There can never be Civ3 MP

[Dev]

Originally posted by LaRusso
well i fail to see what kind of precognition i had to have to see that the game is 'broken'

ahh so you're reduced to putting words in my mouth now ?

Show me one post where I say it's broken.

Half finished != broken.

/dev

[EyesOfNight]

"LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking."

Ok, I need to set things a little straight. First of all, this isn't my real name. My real name is EyesOfNight and I am the greatest Civ2 MP player of all time. I went 2 straight years at number 1 on the ladder and I have beaten every single player there is practically on all settings, both 2x2x and 1x1x. The reason Republic is 32 turns no matter what is because I was the first one to begin researching it. That means I get penalized for being ahead. Unfortunately you Nov 2001 newbies don't know who the hell you're dealing with. As for you Grim and Larusso, you know how to reach me if you'd like a lesson in civ2 MP, and don't message me with "lets play a game against the AI and compare saves" as some of you have challenged me to. I will simply laugh at you and make you a fool on every forum known to man. And if any of you question what I say, you need only go visit other civ sites where you will see my strategies posted on them. Now, with that aside...the AI isn't difficult at all. In fact it takes forever for them to change government. All that has changed is that now there are more restrictions on the human. Plain and simple.

[Barbotte]

I am the greatest Civ2 MP player of all time.

How pathetic is that? How big was the civ2 MP crowd? 100? 200?
It`s like saying you`re the best player of Dungeon Keeper Multiplayer of all time.

Who cares. Anybody with some kind of life dont play multiplayer. It`s just too long.

Sorry, could not resist.

[Jack_www]

I have never play civ2 mp, the reason for this is when I had civ2 I did not have an internet connection at home, and thus could not play Civ2 mp, although I wanted to. I dont know if this would be a good idea or not, but lets just say that Firaxis does release a editor for the game that makes it possible for scenarios to be made. I think one thing that might make Civ3 mp better is to play scenarios with other people. Does anyone else think that this might be a good idea?

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Ok, I need to set things a little straight. First of all, this isn't my real name. My real name is EyesOfNight and I am the greatest Civ2 MP player of all time. I went 2 straight years at number 1 on the ladder and I have beaten every single player there is practically on all settings, both 2x2x and 1x1x. Unfortunately you Nov 2001 newbies don't know who the hell you're dealing with. As for you Grim and Larusso, you know how to reach me if you'd like a lesson in civ2 MP, and don't message me with "lets play a game against the AI and compare saves" as some of you have challenged me to. I will simply laugh at you and make you a fool on every forum known to man. And if any of you question what I say, you need only go visit other civ sites where you will see my strategies posted on them.

While civ3-general forum hasn't been my cup of tea lately, I do prefer newbies to jerks.

[Kaak]

LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking.

Hmmm...Did you tread what was posted? Expansion is not hard. Anyone of moderate skill can match the AI's Expansion. The problem comes when you hit the city limit and suffer massive corruption while your computer opponents do not. War is also not hard in civ3, just rediculous and pointless. It gains you nothing. No tech (which was a stupid thing for them to get rid of), no usable cities (corruption is so rampant, it's rediculous). It is better to either raze captured cities or auction them off. And tech is not too difficult, it just takes away the importance of strategy, which some people find to be an important aspect of a strategy game.

The other problems have been repeatedly beaten into the ground. The reason I finally quit playing the game was the Science System. The limitations are a bit rediculous, but that isn't my biggest issue. What is most frustrating to me is that you cannot have straightline tech paths. That was one of the things that made civ2 so great. You had to choose between say A) Monarchy and Early Republic B) whether to go to for gunpowder directly or maybe monotheism, etc. Here you have to get all (or almost all) techs of a certain age before you can move on. This kills a great deal of the strategy involved.

Civ2 is a great strategicly balanced game. I realize that you haven't been around that long, but for those of us who have, that is our main issue with civ3: it isn't as strategic, and it is far from balanced.

[Ming]

Ahhhh... more valid points being raised by Kaak... another experienced and expert MP player.

In Civ II... you had many choices you could make, different strategies, inparticular, your choice of science paths. What did you want to go for, and what were you willing to give up...

I found that if you start off with the same civ, most games follow similar paths, without much deviation.

Most of the good improvements do lead to a more unbalanced MP game (like strategic resources). And while diplomacy is far more important, more fun, and much better done for SP... in MP, you won't have a Stupid AI to rip off.

I must concur... most of the changes have just lead to less strategy, and more unbalance.

[HalfLotus]

In civ2 MP ICS is the only way to compete. ICS is a boring and formulaic strategy, I hate it. The corruption and culture takeover reduce the effectiveness of traditional ICS. That seems like an MP improvement.
Strategic resources make MP human diplomacy that much more interesting. In civ2 you had everything you needed to build and dominate the whole game without ever talking to another civ. How boring. Civ3 forces you to go get those resources from others, peacefully or not so nicely.
Wars in civ are not what they used to be. They aren't steamroller-like offensives. They must be more surgical and precise in nature. I like the new war situation.

There will be a civ3 MP, and it will not be civ2 MP.

[Powerslave]

Well I have played Civ 2 MP against a couple of my friends sinced it got available and I look very much forward to MP on Civ 3. I think it gonna be much more fun and really allows for more strategies. The problem with Civ 2 was that it was to unbalanced. As soon as one of us got the lead it was most of the time just impossible to stop him. We had to change the rules constant and even introduced some house rules.

I can agree that the tech chart is screwed up and IMHO it must be changed. Though the panalty to the first empire to research a new tech is great and the 4 turn cap is no problem just change your science rate and rape the benefit of more money instead.

[Sauron07]

Rewarding mediocre play????

Im sorry but I cannot agree with the comments running through this thread that "good players" are punished by the design of CivIII or that you have less strategic options in CivIII compared to CivII. If I play chess against a 3 year old(the civII AI) I can beat him in any of 100 different ways but is that really more strategically varied or challenging? That said, I think CivIII does reward a hybrid startegy of military and building, but I also know that in SP either all out building or conquest can be successful.

The fact of the matter is that it is a game which has rules and all players play by the same rules. Your definition of what makes a "good player" is invalid. This is NOT CivII no matter how much people seem to want it to be. There are different rules implemented for a variety of reasons and to be a "good CivIII player" you need to adapt to the rules which exist in the game or change them in the editor(more on this below, and btw I believe world size has an effect on how quickly research progresses at the start of the game). If you do so I gaurantee you will be more successful than a "newbie playing for 2 weeks".

I can agree somewhat with the desire to be able to change certain predetermined rules in the editor such as the science cap, but I also think the reason it was placed in the game was to counterbalance the big new advantage techs can provide in the game, early access to strategic resources. If someone obtains a massive tech lead in CIV III they know where all the strategic resources are before any other civs and this is a HUGE advantage which can unbalance gameplay in single player let alone mp. I also think that if we are looking for "realism" in the combat side of the game which I have seen countless threads about, then you cannot complain about a little "realism" on the science side of things, namely the concept that you cant just pour unlimited amounts of money and scientists at a question and learn new techs instantly(or even every turn).

I also think most discussions about how CivIII mp will be this or that are not very worthwhile at this point in time. There are bound to be many rules changes and or tweaks to gameplay to accomodate MP and until we see the proposed rule set it is largely futile to try and predict what gameplay will be like.

In conclusion, I must also strenuosly disagree with the concept that warfare will be a dead strat in mp under the current rules. Just look at how unbalanced rushbuilding is under despotism. The easiest way to beat diety currently is to build about 4-8 core cities and then just rush build units rather than settlers, as taking over an opponents city nets you a city and takes away one of theirs! I agree you wont be able to create vassal states in mp and get all of their tech and cities in exchange for peace but I am almost certain that military rushing with an ancient UU(Mounted Warriors anyone?) will be a viable and possibly even dominant strategy in MP. Sorry this ran so long but I had to get my 2 cents in.

[Special_Olympic]

This is so typical. Whenever there's a sequel to a popular game like civ2, there's always a bunch of people who b1tch about how the new game sucks and only unskilled newbies like it.

Yawn.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Special_Olympic
This is so typical. Whenever there's a sequel to a popular game like civ2, there's always a bunch of people who b1tch about how the new game sucks and only unskilled newbies like it.
Yawn.

First... the next time you use a number (b1tch) to get pass the censor, you will get a vacation from posting on this site. The owners have the censor feature on for a reason... please respect their wishes, or post someplace else.

Second... You truely don't understand this thread. I think the Civ II MP experts are saying that the current game is not as well suited for MP play as the game they are used to.
I will admit I fall in that category... I see some real problems with the current game as a MP game. I hope some things will be modified to make it better for MP.

But as far as the game goes, I like it. I think they have developed an excellent SP game. Granted, it has some bugs, but overall, I find it as addictive as I originally found Civ.

[Kuciwalker]

This "bracket" that the rules keep the player in are meant to try and simulate the rise and fall of nations by helping eliminate the snowball effect.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
"LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking."

Ok, I need to set things a little straight. First of all, this isn't my real name. My real name is EyesOfNight and I am the greatest Civ2 MP player of all time. I went 2 straight years at number 1 on the ladder and I have beaten every single player there is practically on all settings, both 2x2x and 1x1x. The reason Republic is 32 turns no matter what is because I was the first one to begin researching it. That means I get penalized for being ahead. Unfortunately you Nov 2001 newbies don't know who the hell you're dealing with. As for you Grim and Larusso, you know how to reach me if you'd like a lesson in civ2 MP, and don't message me with "lets play a game against the AI and compare saves" as some of you have challenged me to. I will simply laugh at you and make you a fool on every forum known to man. And if any of you question what I say, you need only go visit other civ sites where you will see my strategies posted on them. Now, with that aside...the AI isn't difficult at all. In fact it takes forever for them to change government. All that has changed is that now there are more restrictions on the human. Plain and simple.

I guess I misread the post indeed. I thought you and others were complaining that some factors in Civ3 made the game too hard and thus not suitable for MP.
Now the point is that if you are ahead, you run into the 32 turns issue. The claim is then that this encourages mediocre playing.
On this issue I can partially agree. However. It could also make MP more balanced -the competition would shift to other areas. Production for instance. It may simply mean that the focus changes, but that the difficulty increases due to a more limited set of 'victory points'.

On another note, your post about your Civ2 MP skills is little high off the horn IMO. To each his own, I guess.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Kaak

Hmmm...Did you tread what was posted? Expansion is not hard. Anyone of moderate skill can match the AI's Expansion. The problem comes when you hit the city limit and suffer massive corruption while your computer opponents do not. War is also not hard in civ3, just rediculous and pointless. It gains you nothing. No tech (which was a stupid thing for them to get rid of), no usable cities (corruption is so rampant, it's rediculous). It is better to either raze captured cities or auction them off. And tech is not too difficult, it just takes away the importance of strategy, which some people find to be an important aspect of a strategy game.

Uh yes, exactly like I claimed. Also see my other posts here.

The other problems have been repeatedly beaten into the ground. The reason I finally quit playing the game was the Science System. The limitations are a bit rediculous, but that isn't my biggest issue. What is most frustrating to me is that you cannot have straightline tech paths. That was one of the things that made civ2 so great. You had to choose between say A) Monarchy and Early Republic B) whether to go to for gunpowder directly or maybe monotheism, etc. Here you have to get all (or almost all) techs of a certain age before you can move on. This kills a great deal of the strategy involved.

Civ2 is a great strategicly balanced game. I realize that you haven't been around that long, but for those of us who have, that is our main issue with civ3: it isn't as strategic, and it is far from balanced.

Well I'm not sure about the balance being off. It might initially seem so, but even with the current set of pieces on the board I think there remains much to be enjoyed, even in MP. See my reply to the avid MP'er for an answer to the 'penalty for being ahead' situation.

As for your last comment -never mind my new nick here. I have in fact been around these parts since 1997. And of course been civving since Civ1 on my 286 w/o mouse and 1Mb RAM.