These civ3 people will be easy pickings in MP

[Frank Johnson]

a warrior, archer, or spearman will rule small maps and duels.

A horseman, or swordsman upgrade would be good on sightly larger maps.

A knight or cavalry upgrade would be good for large peaceful style games that usually dont have wars untill there are real terriory desputes (no land left)

[Kuja]

I truly hope this happens. I have my friend currently planning everything. The only reason I'd be in tampa is to meet a bunch of friends since I haven't seen them in forever after I moved out to Indy. So if she can make it work that we all meet there, I'll take you on. And believe me, I'm quite good now, but I'll let my game do the talking.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kuja
I'll let my game do the talking.

That's the only thing really worth listening to.

[rah]

If everyone gets to choose civ Characteristics, Which ones would you choose and why? (specify map sizes if you think it makes a difference)

Rich
Heck, we have to discuss something in between the chest thumping.

[DrSpike]

If they stick with the civs as they stand I think Aztecs will rock. If they allow people to choose characteristics and UU religious, industrial and war chariot is still a feasible choice IMO. It's quite reasonable to perhaps switch militaristic for religious, especially for small 1 continent maps.

P.S In keeping with the thread

*start chest thump* I am the greatest civ3MPer (well on my virtual settings anyway ), ur @11 n008z *end chest thump*

[rah]

I'm wondering if expansionist will have any popularity. Without any AI's to trade techs with, huts will play a much larger role, and getting to them quickly and getting more desirable goodies will be one heck of an advantage. (and finding your neighbors before they find you)

[DrSpike]

It will certainly be relatively more useful in MP than SP, not least because of the maps that are likely to get chosen in MP. Whether or not it will edge out a militaristic/industrious combo I don't know.........only time will tell.

[rah]

Somehow, I think militaristic is going to be one that everyone takes in MP, unless you're playing on super huge maps.

[SpencerH]

Mongols and Vikings are gonna look pretty good I think.

[rah]

I hope they don't screw up and limit it to what is there now, in terms of civ choices. The last thing we need is for people to fight over which civ they get, and whine about it. (He only beat me because he had the civ I wanted) waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Everyone should get to choose whatever characteristics and UU (if in) that they want.

RAH

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by rah
I hope they don't screw up and limit it to what is there now, in terms of civ choices. The last thing we need is for people to fight over which civ they get, and whine about it. (He only beat me because he had the civ I wanted) waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Everyone should get to choose whatever characteristics and UU (if in) that they want.

RAH

that would mean a typical game could be like: 3xaztecs, 5xegyptians

but it opens a new gaming possibilty:
"who plays XXXX the best".

or hardcore multiplayers could play all 24 civs and find out who's the ULTIMATE MP-king

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by rah
(He only beat me because he had the civ I wanted) waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

RAH

Have anyone in particular in mind Rah?

[rah]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

that would mean a typical game could be like: 3xaztecs, 5xegyptians

Watching how stratagies have evolved over the last few years in MP, I'd be willing to bet that after a few months, that you would be shocked at what people would selecting and WHY.

But I still want unlimited choice,
whatever name,
whatever traits,
whatever UU.



Rich

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by sabrewolf



that would mean a typical game could be like: 3xaztecs, 5xegyptians

but it opens a new gaming possibilty:
"who plays XXXX the best".

or hardcore multiplayers could play all 24 civs and find out who's the ULTIMATE MP-king

I wouldn't be suprised to see a lot of people losing to somebody who knows how to work their particular Civ really well. Whether Aztec, Egyptian or whatever.

[rah]

But consider, with the longer tech development times, Hut Luck will have a greater impact on your game. And everyone has already whined about the luck involved in your starting terrain. So I see some people losing where it has very little to do with how well they played the specific civ. I'm a little torn on this one, because as much as I like FAIR starts, I think the random element is critical to keeping the games different and thereby add to replay value, but until we actually start playing mp, it will be difficult to judged the impact.

RAH