Bidding_System

ffitzp · July 12, 2003, 04:49

The multi-player game needs a bidding system. I suggest a mechanism that would allwo players to bid turns for a particular Civ. I'd happily give anyone a 4 turn klead to take the Russians. I'd Happily Bid 3 or 4 turns for Carthage.

What does anyone think?

The Mad Monk · July 12, 2003, 06:47

I'm not sure how to interpret the poll choices, but your idea could be implemented on the honor system.

vmxa1 · July 12, 2003, 13:42

I think you may want to revist the poll and read it carefully in the light that the rest of us do not have the advantage of knowing exactly what you are talking about.
IOW see if it makes sense to those that are coming in with no prior knowledge of the subject.

ffitzp · July 25, 2003, 08:37

Sorry about the poll. I'm one of the sad cases who are helpless to communicate without a spell checker.

The idea is this. Play balance is not good in CIV III. I rate Carthage off the scale and the Russians the worst side.

While massive tinkering via the editor can fix this, there ought to be a worled standard game, as near as possible to theFiraxis original for tournament.

I was suggesting the idea of bidding in turns for stronger or weaker sides.

Other ideas might be to allow the Weaker players set the map size, climate, brbarian level etc.

Nor Me · July 25, 2003, 08:56

OK. I'll take Russia and you can have Carthage if you'll do nothing for 7 or 8 turns.

I'd have to have a very bad starting position for that to be anywhere near fair.
If we were on the same landmass, I doubt you could recover from that.

Panag · July 25, 2003, 11:47

Quote:

Originally posted by ffitzp
Sorry about the poll. I'm one of the sad cases who are helpless to communicate without a spell checker.

The idea is this. Play balance is not good in CIV III. I rate Carthage off the scale and the Russians the worst side.

While massive tinkering via the editor can fix this, there ought to be a worled standard game, as near as possible to theFiraxis original for tournament.

I was suggesting the idea of bidding in turns for stronger or weaker sides.

Other ideas might be to allow the Weaker players set the map size, climate, brbarian level etc.

hi ,

what do you think of the balance in ptw , ......

we should see a bit more balance in c3c

have a nice day

GhengisFarb™ · July 25, 2003, 12:05

I'm not sure skipping turns is good system of bidding, perhaps a handicap system and they using the final scores with the handicap added in to determine winners.

vmxa1 · July 25, 2003, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by ffitzp
The multi-player game needs a bidding system. I suggest a mechanism that would allwo players to bid turns for a particular Civ. I'd happily give anyone a 4 turn klead to take the Russians. I'd Happily Bid 3 or 4 turns for Carthage.

What does anyone think?

I would suspect that two equal players, the one that gave 4 turns would lose if the starts were both about the same, regardless of Civs.
If you are better than the one you give the 4 turns to, then that is another story.

ffitzp · August 8, 2003, 08:22

I agree that the number of turns could only be very small: I'd say up to a max of 5.

Again, if a ruthless attack was launched by a much weaker civ with even a 5 turn start it could eliminate the stronger late starter. You could fix start up locations to do that.

But the multiple victory conditions do not allow for easy handicapping.

Think about the extreme cases:

Russia: expansionist , which sucks and is useless after the 1st ten turns: scientific : yes but: useless for the 1st 20 turns and then it needs a long game, going to reserach labs to reach its full potential. Special Unit: good, but too late to affect the game much.

Carthage: Ind. the best: Comm the 2nd best: a special unit which is unkillable 'til swordsmen, they start out with it, and on good punic days it winds up sitting on all of the local iron deposits, fortified, waiting for sad archers to take it out.

Is this fair starts

Gufnork · August 8, 2003, 08:49

I think many would disagree with you on the strength of the civs. I know I do. While some are slightly worse than others, there's enough civs in the game for everyone to be able to pick a competitive civ.

benstandby · August 11, 2003, 19:55

I used to go Carthage online all the time.

Then I found China, and I know what every guy that takes Carthage is thinking. Let me tell you, your paradigm is seeemingly beautiful but inherently flawed. Learn it well before moving on to a more focused civ.

If I'm feeling particularly cocky (most nights that I'm up playing civ), I'll go random. How many turns will you give me to go Random?

ffitzp · August 12, 2003, 11:27

I also rate China near tops. Certainly in the big 5. Anyone who give the Chinese a lead will shortly after be presented with his or her head.

Turns to go Random: Hmmmm: If I can have my pick of the top 5: 3
Over time it works. However, see above.

Maybe no-one should be let picjk their Civ at tournament.

ffitzp · August 12, 2003, 11:31

It is just too hard to regard anyone who thinks Expansionist is a serious rival to any other trait as a functioning thinker.

I boost the scout to 3 movement points and start them with map_makinig just to give them a chance, and it rarely works.

Kingof the Apes · August 12, 2003, 19:33

Expansionist is extremely good in multiplayer, jumping you to an early tech lead and early contacts. Quick resource locations, terrain scouted early, and most likely a few extra conscript warriors waiting around to be upgraded once a scout pops iron working.