" by world conquest in Civ2! World conquest necessarily means that ALL players except one are out of the game at the end -- either by literal conquest, or because they've quit or retired. How does that tie in with the notion of an alliance? The only way I can see it working is that one member of the alliance is agreed to be the most powerful, and the others therefore retire to leave him/her a clear field. But that means they don't see the end of the game -- hardly a "victory" for THEM!

So the only really workable allied victory in Civ2 would be by space flight -- tho' even then, all the honours go to the single player who reaches AC.

A method that a friend and I have used (since we simply don't WANT to wipe one another out!), is that we play only until all the AI players have been defeated (by either or both of us); then we both retire and see what our JOINT scores come to! Maybe it sounds crazy, but it helps maintain the illusion of a true "allied victory".

Craftsman · March 24, 2001, 01:26

I´m also a CTP2 player, and liked very much the World Peace victory(including the video clip, which I think is the best of the three kinds of victory: Conquest, World Peace, Science). In this kind of victory, if you manage to be at least for one turn allied with every other civs remaining, then you win.

I think this is a great idea of a two players game - two settlers, one for each human player. May become very complicated at end game... But still very interesting! Never heard that before!

I thing, IMHO, that a multiplayer game must allow an Allied victory, and the scored points, at the end, should be about the global achievements of all Allies, without discriminating who did what.

Also, a *Surrender* option (demand or offer) must be included in
every civ game from now!!!

Thanks for your time!

Ilkuul · March 24, 2001, 17:29

quote:

Originally posted by Craftsman on 03-24-2001 12:26 AM
I think, IMHO, that a multiplayer game must allow an Allied victory, and the scored points, at the end, should be about the global achievements of all Allies, without discriminating who did what.

Also, a *Surrender* option (demand or offer) must be included in
every civ game from now!!!

Glad to hear you feel the same, Craftsman! I haven't played CTP2, so was interested to hear about their 'World Peace' victory. I think that would be a good option to have in ADDITION to an 'Allied Victory' where the allies have wiped out all others; and, as you say, the score at the end should reflect the achievements of ALL the allies combined.

I also like the idea of a 'Surrender' option, which could be at different levels: 'Total Surrender', where the loser gets completely absorbed into the victor's civ (thus basically retiring from the game); and various 'Partial Surrender' options, including ceding certain cities and/or units to the victor, paying tribute/reparations of a certain amount of gold for a specified number of turns, giving a number of technologies, allowing free access to the victor's units to pass through the loser's territory (as in alliances), etc., etc. That would really be great!

Let's just hope Civ3 implements some of this!

Craftsman · March 25, 2001, 01:06

quote:

Originally posted by Ilkuul on 03-24-2001 04:29 PM
I also like the idea of a 'Surrender' option, which could be at different levels: 'Total Surrender', where the loser gets completely absorbed into the victor's civ (thus basically retiring from the game); and various 'Partial Surrender' options, including ceding certain cities and/or units to the victor, paying tribute/reparations of a certain amount of gold for a specified number of turns, giving a number of technologies, allowing free access to the victor's units to pass through the loser's territory (as in alliances), etc., etc. That would really be great!

Let's just hope Civ3 implements some of this!

Hey! Nice idea of different levels of "Surrender"! In fact, in ctp2
we have a "Demand City" option, but nothing about "Surrender". I was thinking of a *complete* surrender (just to make things move fast, if a civ is losing a war badly or if it is in Stone Age in comparison with our civ)

Of course, different levels of "Surrender", as you proposed, are definitely very interesting!

Let´s hope, sure!

Ilkuul · March 25, 2001, 16:07

quote:

Originally posted by Craftsman on 03-25-2001 12:06 AM
Hey! Nice idea of different levels of "Surrender"! In fact, in ctp2
we have a "Demand City" option, but nothing about "Surrender". I was thinking of a *complete* surrender (just to make things move fast, if a civ is losing a war badly or if it is in Stone Age in comparison with our civ)

Of course, different levels of "Surrender", as you proposed, are definitely very interesting!

You might be interested to see the further discussion on this whole surrender topic in the Civ3-General forum (where I raised it, quoting you, Crafstman!). Quite a few interesting responses.

Maybe we should send in a query to 'Ask the Team' on the Firaxis Civ3 website!

Ilkuul · March 25, 2001, 16:11

quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk on 03-25-2001 12:41 PM
I like the Alpha Centuri concept of surrender, myself: the surrenderer gives all cash and research to the victor, and becomes a 'submissive'--an ally that (generally) does everything you demand, without making demands of its own, along with all of the usual benefits of alliance.

Thanks for the info, MM: not having played SMAC, I didn't know this. But does it apply only to AI civs? I somehow can't imagine a human player just meekly becoming a 'submissive'! (Or does SMAC not have multiplayer? Forgive my ignorance...)

You also might be interested in the further ideas etc. that have developed on the 'Surrender' topic in the Civ3-General forum.

------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

The Mad Monk · March 26, 2001, 01:41

I like the Alpha Centuri concept of surrender, myself: the surrenderer gives all cash and research to the victor, and becomes a 'submissive'--an ally that (generally) does everything you demand, without making demands of its own, along with all of the usual benefits of alliance.

The Capo · March 26, 2001, 10:16

I agree that an allied victory should be placed into the game, however one issue I think has been overlooked is the following...

If Green whipes out everyone except Purple, and demands that Purple allies with them or be killed, and Purple does so. Would Green and Purple get the allied victory? Because that seems rather pointless in the end. The only way it could make sense if it was an actual allied victory and not just a victory based on the computer's fields and commands.

Else we are arguing over a topic (the computer only recognizes victory the way it wants to when it can be achieved otherwise) that is only going to shore up again if the changes are made.

Ilkuul · March 26, 2001, 18:11

quote:

Originally posted by The Capo on 03-26-2001 09:16 AM
If Green whipes out everyone except Purple, and demands that Purple allies with them or be killed, and Purple does so. Would Green and Purple get the allied victory? Because that seems rather pointless in the end.

I would hope it could be built into the AI that there's no point in offering an alliance to your last remaining opponent! Alliances involving AI's should only be possible as long as there's at least one remaining player to ally against.

However, I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that if two human players found they were the only ones left, they could decide to make this an allied victory, rather than trying to wipe each other out. This would also be a good way of shortening the end game!

------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".