RAH rules VI: No Spamming! - Page 2

DrSpike · October 25, 2003, 05:48

It's not the rules............the underlying gameplay was simplified so the SP AI would be better. As such there is little rules changes can do to make it good for MP.

Rasputin · October 25, 2003, 09:55

dont agree it was simplified , changed yes, as many civ2 people had to totlaly change their style of play..

Wha ti lvoe about civ 3 is the culture and the borders...

i think it would make a good MP if it wasnt jsut too damn slow in modern ages

DrSpike · October 25, 2003, 11:21

I've played more Civ3 than most Civ2ers, and I don't think it's a bad SP game. However, many elements of the game were indisputably simplified to level the playing field a little when playing the AI. This is understandable, but it contributes to making Civ3 bad for MP.

Trading and espionage are suppressed compared with Civ2. Other factors such as the tech research cap, whilst understandable for SP make no sense for MP. And the improvements in Civ3 like special resources, whilst good for SP, were always going to be bones of contention in MP.

Ultimately Civ3 lacks the depth and versatilty required to make a good MP game, which is why you would struggle to find a game even though PTW isn't that old.

rah · October 25, 2003, 19:08

I actually thought the way they set it would be good for MP. Most of things I didn't like all involved the AI and once there is no AI, most of those things dissapeared. But I could never get into it. As Spike said, how the techs worked wasn't good. Monarchy wasn't worth researching. The overall flow, just didn't grab you. I can actually say that I probably didn't play enough MP games to give it a fair assessment. But it didn't get boring, it just wasn't any fun to start with.

Rasputin · October 25, 2003, 21:21

i think the whole idea of resources is a brilliant idea and makes it special, the need to go to war to get a resource you require made it all worthwhile. als othe trade system is better i hate the way some civ 2 games turn into a trade frenzy with people building hundreds of caravans and making a mint of money and then just using that to rush buy what they want. But each to his own. For SP i defiantly prefer Civ3 , but for MP civ 2 (as long as it diplo) is the best.

rah · October 27, 2003, 09:08

Yeah, I like the resource system too and had hopes for it. I liked the stack combat too. It's too bad the rest of the game didn't keep the feel.

Ljube · October 27, 2003, 10:53

When it comes to single player, there's no doubt civ 3 is superior, because civ 2 AI is so stupid and exploitable you can easily win every game at deity.
Civ 3 AI is also stupid, but at least AI players cheat heavily and openly in civ 3 so it's difficult to exploit their many stupidities. As a result, you may not be in a position to win every game.

Multiplayer would be interesting because I like both ideas (stack combat and strategic resources), but I never bought the MP version (Play the World) because the single player version had been so damn slow I thought it would have been waste of time to try MP with it.

By the way Rah, do you know why panag lost 1500 posts?

Edit: Rephrased the sentence above and removed the insult

rah · October 27, 2003, 12:32

I was not involved in that, and am insulted that you would even insinuate it. Next time, make an attempt to get some facts before throwing around accusations like that.

Ljube · October 27, 2003, 13:03

I wasn’t serious with my accusations, of course.

I'm sorry I have offended you. I didn’t mean to.
Let's make up.

This was just a way to get to the bottom of panag's post count reduction (he's down by about 1500). I was thinking who might be the one who could have all info on that and whom I could provoke into telling me that without a big fuss. You were the obvious candidate. It turned out to be a mistake.

About getting the facts, would it be OK if I started a thread on the issue in Apolyton community forum? Or is it an off-topic topic.

rah · October 27, 2003, 13:31

A winking smiley would have been fine, but the finger waving one didn't make it look like you were joking. Apology accepted. If you're looking for facts, just ask panag.

I wouldn't recommmend starting a thread about it.

DrSpike · October 27, 2003, 13:33

I don't think PCR's will ever become publicly debatable. Can you imagine the amount of threads that would get posted every single time?

If you or Panag have any problems take them up with Mark or Dan.

Edit: or, as Rah crossposted ask Panag for info! When you do post back surreptitiously here.

Ben Kenobi · October 27, 2003, 14:28

ljcvetco:

Just send me a PM on Panag and I'll reply. Probably prefereable than airing the whole issue on Ming's home turf.

Rasputin · October 27, 2003, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Yeah, I like the resource system too and had hopes for it. I liked the stack combat too. It's too bad the rest of the game didn't keep the feel.

Speaking of stacked combat, i jsut stuffed up big time in latest game of civ2 HOTW4 Diplo. Having not played civ2 for nearly 2 years and solely palying civ3, I damn forgot civ2 doesnt do the same stack rules. I forgot that if one unit dies they all die.

Damn bad way to lose 3 crusaders that were on there way to crush your enemy

rah · October 27, 2003, 18:17

HAHAHAHA. that was actually pretty funny, but I can see how you you did it. I guess they didn't have a great leader.

Rasputin · October 27, 2003, 18:46

just never netered my mind, i tohught woohoo, i'll park this stack outside his city and take it next turn. if he attaks i will only lose one so no big deal. But Wammo , one attack all gone ..

Needless to say i had to sue for peace very quickly before they realsised that was the majority of my army

rah · October 28, 2003, 09:29

At least it was only three.

I've had lessons cost considerably more.

OzzyKP · October 28, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin

Speaking of stacked combat, i jsut stuffed up big time in latest game of civ2 HOTW4 Diplo. Having not played civ2 for nearly 2 years and solely palying civ3, I damn forgot civ2 doesnt do the same stack rules. I forgot that if one unit dies they all die.

Damn bad way to lose 3 crusaders that were on there way to crush your enemy

Ah, so thats what you were talking about. That sucks!

And so the Tartars defend Jerusalem from the Egyptians. Tis a shame. Maybe the English will have to take it....

Rasputin · October 30, 2003, 02:07

Quote:

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Ah, so thats what you were talking about. That sucks!

And so the Tartars defend Jerusalem from the Egyptians. Tis a shame. Maybe the English will have to take it....

pity theres no RAh rules for please lets restart i jsut stuffed up !!!!

The civ 3 stackign rule is the best part of the modifications to the combat system in civ3 from civ2.

would still like to see a loyal group from civ2 mp start a game iof civ3 mp and see how it goes.

rah · October 30, 2003, 09:17

We did, and we didn't enjoy it at all. After about 90 minutes, we just quit in disgust.

Panag · October 30, 2003, 09:24

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
We did, and we didn't enjoy it at all. After about 90 minutes, we just quit in disgust.

hi ,

even with PTW and the latest patch

have a nice day

rah · October 30, 2003, 10:30

It was PTW, but it's been awhile so I doubt it was the latest patch. But no patch was going to save that dog.

It just seemed like "not another turn" instead of "just one more turn"

Ljube · October 30, 2003, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin

The civ 3 stackign rule is the best part of the modifications to the combat system in civ3 from civ2.

would still like to see a loyal group from civ2 mp start a game iof civ3 mp and see how it goes.

I agree! Stacking rules!
Now that Civ 3 Gold is out, we might assemble a crew for civ3 diplo in a couple of months.

Tell me rah, what is the difference between Conquests and Gold? Is Gold supposed to be bug free and enhanced, sort of Civ 2.5? Should I buy it now or wait a couple of months (not to mention the incredibly busy schedule I have at work

)?

OzzyKP · October 30, 2003, 14:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin

would still like to see a loyal group from civ2 mp start a game iof civ3 mp and see how it goes.

I could be up for it Raz. Although I haven't played or even seen Civ3, it does sound like there are some interesting options for a diplogame. I could deffinately see everything else about the game sucking, but diplogaming is its own genre of play, and I bet we could make any game not suck.

Of course as I've never played civ3, I guess I'm not the best person to comment on it.

rah · October 30, 2003, 17:15

I would highly highly suggest playing a few SP civ3 games before attempting any type of MP game.

Rasputin · October 30, 2003, 17:45

absolutly , got to get to know the rules beofre jumping in ,especially for ex civ2 mpers, apparently you need different strategies. i still use my civ2 strategy in civ 3 and find it works really well. although havent progressed t odeity level yet, just playing at monarch level

rah · October 30, 2003, 17:59

Yes, rushing to monarchy isn't a very good idea unless you're ready for it. And even then, it's marginal.

OzzyKP · October 31, 2003, 11:38

I would like to propose an addition to Rah's Rules.

Making it against the rules for any player to decline to accept a cancelation of a treaty. While this may not come up often, as in your games you don't form official alliances much, I consider it an exploit that should be written in.

This came up in HOTW4, I'll explain the situation again. The Serbs and Tartars were allied formally. Using this, Atawa, as Tartar leader, was able to move a settler right through Serb territory (no ZOC of course) and build a city right in the middle of lots of Serb cities. This angered Ljube, the Serb leader, and he wanted to cancel the alliance, to prevent this from happening again, and so he could declare war. But to cancel an alliance, the other player has to accept your request to talk, and Atawa never accepted.

So in theory, Atawa could have retained that alliance by refusing to accept the diplomacy screen and built 10 cities 1 square away from the Serbs cities, or moved his units all through Serb territory to block roads and otherwise hamper movement. The Serbs would be unable to do anything to stop him.

This is a clear exploit.

rah · October 31, 2003, 11:58

Yes you are correct that it is unnecessary in our rules since formal alliances are not allowed.

But if you can get your group to agree to this, I'm sure we can talk CW into adding it as an addendum for DIPLO games.

(and for the record, I agree that you shouldn't be able to refuse a negotiation request from an ally, but my opinion will carry very little weight with your group)

OzzyKP · October 31, 2003, 12:00

I thought alliances were just not usually done, I didn't realize they were banned.

Rasputin · October 31, 2003, 17:19

i think it is a stupid part in the programming that allows that situation to occur, if they refuse to meet with you, you should still be able to break nay treaty. another good thing with civ3 is that those type of deals only last 20 turns not all game. so if they do refuse to speak you only have to wait that max turns, but i guess even that may be too long.

The solution of course is no alliances, which is how i usually play may hinder movement in civ2 but as you say at least protects your territory.