Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RANDOM CIVS in MP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RANDOM CIVS in MP

    Our saturday night games seem to be mostly random civ selection. While I was originally not keen on the concept, I have learned to embrace it and feel it will do a lot to keep us playing. Especially after one game where 4 of the 7 players choose the incas.

    1. What's your opinion about the concept and are you using it for your MP games?

    2. The REAL focus of this thread. IS, who don't you want to see when you get the game start screen.

    So far I've played a had a lot of different civs and the only time I cringe is when I get JAPAN. No civ building traits and you have to get to your UU before people come looking for you.

    How much does getting a certain civ determine your early development. Yes, I know if your UU is the war chariot you look for horses, but overall strat. etc.

    Comments and supporting stories would be greatly appreciated. Let's here some of those WHYs
    It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
    RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

  • #2
    Depending on the map settings, being a certain undesirable civ can doom you.

    Japan might perform amazingly on a tiny map with room for only a couple of cities each. But if the settings are known going in, which most of the time they are, and you choose random civs you are pretty much asking players to play russian roluette with their entire game. Some civs are so one dimensional that settings and game placement can pretty much eliminate their chances from the start when playing with people of moderate skill.

    One thing I noticed in recent games I played with the aussie group is that having a player or two in the group committed to a war effort early on can drive people away from their comfortable building traits. I moved from Inca to Vikings and started launching early assaults with axemen or catapults. After flattening serveral civs and ending a couple of games prematurely due to whining the other members started abandoning their peacenik civs and finding more balanced choices.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, builders must be reminded that defense is necessary.

      But I don't believe that an undesirable civ always dooms you. If there are enough players in the game, there is usually enough wheeling and dealing that might help you survive.

      But back to the original question, who do you hate to get and why.
      It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
      RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

      Comment


      • #4
        Anyone with Imperialistic, I find it such a boring trait! I used to moan when getting anyone Organized, but now I've realised it's actually very strong and even moreso these days (Not that many games get to the age of factories)...

        Comment


        • #5
          Do you go out of your way to build more cities when you draw and organized civ?
          It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
          RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

          Comment


          • #6
            Well my arguement was mainly that depending on the map settings who you don't want to be changes a lot.

            For example, anyone with Fin, Phi, or Ind is going to benefit from settings that give them a less crowded map, and more time to gain an economic advantage before the first serious conflict. I guess Org would go in this catigory as well, and perhaps Imp.

            Agg and Pro's benefits don't really increase throughout the ages, so its just as good to get the fighting on as soon as possible. Also Cha's main benefits relate directly to war, or keeping a war economy happy and pumping at full productivity longer.

            Spi is only really important if the game is going to be long enough to give you different looks at the game map and civic options to have the freebie switches make a difference.

            Also another big factor in the "doomed from the start" theory was the aussie groups until just recently were playing exclusively no tech trade games. Much less wheeling and dealing, and much more focus on indivdual economies made all but a few civs outcasts.

            Comment


            • #7
              We're also playing no tech trading, but we're trying to play on somewhat crowded maps to encourage conflict. Two players ganging up on one is still pretty potent so dealing is an important aspect of the game.

              WE experimented with no capturing cities till blah blah blah, but quickly jetisoned that one.

              Most of the players have commented that they've learned considerably having to play civs and traits that they usually don't.

              I think it adds to the fun. Even if you get a crappy civ, it's only one night of possible punishement and that can happen no matter what civ you get if your neighbors choose to make it so.

              The people that are probably having the hardest time are the hard core builders. When you choose civs, the builder traits usually got selected more so there could be a group of builders that just cruise along. Now there's always a few war monger traits on the board and builders live in fear and must spend considerably more in defense than in the past.

              Paranoia seems to be higher in random games. I for one find it considerably more challanging and fun. Even when I get my butt kicked.

              And most important, if you get one of the good builder civs, you're going to be target. Those that have problems getting those early wonders just build up to capture them.
              It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
              RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm a big fan of random civs. It's too easy to fall into bad habits if you always go for the same traits game after game.
                ~ If Tehben spits eggs at you, jump on them and throw them back. ~ Eventis ~ Eventis Dungeons & Dragons 6th Age Campaign: Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4: (Unspeakable) Horror on the Hill ~

                Comment


                • #9
                  I like the random too. I thought I got boned when I drew the Aztecs last Saturday, but the jaguar warriors turned out to be really really cool, and it was great fun flying through the jungles with Woodsamn II and being about to outmanuever my enemies.

                  Random helps keep the game fresh. It gets somewhat boring playing the Koreans and Incans every time.
                  "Cunnilingus and Psychiatry have brought us to this..."

                  Tony Soprano

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rah
                    Two players ganging up on one is still pretty potent so dealing is an important aspect of the game.
                    Like what's happened to me the last 3 Saturday games

                    Back to the subject. I love random civs. In general the traits I really hate are Spiritual and Philosophical. But then again, maybe I dont know how to exploit them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Part of the trick is to not look so tasty.


                      Philosophical can be quite useful. Spiritual must really be worked.
                      It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                      RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I actually prefer random civs.

                        Learning a new civ is not a bad thing ... and even a builder-freak can get a clue when he ends up with the vikings or mongols.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This thread makes me laugh: I remember a few months back when rah and MasterDave wouldn't be caught dead without their beloved Inca or Korea!

                          One thing you might try is assigning civs to other players; the first player gets to choose a leader that someone else has to play, then that player chooses another for someone else, and so on.

                          I would say the Americans are the worst leaders for your Saturday games, because they always end well before the Modern era. A leader with a couple of traits but effectively no UU or UB is not as fun to play.
                          And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yes, as I said, at first, the concept was not appealing, but even an old fart like me can change his opinion.

                            I'd still rather be the americans than the japanese, but your point is well taken.
                            It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                            RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I would say that there are very few civs that don't have a strong era somewere in the Epic game time line. But ofcourse most players want a strong ancient civ to get off to a good start. But even then there is quit a good range of civs that depending on the map settings can do exceptably well in the ancient era. But most of my ffa/ctons, that admititely are on cramped maps on purpose, are random games, and people still manage to survive and succeed with just about any civ. Skill being a larger factor in the end than civ traits or UU. Although start location can outweight even skill as a factor, especially in OCC games. But if your unable to force yourself to try new tricks then having a random civ in an Epic game might be good for some fun and to stretch the grey matter a bit :P

                              CS
                              Global Admin/Owner
                              Civilization Players Leagues
                              www.civplayers.com
                              http://steamcommunity.com/groups/civplayers steam://friends/joinchat/103582791431089902

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X