how our first adventure went

SlowThinker · July 19, 2003, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Feel free to start a "how our first adventure went" thread. I'm sure the vets would be interested in our CIV scientists impressions.

La Fayette and I finished our first MP game. We will tell you how MP is from point of view of a SP player.

DrSpike · July 19, 2003, 18:10

Well don't keep us in suspense.

War4ever · July 19, 2003, 18:20

er...i am dying with anticipation...yet i have nothing to read

SlowThinker · July 19, 2003, 18:25

I decided I am tired. Tomorrow.
Maybe La Fayette, he is online now...

Ming · July 19, 2003, 18:41

You tease...

rah · July 19, 2003, 20:05

Starts the thread and doesn't deliver. *sigh*

finbar · July 19, 2003, 20:32

Postus interruptus.

atawa · July 19, 2003, 22:21

Stop whining, free +1 for all. (And another one tomorrow after ST posts

)

Ming · July 20, 2003, 03:41

If he posts

SlowThinker · July 20, 2003, 05:40

I may be tired again...

DrSpike · July 20, 2003, 06:01

It's like the dance of the seven veils.

Carolus Rex · July 20, 2003, 07:03

Allez-y Messieurs! Nous vous attendons...

Carolus

Carolus Rex · July 20, 2003, 07:14

In the mean while...

[Threadjacking mode]

My first game was with Sten Sture. He was at work when I posted at Apolyton that I finally had bought UCC.

I think it was a Friday, he finished work early... He told me to fire up the game, while he was looking for, IIRC, that can of whup-ass

he had saved for the occasion. I guess he found it...

He bred faster than a rabbit, or a ferret, and swarmed me with units...

It was great fun, but I remember I was more nervous when I logged in to the game than at a first date...

[/Threadjacking mode]

Carolus

SlowThinker · July 20, 2003, 17:14

I should explain why I started a thread and posted nothing: yesterday we finished our game and I told La Fayette I was going to start this thread. But then I was tired and decided to post later. But I thought LF wanted to announce his victory and was waiting for this thread... so I started it.

I wasn't so thrilled as Carolus Rex wrote, because I joined my first MP game about two years ago at Zone. I came into a civ from an AI, early AD years, a small civ with 1 large city. There was a limit 1 min per turn, other players had empires with 30 cities or more and were content. I wasn't able to manage my city within that 1 min.
Then I started 2 games with Eyes, but both were finished before 2000BC.
So the game with La Fayette was the first serious game finished.

The impression is very different from a SP. You know that there is something living on the other side and that this being may hurt you... Also suspension is more intense...
BTW I can't understand that somebody could cheat in Civ2. It is like you are building a sand castle and you blow it up in the middle of work on your own.

We played emperor and it gives an unequal start if only one civ has 2 Settlers. But I don't consider an unequal start as a defect. It is more fun.

I was surprised the Elephants are so soon. In SP I never minded about them. In SP Elephants is something on your path to Mike, but you don't know what are they good for...
So one day I found three Elephants of LF heading to my empire. That time I had warriors only and was building my first Phalanx and dips. I had a chance, because my warrior sneak attacked one Elep, and other warrior caught to fortify on mountains.
(savefile is attached as Romans; get position of Americans by cheat mode)

We played a game where blackclicking was forbidden, but my error was that I didn't check "near city XXX" messages. Otherwise I would get the direction where LF lives much sooner.
Formerly I didn't like the "near city XXX" feature, but now I think it is OK, because it gives you a partial information only. Also it is natural IMO, since it simulates hearsays about large cities.
But the message should be attainable more easily - best with unit's stats in the status window.

To be continued...

SlowThinker · July 20, 2003, 18:06

I played extremely fast

: in the beginning, when I had say 2 cities and 3 exploring warriors I spent 5 minutes per turn. With 20 cities I spent approx. 20 min (?, La Fayette, can you confirm?). But it was too fast, I was confused, fortunately we played short sessions (2-3 hours), so I could make long-time plans offline.
LF was impatient, but then he reconciled himself with that. LF told me 10 min per turn is OK for him.

When the game ended we conjectured how fast are you, other MP players. The conclusion was we are not good MP partners for you: you would hate our slowness, we would hate your weakness

.

I think a praticable MP for me would be something between PBEM and normal MP: for example a fast PBEM with 2 turns per hour...

Another solution is to play with less cities. Unfortunately in standard Civ2 (deity, emperor...) a stronger civ is a civ with more cities. You need to build as much cities as you can

.
How large empire do you like to manage? I do micromanage, so 10 cities is enough for me. I think Civ2 should be adjusted so that the optimum is 5-12 cities (then you pay a too high price due to UDNC). I would like a setting where you can win with an empire constituted from 4 cities...
This may be achieved by a change similar to the one I posted in 'Changes in rules.txt' thread: If you have only one or two cities then cities have first 5 citizens content for example, but this number goes down very fast as you build new cities.

A note: we played with 'scenario techs' - no techs are hidden for research. Things are more simple and so it speeds the game up.

DrSpike · July 20, 2003, 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker

When the game ended we conjectured how fast are you, other MP players.

5 minutes at the start is too long, everyone will say that. You only have 2 cities...........what could take five minutes?

SlowThinker · July 20, 2003, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
5 minutes at the start is too long, everyone will say that.

I will tell you it is too short.

You have to find specials (and huts, but we played without huts), to decide between food and shield, to plan where to build new cities, to choose between production of warriors and settlers, to think if to mine in place of to build a city (because work of settlers is 2x faster than in SP), to plan ideal exploration so that warriors walk on an already revealed terrain as little as possible, to choose the right moment when to switch from 60% gold to 60% beakers in the way to monarchy, to prepare oedo year, to check "near city XXX" message, to reveal map on another comp..., ah! I was confused! I didn't want to say that...

Some things may be done when an opponent plays but there is not much time in a duel.

In the beginning you can lose one turn much easier than in the middle game. If you dispatch your first Settler one turn later then your civ is a half of turn behind.

DrSpike · July 20, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker
...to reveal map on another comp..., ah! I was confused! I didn't want to say that...

Well you joke but that's what I'd think if someone took 5 minutes at the start of a game.

atawa · July 20, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I played extremely fast

: in the beginning, when I had say 2 cities and 3 exploring warriors I spent 5 minutes per turn. With 20 cities I spent approx. 20 min (?, La Fayette, can you confirm?).

I usualy dont spend more then 3 min on 2x2x king when I have 30+ city's and delivering vans.

What are you doing all that time?

Alexander's Horse · July 20, 2003, 19:25

Should be a 30 second timer for a 2 cities slowpoke.

SlowThinker · July 20, 2003, 19:47

OK, I played 2 cities faster, maybe 3 min...

atawa, I explained what I do with 2 cities, I think you can imagine there is more work with 30 cities...

how can you manage 30 cities in 3 min? Your play must be chaotic...

SlowThinker · July 20, 2003, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well you joke but that's what I'd think if someone took 5 minutes at the start of a game.

Well, with revealed map I could play much faster. I usually reveal it in 10 seconds. ... ah! I was confused again! I didn't want to say that...

atawa · July 21, 2003, 02:51

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker
OK, I played 2 cities faster, maybe 3 min...

atawa, I explained what I do with 2 cities, I think you can imagine there is more work with 30 cities...

how can you manage 30 cities in 3 min? Your play must be chaotic...

Not all my city's are growing or building something, so no need to micro them all.
And off course you have your whole off-turn to micro

La Fayette · July 21, 2003, 02:58

I can confirm that SlowThinker used about 5 minutes/turn in the very early game, then about 20 minutes/turn later on.
I think I used about 2 minutes/turn in the very early game, then about 5 minutes/turn later on.

As to my feelings while playing, I considered this game as training, since I had never played MP at all previously, so I didn't feel any strong stress (except on the very turn when a mix of crusaders, elephants and pikemen appeared close to Philadelphia

). Still, I didn't like it at all when my vet triremes (I had LH) were sunk by ST's non vet (is this a special feature in MP or is it very bad luck ?). I didn't like it either when the Romans (the famous white civ) finished building Mike on the very turn when I was about to complete it.

What the game taught me (or started teaching me) is that any small mistake one wouldn't care about in SP can be deadly in MP (ST's army landed on a square I thought I had an eye upon from the sea, but I should in fact have forested it long ago).

Main points (do you, experienced MP players, consider them important?):
- Try to explore twice as fast as in SP
- Try to grow even faster than that
- Take much more care in defense

Cobra · July 21, 2003, 04:06

5 minutes with 2 cities? Even 2 minutes are too long. MP looses much of ist fun, if you can wash your car between two turns. In the German league we had a time problem too, nearly 2 years ago. Then we decided to fix the max. time to 2 minutes untill 1 AD and to 5 minutes later. After a short time everybody becomes quicker, now we play mostly without timelimit. Micromanagement is made during opponents turn. In a 4 hour session from 4000 BC we mostly come near 1 AD or after that in a duel.
5-10 cities are very less in a MP-game. You will never have a chance to win a game, where your opponent builts 20 ore more cities. Growing is one key to success. Exploring is the other. Mostly wins the guy who finds the other first, if they are on different continents.
Defense is important, if your opponent knows your cities. Most wonders are built in one or two large City and a lost of such a city is the end of a game.

La Fayette · July 21, 2003, 04:39

I am convinced that SlowThinker is able to win many games using 1 minute/turn.
But I am not sure he would really enjoy it

DrSpike · July 21, 2003, 05:19

Well his opponents might enjoy it more than 20 minutes.

Carolus Rex · July 21, 2003, 05:53

Maybe it's crystal clear from the save, but I don't have Civ with me. How did the end of the game come about?

Carolus

Hydey · July 21, 2003, 07:25

I am having trouble understanding the 5 minutes per turn with 2 cities and 3 exploring units.

rah · July 21, 2003, 08:14

WOW. Yes you take after your nick.
Most of my early turns after the first two take no longer that 20 seconds. With 20-30 cities, maybe 3 minutes. The only exception is when you do a major attack. But on those, your opponent is so busy he doesn't notice the delay.

But I expect, with a little experience, you will quicken but you have lots of work to do.