I can't believe this..

[DrSpike]

In amongst his usual bs Eyes makes several good points. If the MP version doesn't make some changes then MP will not last long. Having said that the variable combat results by themselves don't seem to me to be the worst offender. I envisage a MP game more akin to RTS games than civ2MP, with the emphasis on rush and counterrush. There will be some flexibility with regard to choosing the balance between teching, rushing, and expanding, and therein will lie the appeal (or not) of the game.

Whether this style of game will work without the micro of RTS I don't know. I don't think hardcore TBS fans are going to be blown away, but we can live in hope.

[N. Machiavelli]

I believe that the pattern of how the games are played will be determined on whether or not there will be a central ranking system or ladder. I fear that, like in RTS games, a ranking system would promote the wrong kind of 'society' so to speak. If folks are more concerned with numbers, rather than simply competative games, most games are going to be a matter of who can raise the most number of offensive units the quickest. This is further enhanced by the fact that TBS games are notoriously long (though a good thing IMHO), and most will not have the patience to bother playing for an hour or so and not past the middle middle-ages.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
zack: what values do you use for the different experience levels?

I usually play the standard values, though I have experimented with higher values. I find the standard values to be quite playable. I would seek out someone with more experience with mods.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i'm a bit suspicious about MP too. but if i understood it right, sid meier and firaxis have developed a totally new style of multiplayer. some mix between turn-based and realtime. so expect that it'll either die after just a few months or it might even start an absolutely new style of strategy-games, like civ1 once did.

I agree. Everyone should be somewhat suspicious of Civ MP, I think. It will be close to a miracle if they can make it work right. The randomness factor that HappySunShine is concerned about may be just one of many problems MP will encounter.

[Jon Shafer]

Standard values are good as long as you recognize that there will always be some random-ness to battles. For those who scream and cry when their Swordsmen lose to Warriors on grasslands, better knock up the HP a bit. I turned it up simply because I like longer battles and it does seem to make things a bit more realistic.

[Cookie Monster]

Just some random thoughts on MP.

I agree with one of the earlier posters that starting location will be even more critical in MP than in SP. Starting location definately outweighs the randomness combat "glitch" in Civ3 IMO. A poor starting location next to a couple of better off neighbors spells instant death. OTOH, a poor starting location devoid of serious threats may be turned into glorious victory ala Aeson's feats of wonder at deity. You have to b33 1337 to pull that off though.

Different thought; It would be the tradegy of the century if PTW boils down to a RTS style rush rush rush kill kill kill fest. My expectations are extremely low. Initially I vowed not to purchase PTW until fellow 'Poly'ers gave it a go and gave us truthfull feedback. Then I allowed myself to get caught up in all the hype from E3. I figured I'll get PTW because it won't be like before. Now, with the fear of RTS rushing in the clouds, I am thinking hold off again. In the end I'm sure I will make the purchase the day PTW comes out. After all, after a year of patches, Civ3 is a pretty good game.

One last thing...............stacked combat ala CtP series roxxxored! I like it............Perhaps why so many bash CtP's stacked combat is because they feel it is too easy to win battles. Have those critics engaged in MP? I think their opinions would change.......

[HappySunShine]

MP always has and always will be a rush to kill the other person. The only people who don't play that way are the rookies that play on large maps, deity, etc. to slow the expansion and overall game down. It would be really cool if they incorporated RTS style rushes into Civ3. I think that's the best thing that could ever happen to civ3. Even in civ2 there were rushes. I was best known for my horserush and it I made it the standard of play. The explorer rush and knight rush were all great rushes. But in civ3...I don't see any rushes that can be done. The techs come too slow and defense is so damn easy on civ3. They really really need to put in double movement or they'll unbalance the game with the double production and single moves. They will be truly be incompetent if they just leave it at accelerated production without accelerated moves. 2x2x was always the most common form of MP. So many things can go wrong with MP and I don't have confidence in Firaxis/infogrames to keep them from happening.

[N. Machiavelli]

You have got to be kidding me HappySunShine. Both your 'rush is god' attitude and your delusions that you are the greatest player/inventor of moves in the cosmos. I guess in a month or two, we'll find out 'eh?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
MP always has and always will be a rush to kill the other person. The only people who don't play that way are the rookies that play on large maps, deity, etc. to slow the expansion and overall game down. It would be really cool if they incorporated RTS style rushes into Civ3. I think that's the best thing that could ever happen to civ3. Even in civ2 there were rushes. I was best known for my horserush and it I made it the standard of play. The explorer rush and knight rush were all great rushes. But in civ3...I don't see any rushes that can be done. The techs come too slow and defense is so damn easy on civ3. They really really need to put in double movement or they'll unbalance the game with the double production and single moves. They will be truly be incompetent if they just leave it at accelerated production without accelerated moves. 2x2x was always the most common form of MP. So many things can go wrong with MP and I don't have confidence in Firaxis/infogrames to keep them from happening.

well, there's the chariot/horseman rush , the warrior rush, the archer rush
and my favorite: the swordman-rush.
iron working is a quickly reached tech (AI first goes from bronze working, buy it, build loads of warriors, get iron, build barracks, upgrade... and take city by city ;-) ... it even works against the greeks, allthough the swordsmen-loss is a lot higher

[dunk]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Maybe you should shut the **** up dunk. My real name is EyesOfNight. I was the best civ2 MP player ever. I spent 2 years at number 1 on the ladder and I have written more MP strategies than anyone. I've been playing this game for over a decade and civ3 isn't what you would call a challenging game. But that's beside the point. Only newbies worry about the AI anyways, I'm worried about the combat model as it applies to MP. So why don't you sit back and keep your stupid rookie assessments to yourself? Got it? Anyone else want to act stupid like dunk?

Good for you. I'm so glad you were a good Civ II player. CLAP CLAP. But there are good Civ III players here. Go take a look at their strategies in the "Strategy" forum and practice on them. They work.

Did I ever say that you sucked? No. I said you needed to get better. AT CIV III. Please note that there are three I's there. And I said to stop whining.

Plenty of people have had to adjust strategies for this game from Civ II. I find combat far from completely random. But there is a random element to it. It makes you be prepared.

I think MP is going to require some very tactful planning and great execution to become a top player. Why? Because there is a random element to the game. Things like formations and timing will be more important than superior units. There's a risk involved wiht every battle.

Please don't hurt me with your grand Civ II MP skills.

[HappySunShine]

Did I ever say that you sucked? No. I said you needed to get better. AT CIV III. Please note that there are three I's there. And I said to stop whining.

Shut the **** up fanboy. I have yet to even lose a city to the AI so I guess you really have no idea what you're talking about. I have read most the strategies in the civ3 forum and they are a joke. The only person that seems to have any competence in there is Velociryx.

"well, there's the chariot/horseman rush , the warrior rush, the archer rush
and my favorite: the swordman-rush.
iron working is a quickly reached tech (AI first goes from bronze working, buy it, build loads of warriors, get iron, build barracks, upgrade... and take city by city ;-) ... it even works against the greeks, allthough the swordsmen-loss is a lot higher"

The idea of a rush is to hit very very early. Rushing in civ2 started in 3500BC. A warrior rush is completely stupid. That would never ever work against a human. The chariot/horseman rush is the same as it was in civ2...just way slower. And again, the idea of a rush is to harass and slow the opponent down while picking off the weaker cities as you gain a tech and city lead. That means you need to have few losses in order to execute it correctly. There are rushes in civ3, just alot slower and with the random combat results alot harder to execute. You can never really say for certain what will work and what won't until MP actually comes out. But I have my reservations and doubts. Here is the other reason 1x moves are bad for rushes:

With a movement rate of 1 for warriors, it takes a longer time to get to the enemy. So you're building warriors first BEFORE your settlers, the enemy is building settlers and as he sees you coming with warriors can simply buy or build a few before you ever get there. That also means that you have to stand by the city before you attack. It's very easy to counter attack 1 move units. That's why rushes are always best done with 2 move units like chariots/horsemen or knights. Now the warrior and swordsmen rush may work against the AI, but you have to remember that in MP you're playing against a human that is 1000 times better than the AI. As for horsemen, there is really no point in even attacking cities with horsemen, it's better to capture workers, pillage, and harass the enemy. The difference in civ3 though is that you aren't really hurting the enemy by forcing him to throw down a few spearmen since settlers take a size 3 city to build that means you need to build something while the city is growing. In civ2 however they only took 1 so if you forced an opponent to defend too much he lost expansion time as well as production since the rusher doesn't have to defend any of his cities and can do nothing but produce settlers. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly takes a very key aspect of rushing away.

So in conclusion, yes there are rushes in civ3, but they are much weaker and slower.

[player1]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
I have yet to even lose a city to the AI so I guess you really have no idea what you're talking about. I have read most the strategies in the civ3 forum and they are a joke. The only person that seems to have any competence in there is Velociryx.

Hmm,
You know that this is insulting to some people.

[Zachriel]

IMHO

I believe that many weaker players (gulp) will succumb to early rushes. The weak will be the prey for the strong.

(Even without an early rush, there are ample opportunities for strategic gameplay.)

[Ming]

There are some really valid points being made in this thread. I hate to see them being buried by personal attacks. So keep up the great discussion, and leave the personal insults SOMEWHERE ELSE!

[Jon Shafer]

But Ming, he's the best Civ 2 player in the world.

Okay, okay, I just had to throw that in.

N.. no, Ming, don't do it! Noooo!

HappySunShine, I'll just say that your support of the rush tactic is absurd for a strategy game. If rush strategies fail miserably in MP I'll be overjoyed. That's one of the reasons I don't play many RTS MP games.