The end of civilization as we know it

[EyesOfNight]

All of my arguments are on the first post of this thread. Obviously you skipped that one or you wouldn't sound like such a moron. You can't help it though, it's genetics. You were simply dealt a bad hand by fate, and there's nothing you can do about it. I understand.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
I understand.

Now that fits in rather well with a certain Tibetan philosophy that all wisdom begins with the phrase "I don't understand".

On the resource issue I think people may be ignoring the point that, while strategic resources are vitally important they are also editable (One of the few successes of the partially functional editor ).
There's no reason why MP games/players couldn't get used to pre-made maps with (neutrally) edited (ie: more distributed) strategic resources.
Or even generate a random map on the spot and have the resources editted by a non-player.
The site could host a library of a multitude of them, with pre-defined starting and resource locs - the often despised rts genre has used such maps successfully for years - no reason why civers couldn't do the same thing - a la civfanatics gotm.

This is all under the assumption that there is no in-game option to do the same come the release of MP Gold in any case ...

[Smash]

The idea of pre made anything has not been real popular in civ2 mp.Yes,they are used,but I'd bet dollars to donuts a poll would go majority for all random.

I can't see it being real popular for civ3 mp.I spose if there were no other way.....nah...if you get short changed on terrain or whatever,its up to you to make it better.Lots of civ2 mp games have been "won" by players that started on dirt and rocks.

[rah]

Gotta agree with the smashman. I'm looking forward to resource wars in CIVIII. Early trade specials already play a big role in CIVII and people have dealt with that for years. Yes it would be nice if the land would be more equal, but what the hey, you have to deal with the hand you're dealt.

In civII huts is what usually had more impact in the early game. If we play CivIII MP at deity, the huts suck (except for expansionists) which will do two things. Even the start out a little and make expansionist worth something. Getting a half dozen extra techs or a settler will be big in MP. Especially with no AIs to do early tech trading with. This evens the extra abilities out a little, and as long as everyone can pick whatever combo of characteristics, we should see more variety in play style. There will be definate differences for militaristic and builder strats.


RAH

[War4ever]

you need to disable leaders too.... no one will attack if the opposition has a chance of a leader if the attacks fail, and lets be honest, elite or no elite, many attacks fail.

with all the tweaking this game will need it won't be civ3 were playing , it will be smac on earth

[Ming]

I really don't care if Civ III MP is ANYTHING like the current Civ III.

I just want a MP game that is "reasonable" fair, and FUN!. It should move along QUICKLY in the early years, and support different strategies to success. However they want to do it... I don't care, as long as we have a game worth playing when they are all done with it

[rah]

Actually, I'm just screwing with this thread to see if this post disappears when they move back to the other server. But as long as I'm here.

WAR4.
"you need to disable leaders too.... no one will attack if the opposition has a chance of a leader if the attacks fail, and lets be honest, elite or no elite, many attacks fail. "

I think the oposite will occur. The leader concept will replace the huts as the extra luck that will seperate you from your oponents.
At deity, if you're not expansionist, huts just plain suck. So instead of maximizing hut opportunities like in CIVII, you will try to maximize leader opportunities in CIVIII. This can only be accomplished by attacking or defending. Against the AI, defending can be a profitable option. You can set up a situation that is favorable to you where you know the AI will attack. THAT IS LESS LIKELY AGAINST A REAL PLAYER. Putting elite units together in a place is not likely to encourage a real player to attack you. So while there is a chance to get a leader on defense, I think it will happen less and when it does, it's more likely that no defender will survive and and the leader will never used by you.

So that leaves ATTACKING. The person choosing the battle time, place and conditions, usually has the advantage. (if he didn't, why the heck is he attacking) Committing 20 troops on an attack and lossing most of them will be profitable as long as..
1. the defensive position is destroyed. (and as long as you have a enough troops, the civ III combat model makes it inevitable.)
2. every now and then you get a leader.

We'll see, but unless drastic changes are made prior to MP realease, I still believe that more aggressive play will be the norm.

RAH
OF COURSE WITHOUT MP BEING OUT< PURE SPECULATION>

[Smash]

I totally agree with that.It works in solo play.Aggressive war mongering is the best(and funnest) way to play this incarnation.
There won't be anymore peacenik caravan civs defended by 6 phalanx players.It won't work..even if isolated..tech caps are a killer to isolated perfectionist.

If you look at the game,there really isn't that much to do except hit the warpath.Tech broker won't work in MP ..there may be some trading of resources should games actually go that far.But you are not going to rake in like you do against ai.Humans will actually want something decent in return

I think it be "windows of opportunity" type warfare.Not unlike civ2 with knights,or crusaders,catapults etc.
Swords.Horses.Knights.Maybe some early archer rushes.

I got iron.You don't.Thats a shame.Here comes some swordsmen...

[rah]

Smash, while I agree that "window of opp" will always be part of the game, with the new/old combat system, quantity can beat quality, so even a warrior rush might be able to get the job done. This should keep things interesting in the early game. They'll be a fine balance between what you hold in reserve for defense and what you can amass for offense. A developed road system will be the key to defense. But without zoc, it might be a better chess type game.

I really do hope they remove the click on enemy stack and see the entire makeup. It will be more exciting if three stacks are moving towards your cities and you don't know with are the diversions and which one is the real attack force. AND STACK MOVEMENT IS A CRITICAL NEED.

Rich
It will be more of a war game.

[Smash]

hehehe..after playing some civ3 last night I was just coming tp post that.
You are right.Because of the screwy combat system,sheer numbers is the way to go.You are gonna lose with knight #2 to that spearman no matter what.So,take the loss and get it with the next unit.

I may be missing something,but I can't tell if boats are empty or full just by looking at them.I can see some very nervous mp moments with this.

Something I do when I get "stalemated" by defenders is to start pillaging roads to resources and that connect cities.This actually does something.Its very effective.I can see alot of this and/or bombarding of said resources.

I ain't the greatest civ3 player but I see no other alternative than war.There is a limit on how much can be done by yourself.

I think maybe games will be "over" earlier than civ2 mp.If you fall behind,there is really nothing you can do to catch up.No one is gonna trade tech and let you back in...war,war,war.It will be the way.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm on my third game of civ III now. So far I've won at Chieftain and lost at warlord

They really need to fix a few things before this game will be viable for MP. The main thing is stacked movement. Otherwise turns will last forever.

[Frank Johnson]

Interesting. But say you are playing in a game with 5 or 6 players....eventually the corruption model just makes it near impossible to get descent production out of a territory....often times I find myself razing the second half of a civilization just because building there won't help me much......I guess that could be countered with a despotism pop rush strat, but still in a game with serveral players, even if I have a window of oppertunity, or a larger number of units..........It may not be worth it to attack, and leave my position open, just to gain some highly corrupted ground.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
It may not be worth it to attack, and leave my position open, just to gain some highly corrupted ground.

But there are many reasons why such an attack will be worth it even if all you are going to do is raze cities, or keep many cities that will never produce squat (forbidden palace aside)

1) In an MP game, you are looking to beat the other players... destroying their ability to win the game is a good thing

2) Removing somebody from your land mass is also a must. While you gain nothing in terms of viable cities, you limit what somebody can do to you

3) If they have the resources you need... enough said

Yes, you may "leave your position open"... but that's a risk you may have to take. With the combat system the way it is, you are never safe from attack any way. Before railroads... no position is safe from a wave attack. And if you have all your defensive units in a singe position to stop such an attack, the attacker can just go around it and take out other targets

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Ming
Before railroads... no position is safe from a wave attack. And if you have all your defensive units in a singe position to stop such an attack, the attacker can just go around it and take out other targets

Actually, if someone could follow your earlier advice and control an entire landmass, there's an easy solution: line the shoreline with troops, shoulder to shoulder. Ships/planes/artillery can't kill them, and you're safe until the bad guys have marines.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DaveV
Actually, if someone could follow your earlier advice and control an entire landmass, there's an easy solution: line the shoreline with troops, shoulder to shoulder. Ships/planes/artillery can't kill them, and you're safe until the bad guys have marines.

True enough... but just think of the cost for unit support to do this