I can't believe this..

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Bleyn
Personally, right now I would say most of this talk of Civ3 MP is like the early morning fog. It will burn away in the harsh light of the new day when we have PTW. Some of what we say may have merit, some may not. But until we actually have our hands on the game, its all just talk.

Very poetic. It reminds me of how the smoke of musket and cannon rises over a battlefield, fading away like the cries of dying men and horses.



We anxiously await Play the World. The tension is palpable.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
What part of "who the **** are you to talk to me?" did you not understand? What part of SP rookies did you not understand? What the **** would you know about MP? I guess we'll see when PTW comes out. I have a feeling most of you won't break the top 100.

LOL!

Do0d, you whine and cry too much. Get a life.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by HappySunShine {Yeah, right}
I don't want to be your friends. I don't want to know about your lives. I won't even give you the time of day if I don't feel you have some skill in the game. You guys are trying to argue tactics and strategies with the greatest civ2 player ever.

Floats like an ostrich, stings like a yappy dog.

PS. I am very interested to know how successful the strategy of rushing will be in MP.

[Zero-Tau]

I won't get into the actual discussion, as I'm an absolute Civ3 rookie (never played above Regent), but I just wanted to make two quick comments:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Half of you have never even played civ2 so how can you even begin to talk to me about civ3?

Because they have played Civ3. And some of them are actually very good at it. Your being a Civ2 god doesn't automatically make you a Civ3 god.

You guys are trying to argue tactics and strategies with the greatest civ2 player ever.

Yep. Civ3 tactics and strategies. Again, being a Civ2 god doesn't make you a Civ3 god.

[Velociryx]

Quote from His Sunniness: "You guys are trying to argue strategy and tactics with the greatest Civ2 player ever."

Even if that's so, my question would be.....so what?

Civ2 is not Civ3. In any case, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and in fairly plain language, neither Civ2 nor Civ3 are wargames per se. Mastery of warfare in Civ2 or Civ3 hardly qualifies you as a strategic genius.

Wanna really get into strategy? Play People's General, Panzer General 1-2, Pacific General, or a whole host of true WAR GAMES. Or, if you're into pen and paper games, play pretty much anything by Avalon Hill, or Starfleet Battles. Playing Civ2 AS a wargame is playing in the kiddie pool. I can promise you that you'll find more strategy and tactics in twenty minutes with any of the games mentioned above than you will in your entire game playing career in Civ2.

Further, while combat is abstracted and grossly simplifed in Civ2 and Civ3, the lessons in strategic thinking you will learn by playing the aforementioned games will serve you well in the more simplified environment you're fond of playing in. This is because strategic concepts are fairly universal in their nature, and applicable across the spectrum of games. It opens up whole new vistas of strategic though, rather than straightjacketing yourself into the narrow, linear thinking that defines rushing.

Earlier you commented that the bulk of Civ2 MP'ers don't agree with me that Civ is a game that represents the epic sweep of human history. My reply to that would simply be that the bulk of Civ2 Mp'ers are incorrect. The box my copy of the game came in says as much. I've already agreed that it is entirely possible to PLAY Civ2 or Civ3 as a wargame, but it's not a very good one if you do. It just wasn't designed for it, and so it does not model combat with any kind of depth or accuracy.

And to the question of "Who are we" to even dare to talk to you? Well sunshine, I can't speak for the rest, but as for me, I've been playing strategy games for very nearly as long as you've been alive. All sorts of strategy games (including most everything by Avalon Hill, SFB, about every computer wargame that's been published in the states, and three that I invented myself), in all types of environments. I know I'm not always right in my analysis, but I've been right more often than I've been wrong.

In your case, my analysis would be....not fit to publish on these boards, but I can tell you that your attacks here have been linear and entirely predictable. No better than that of a petulant child throwing a tantrum.

Cheers.

-=Vel=-

[HappySunShine]

Wanna really get into strategy? Play People's General, Panzer General 1-2, Pacific General, or a whole host of true WAR GAMES. Or, if you're into pen and paper games, play pretty much anything by Avalon Hill, or Starfleet Battles. Playing Civ2 AS a wargame is playing in the kiddie pool. I can promise you that you'll find more strategy and tactics in twenty minutes with any of the games mentioned above than you will in your entire game playing career in Civ2.

Last time I checked I didn't give a **** about other games since I'm playing civ2/3. So I'm not real sure why you constantly try to point out how much more complicated other games are because as I said, I just don't give a ****.

Earlier you commented that the bulk of Civ2 MP'ers don't agree with me that Civ is a game that represents the epic sweep of human history. My reply to that would simply be that the bulk of Civ2 Mp'ers are incorrect. The box my copy of the game came in says as much. I've already agreed that it is entirely possible to PLAY Civ2 or Civ3 as a wargame, but it's not a very good one if you do. It just wasn't designed for it, and so it does not model combat with any kind of depth or accuracy.

Again, we don't give a **** what your opinion is. We don't sit here and philosophise about the intricacies and meaning of civ. I've never even read the box before or the manual or anything else because it's filled with useless information. And while I'm playing my war game I'll keep your pretty thoughts in mind that I'm really not playing a war game and there is far better ones out there. Again, I simply don't give a **** about your constant ponderings of this game.

And to the question of "Who are we" to even dare to talk to you? Well sunshine, I can't speak for the rest, but as for me, I've been playing strategy games for very nearly as long as you've been alive. All sorts of strategy games (including most everything by Avalon Hill, SFB, about every computer wargame that's been published in the states, and three that I invented myself), in all types of environments. I know I'm not always right in my analysis, but I've been right more often than I've been wrong.

And somehow playing other strategy games makes you a good civ player? Funny. I'll call you when I'm impressed.

In your case, my analysis would be....not fit to publish on these boards, but I can tell you that your attacks here have been linear and entirely predictable. No better than that of a petulant child throwing a tantrum.

Well thank you for your analysis that you decided was unfit to publish on these boards.

You're not very good at this are you? Still haven't quite figured it out yet. You really should take your own advice.

[Velociryx]

I'm glad you're continuing to provide us all with your gems of wisdom. I wonder though, is it possible for you to complete a sentence without using a censored word?

I do wish you'd quit with the whole avoidance tactic though. It only displays that petulant, childish nature you have. We *could* actually have a good discussion here. There are a number of excellent points that have been brought to light, and bear further discussion.

As to your not caring about other strategy games....that's right, if you wanna crow about being the big dawg in the kiddie pool, you go right ahead!

-=Vel=-
(signing off now, and duly placing his Happiness on the ol' ignore list, which I probably should have done some days ago).

EDIT: And yes. Playing all manner of strategy games for a time as long as you have been on the planet is relevant in terms of discussing strategy and tactics in Civ or in any other strategy game. That you cannot fathom the point is....humorous.

[Theseus]

The *enemy civ* refuses to communicate with our envoys!!

[DrSpike]

Well I'm sure most are getting weary with this war........

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well I'm sure most are getting weary with this war........

What war? This is just demanding techs back and forth and no one conceding.

[DrSpike]

Hehe, how about Eyes offers 20 turns of rational discussion in exchange for the luxury of not being pilloried for his opinions.

[notyoueither]

Good trade.

[Capt Dizle]

Interesting that Vel mentioned Starfleet Battles. I played online Starfleet Command which was based on this for awhile. Online you could find attitudes like Mr. Sunshine's by the hundreds. They seldom posted online and when they did it was rare for them to be able to string more than two semi-coherent thoughts together.

Mr. Sunshine is clearly a cut above this. He has proved he can string at least three semi-coherent thoughts together.

[Velociryx]

Hiya JT!

And out of curiosity (cos I never played the 'puter version), did they have all the classic SFB races represented? In the pen and paper game (I'm talking without getting any of the expansions), they had: Federation, Klingon, Kzinti, Lyran, Hydran, Romulan, Gorn, ISC, Wyn, Tholian. There were several expansions which added to this list, but my favorites were always Kzin (ferocious knife fighters) or Gorn (who can resist 100+ points of plasma!?), how 'bout you when you played?

-=Vel=-

[vmxa1]

I have to say that I would not mind a bit a tweak to the combat system. I think the double HP could work or add in something like Fire Power factor (civ2) to units from ages, more as you move up. Either could level the random factor a bit. I have to side with the ones not interested in combined arms jazz. Yes that can be a big help, yes I use it, no it is not always available. It is not the issue here as we are talking about 1 vs 1 or the like. I have no probelm with the concept of some strange results as anomalies do occur. Just lets not have too many. When two heavies go into the ring the best man may not win, but if the champs goes in against a middle weight, the champ will win at least 98/100. I could have said light heavy as Bob Foster found out by losing all of the title fights he had againt heavy weights. Mind you I am not talking about a swordmen vs a knight or any more or less close fights, only about Knight vs warrior or tank vs spearmen miss match. Yes I know that could happen and that is why I say anomaly. I can live with a rare one here and there.