Tweet
Originally posted by GeoModder
It allows two or more players to band together for mutual protection and joint victory without the fear of a backstab. Once signed, there's no going back with this option.
It allows two or more players to band together for mutual protection and joint victory without the fear of a backstab. Once signed, there's no going back with this option.
Sorry, but I feel really strongly about this. GOW and Neu Demogyptica used it in the Civ3 team demo game, and it created a sucky and cheesy ending to that game.
The idea of civilzation is for one team to try and win - not two - and not three. One. What that creates is the dynamic of an allaince that by definition, will get shaky as it eliminates the competition - because they know they have to take on each other. And that gives non-alliance teams a chance to break the bloc.
If two teams have agreed to a 'joint victory', either by out-of-game agreemnt, or thru the permanent alliance thingy, then they have the advantage of not having to worry about each other. Particularly in the first case - as happened in the above-mentioned demo game - had the other civs known what the two teams were doing, then they would have reacted differently.
In the second case, where it is a permanent alliance, it severly limits the dynamic in a 5 person game. Maybe if this was an 18 player pitboss game, I would say sure, give it a try. But with 5 teams, if two form an alliance, then two others have to almost by defeinition to stand against them. So why not just create a team battle game.
Sorry Geo, but this is real pet peeve of mine. It is critical that the victory conditions be known ahead of time for obvious game dynamic reasons - and IMO, joint victory - other than in an agreed upon team game - has no place in civ.
End of rant.
Comment