I can't believe this..

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Rushing reduces the game to mathematics. In pen and paper strategy games (for those of you who still play them), the common term for that is "min/maxing" - which means not paying any attention to the story that surrounds the game, but focusing specifically on the mathematically precise moves that will give you the biggest bang for your buck. Execute those moves better than your opponent and you invariably win.

Lots of people love to play this way.

I'm not one of them.

Not a thing in the world wrong with playing that way, either. It's just not my thing.

From the comments here, I see that I'm not alone.

-=Vel=-

I agree with you here 100%.

I want to play Civ, not 'let's make sure we never waste a single shield so I can get exactly 5 Horsemen in exactly 12 turns and hit their 3 cities just after they finish producing a temple so they won't be able to poprush a good unit' game.

Those are the kinds of players I want to eliminate with 'the list'. Is rushing a tactic? Yes, and because it's so good, I fear that competitive MP will be very bent, if not broken completely because of that. Like Vel said, if you're the Aztecs and you start next to a civ without bronze working... they're toast. Done. The problem is as much with the game as the person using the tactics though... I wish they would have fixed that (better) in Civ 3.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Trip
I want to play Civ, not 'let's make sure we never waste a single shield so I can get exactly 5 Horsemen in exactly 12 turns and hit their 3 cities just after they finish producing a temple so they won't be able to poprush a good unit' game.

Then don't expect to ever play against any good players, whether they be rushers or empire builders.

You succeed at MP by maximizing your position. To do that, you have to pay attention to the details, because everybody else is. If you think that wasting shields and making poor decisions is the way to play the game... feel free. I'll pay attention to EVERY LAST SHIELD and look for people like you to play

[Velociryx]

Yes...of course one needs to maximize position in any strategy game. That's a given, and those who do it better will have a tangible advantage to bring home. I would agree with that 100%.

But somewhere out there in the grey is a line. You may not be able to see it, but you know when you've crossed it, cos you look up from your fourth hour of painstakingly going over all your cities again to make sure you didn't lose a shield someplace and realize you're just not having FUN anymore.

When I play a game, my first priority is to have fun. Laboring over shield production and designing spreadsheets that can track my production and growth 30 turns down the line to help ensure that I don't miss so much as a single shield starts sounding suspiciously like work to me.

Could I do it? Absolutely. And it'd prolly be hellishly effective.

It also would not be much FUN, IMO.

Just not my bag.

-=Vel=-

[HappySunShine]

There is no question that UU's and civ abilities will be allowed. The only people who won't allow them will be the rookies. They do something similiar in civ2 by not allowing bribe or great wall. In civ3 defense is easier than offense. If this were civ2 then yes, militaristic would be better. But with the random wins and the need for resources I'd go with industrial. Maybe I'm wrong though, can't really tell until I actually play MP. And no game is completely balanced. THere is always going to be a best way to do something. It's pretty much impossible to make every civ equal and all strategies equal. Keep in mind that we're already assuming MP is going to be good, I don't think it will even be playable on a competetive level. Could you imagine having your iron suddenly disappear with no iron anywhere else on the map? Game is over simply "just because".

And to tell the truth, you'll probably have people changing the civ attributes for the civ they want to use. It's very easy, and is it really cheating?

[Incan_Warrior]

I'll have to doubt that last statement there, almighty Ming. I would BET that you would rather play other shield micro-managers like yourself so that when you do win, you can see your opponent curse in anger rather than hearing the dreaded loser motto: "whatever, it's just a game".

There are 2 types of players - those that enjoy playing and want to win but don't necessarily stress over which tile a city should be working or which build-order to adhere to. They want to have fun, but not tax their brain to the limit. I'm surprised to find that Vel and Trip are in this category.

Others, such as myself (especially when competing against human opponents) do want to know as much of the game logistics as possible and to integrate the BEST strategy for a particular scenario. And yes, this may involve math formulas and the like. Civ III can, though its a stretch, be likened to chess. I am extremely competitive and HATE any games that include a large luck factor. This is why I like Civ. Like Chess, new strategies can always be developed and a single move can require ten minutes of strategizing.

But hey, that's just me. How a Civ III player gets his nut is of no consequence to me. But, as Ming aptly notes, when MP comes out, everyone's style WILL change, and those that pay attention to the details will consistently succeed.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
The only people who won't allow them will be the rookies. They do something similiar in civ2 by not allowing bribe or great wall.

Why? Because only the rookies want to play a more balanced game, while all the 'good' players will suck the game for every possible advantage? Will the 'veterans' simply rush all the time simply because it's the best?

Like Vel said earlier, early on and on a limited basis staying on top of shield waste, etc. is alright, but some players will take it to extremes, and play the game less and play the numbers instead.

I want as realistic a scenario as possible. Would General Lee know the exact attack to defense ratio of his 'veteran' riflemen? Of course not. He would forumate a strategy to defeat his enemy, and rely on the quality of his troops while allowing for a certain randomness in battles. I want to tax my brain over strategy, not numbers.

Like I said, it comes down to either playing the game, or playing the numbers. I go with the former.

[HappySunShine]

Why? Because only the rookies want to play a more balanced game, while all the 'good' players will suck the game for every possible advantage? Will the 'veterans' simply rush all the time simply because it's the best?

Like Vel said earlier, early on and on a limited basis staying on top of shield waste, etc. is alright, but some players will take it to extremes, and play the game less and play the numbers instead.

I want as realistic a scenario as possible. Would General Lee know the exact attack to defense ratio of his 'veteran' riflemen? Of course not. He would forumate a strategy to defeat his enemy, and rely on the quality of his troops while allowing for a certain randomness in battles. I want to tax my brain over strategy, not numbers.

Like I said, it comes down to either playing the game, or playing the numbers. I go with the former.

Maybe you and vel should take up a new game then. Obviously this game isn't complex enough for you. You also are obviously not a fan of competition. This is an old line of rookies though. They lack the skills to play the game competitively so they create their own way of playing and call anyone who plays a competitive game simplistic. They do it in AOC too. Another favorite motto of the loser is "At least I have a life".

[SpencerH]

I hoping that the complex human interactions that are impossible with the AI (diplomacy, alliances, treachery) will make for a challenging FUN game. If its only bean counting, I'll pass.

[Incan_Warrior]

I can assure you that MP will be MUCH more than bean counting. Human opponents will certainly rarely trade maps, form trade embargoes and legit alliance (hey - let's form an alliance until we wipe out everyone else, then we can hash it out!) - can you just imagine? Nevertheless, as has been said before, the details will matter. Trip, you need not worry about everyone rushing with archers - doing so will often cripple their own empire, as another big fish lies around the corner.

[Velociryx]

Good points, Inca - to explain where I fall in the overall category, I'll say this:

There are, in my head, two extreme ends of the game playing spectrum. There's the Perfectionists....Min/Maxers, for whom no pain is too great to ensure that they get those 2 extra shields out of the system, over and above their opponent. If it takes staring at a spreadsheet tracking growth for three hours, they'll do it.

At the other end are the romantics. These guys play from the gut. They're more into the story behind the game than the math. Random combat doesn't bother them, cos it generates memorable events (like Thermopalye). Random events do not bother them, cos it adds to the story.

As for me....I chaffe a bit under the sometimes overly random combat system, but I LOVE story-driven events (EU's event engine rocks!).

Luck plays a role in all war games. At least all war games that want to model realism, cos in real life, generals get lucky. The American fleet in the Pacific turned the tables on the Japanese fleet in the Pacific, how? They caught a lucky break. It wasn't masterful planning on their part....they stumbled into some Japanese carriers outfitted with the wrong kinna planes to greet them. Pure, dumb luck.

It happens.

Of course, there are gamers who want to control every little element of the game, and would DESPISE a system which modelled in......things like weather preventing an important attack? GHASTLY!

But it happens in real life....so what this class of gamer is REALLY saying is that they want realism only up to the point that it does not hinder their ability to control every element in the game.

That's not me.

I get a kick out of going with the flow. Designing open ended, fluid strats that don't rely on my knowing every little detail. That's where the magic is for me....surviving and maybe even thriving in a chaotic environment where nobody has perfect information.

That's the stuff of good stories....

-=Vel=-

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Rushing reduces the game to mathematics. In pen and paper strategy games (for those of you who still play them), the common term for that is "min/maxing" - which means not paying any attention to the story that surrounds the game, but focusing specifically on the mathematically precise moves that will give you the biggest bang for your buck. Execute those moves better than your opponent and you invariably win.

Lots of people love to play this way.

I'm not one of them.

Not a thing in the world wrong with playing that way, either. It's just not my thing.

From the comments here, I see that I'm not alone.

-=Vel=-

Like you said, going overboard of number crunching in a RPG is bad. But I think strategy games are about maximizing your efficiency. Especially in a game like Civ, where you have the time to do the math, playing efficiently means half-way to victory.

As for RPGs, I do take numbers seriously because I enjoy playing efficiently. But I will never create a 18/18/18/3/13/18 Paladin.

[Lord Merciless]

I agree with Ming. You need to do number crunchings in order to win against good players. In MP games, playing like a psychotic bastard will get you nailed quickly, especially if there are many human players during the session. A very important fact about MP games is to conceal your true intentions and strategies.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Maybe you and vel should take up a new game then. Obviously this game isn't complex enough for you. You also are obviously not a fan of competition. This is an old line of rookies though. They lack the skills to play the game competitively so they create their own way of playing and call anyone who plays a competitive game simplistic. They do it in AOC too. Another favorite motto of the loser is "At least I have a life".

Au Contraire, my friend. I am a fan of competition. I'm just not a fan of exploiting the game to its very limits to win. That's not fun, and leads to playing the same game over and over and over again, no matter who you play, 'just to win'. What that means is players like you will rush every game, just so they can win. I want to win, but I want to have fun with the game also. That means I won't use the same tactic every single game. The reason people like me dislike rushing so much is because in the hands of 'veterans' () it makes the game broken and no fun to play.

I bet if Firaxis included a 'press-Ctrl-W-and-instantly-you-win-the-game' hotkey you'd use it every MP game, right? Because you want to win and that's all it's about, and if we disagree we're rookies who lack skill so we complain all the time.

[Velociryx]

I'm going to lunch. I'll depart by saying this tho:

Happy - I've got zero problems with competition. None.

I've got no problems with the fact that we have different ideas on what constitutes "fun" in a game. You like rushing. You get off on it. You think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Good for you!

Personally, I think rushing is linear and predictable. Been there done that. To death.

I'm glad you like it. Some folks don't.

You seem to think that if someone dislikes your pet trick, it makes us inferior. I think you're wrong. You are of course, entitled to your opinions, but *do* keep in mind that they are just that. Opinion.

I'm glad you're proud of your achievements in Civ2MP. It's good to have a goal. Personally, I think taking a game engine that's NOT a wargame and trying to make it a war game is akin to painting racing stripes on a turtle and calling it a stock car, and as such, is not much to crow about, but that's me, and why I don't really CARE if I'm not a "giant" in the MP arena. If it means yet another round of reconstituted rush strategy....I think I'll pass.

To reiterate - combat in civ3 is highly abstracted. Has been since civ1. Compared to games specifically designed to be wargames, civ combat is combat with training wheels on, and a safety net beneath you.

Just an opinion, but you might wanna focus on improving your interpersonal skills, rather than tellin' Trip and I what to do where our gaming time is concerned.

Of course, you are free to do as you will....just a sugesstion.

-=Vel=-

[WarpStorm]

Unless you do the PBEM thing, you won't have the luxury of unlimited time in MP. Most of the gameplay modes will have turn time limits (and then there is the new "turnless" mode, which I guess is some sort of simultaneous every moves at once mode).