RANDOM CIVS in MP

[rah]

I don't think I'd enjoy an epic game for MP, we usually only play one sitting of between 3 to 7 hours. Too long to produce anything.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Dominae

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.

This is a great idea. Back in civ3 pbem, we ran a game called misfits, teh start based on exactly this concept. It worked well, with essentially folk's idea of the worst six civs starting the game.

But I also think the difference bewteen a "weak" and "strong" are more subtle, and much more mitigated in civ4 relative to civ3.

The random vs choice idea is currently a warm topic in the setting up of the new warlors democracy game. (WHICH IS STILL WECOMING NEW PLAYERS AND TEAMS BTW! )

[Berzerker]

random not only makes you learn more civs, it should help you learn how to fight them better

And I now have broadband so I'll be looking for a game saturday night How many do you have usually? How many do you want?

the dial up was killing me, and it was getting worse

[rah]

All RIGHT, it's been awhile Berz.
We usually have anywhere between 5-10 so it's always a good game and there's always room for more.

Start time is fluid. We usually start as soon as we have 7. But will sometimes wait if we know someone is coming, or we'll sometimes just leave an AI for them. As long as they're not too late, it's not a big deal.

WE start looking around 5 cst. but don't always get a game going that early, so the start time can be any where between 5-8. But as soon as we get to critical mass, we start.

Just let us know if you're available and on-line and we take it from there.

You've been missed.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by rah

WE start looking around 5 cst. but don't always get a game going that early, so the start time can be any where between 5-8.

TRANSLATION: We start when RAH finally wakes up.

[snoopy369]

I won't be here the next two weeks due to vacation and work (saturday, anyway). I may be able to play friday if you get a friday game going instead of saturday

I love imperialistic/expansionist for the cheap worker/settlers. Organized I probably dislike the most, if I had to pick, and some Protective civs are poor although some (Korea!) are great

BTW y'all should consider playing on the "quick" setting. We're more likely to finish a game on that setting

[rah]

Define Finish. Most of our games are reasonably decided by the time we quit. Half the people are eliminated or reduced to tiny AIs and the other half knows who's coming to kick their ass.

[Atomation]

Random civ is just not cool if you want to judge skill. Just because everyone picks the inca doesn't make that civ superior - it generally means people love building wonders. There are many very powerful civs that require no wonders to compete, namely victoria, mehmed, and caesar on larger maps, and virtually any financial for a smaller map.

In ladder ctons, which would probably have the same feel to them, I despise drawing tokugawa, roosevelt, augustus, brennus, churchill, frederick, louis, and a few others that are marginal at best. I think civ makes quite a big impact, but perhaps less so than land, so perhaps the emphasis on a more fair map for all players should be made first....

[Pinchak]

I don't mind random at all. Personally, I think people put too much emphisis on the UU and UB. Unless you are playing epic or marathon speed, by the time you ramp up your UU and get it to your enemy, they may have already obsoleted it. The UBs are in my opinion, underpowered. They just don't offer enough of an advantage to make it a major factor when choosing civ (there are a few exceptions).

The traits hold more sway, be even these are second to map placement in the grand scheme of things. My biggest concern in a random multiplayer isn't so much who i got, but where am I.

While the "best" civs are slightly better then the "worst" civs, I think there is not enough difference overall to make the statement "you are doomed" based solely on the civ you get.

To answer the orginal question.... "which ones make me moan when i get them", i would have to say any with spiritual, as standard multiplayer games often don't go long enough for this trait to be useful.

[Ming]

There are a few really bad civs... but I have to agree that the starting position is far more important. This is the second time I've had to play a game without a single flood plain, and no good specials. I really hate playing the romans without iron ANYWHERE near or playing a civ with a riding UU, and no horses to be seen.

But I will admit I love playing Random Civs in MP. It makes each game different, and difference is the spice of life