I can't believe this..

[Sheik]

You could use the combat calculator found at:

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3combatcalc.html

This will tell you the most likely outcome and will tell you how freak your results may have been.

[kring]

Thank you Ming.

[Velociryx]

When this thread began to degenerate into name calling, I intentionally stayed away from it. I was tempted to reply when my name appeared in the discussion, but decided against it. I have no desire to participate in any sort of flame war, but I *do* have something to say with regards to strategy.

Players who rely extensively or exclusively on rushing to win their games are essentially a "one trick pony." That's not opinion, btw...that's simply the way it is.

"The-Rush" has got to be the MOST linear style of wargaming that ever was. Strategic? Not a chance. Tactical? Absolutely. The rush is PURE tactics and not one whit of strategy. It's main, most compelling strength?

It works.

Absolutely no denying that. But to equate rushing with strategic brilliance is....I....there simply are no words for that. Suffice it to say though, that the notion is incorrect. Rush tactics have as much to do with strategy as dryer lint has to do with Moon rocks.

Players who excel at rush tactics can rack up HUGE numbers of wins against players who aren't so good at the tactical nuiances of rushing. This has nothing to do with strategic brilliance either. What it means is that the player in question is really good at rushing.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

That Civ3 is less prone to linear Rush tactics is, IMO, a very good thing. I do not believe it was intended, nor the result of any masterful planning by the game's designers, but it is nonetheless, a good thing.

There's a difference between Nathan Bedford Forrest's (strategic) axiom of "getting there the furstest with the mostest" and the Rush game's desire to build an attack force with all possible speed and go hurt someone.

Rushing boils the game down to two elements: Cities = Factories (for the purpose of producing more factories and troops), and the troops themselves, to go ding the other guy's factories. That's all.

That's.....dull, in my opinion.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Well, if you care to think about it the rush is gone. Civ3 will be more power based. IMHO. Even if you have double movement you still have the inability to use enemy roads and rails. Counterattacks in friendly territory will have a big edge in mobility. Catapults and cannon are weak and slow. Not good for offensive use against cities, better used on defense against attacker in the open.

And then the unlimited railroad movement essentially triples the defenders firepower. It may take a double team to take out a good player.

Also, in certain parts of the game defense is better than offense, like in real history. Limits the rush opportunities. This game will be won with mass not velocity.

[DrSpike]

Vel.

But the discussion was for MP, and a lot of the time MP is a test of rushing skills. I regard civ2MP 2x2x king as a rushers game, the closest TBS gets to RTS. I do not regard 1x1x deity as a rushers game. Your distinction between strategy and tactics is spot on; I have always felt those who want more tactics should play settings like 2x2x king and those who want more strategy settings like 1x1x deity..........but I know some players disagree........and before this degenerates into a civ2MP debate lets get back on track.

I stated earlier I think civ3MP will be a more tactically orientated rush style game, akin to civ2MP 2x2x king or RTS games. I do not see why civ3 is not set up for rushing.......as far as I can see the fact that 10 warriors beats most expansion/teching strats means that rushing may be the only way to go. Whether this is a bad thing or not I'm not sure, perhaps we will end up with a deeper RTS style game. However, I don't think many TBS fans are going to be happy.

[Capt Dizle]

Well, you are gonna have to bring vet warriors or you will lose 2 or 3 warriors for each defender you kill. And worse if the defender has spearmen.

[Jon Shafer]

Warrior rushes will be hard. Archer rushes will have to be lucky. Horsemen and Swordsmen rushes will have to be big.

Not the best circumstances for rushes, but they will be possible.

[Velociryx]

"...but a lot of time, MP is a test of rushing skills."

***

The above statement is certainly true more often than it isn't (in most any MP game, RTS, TBS...doesn't matter).

And it brings up an interesting set of questions in my mind.

1) Is this what we want in an MP gaming experience? Does this sort of MP game give us deep and complex and satisfying game play, or is it just a good time killer?

2) How important is the measure of one's success at MP, given that it's mostly a test of rushing skill? Can you predict with any degree of accuracy how sharp a strategic mind someone has by looking at their rush-born win record in MP?

3) Assuming the answer to #1 is a resounding NO! It's not really what we want in an MP gaming experience, how then can we change the nature/structure and dynamics of the game in such a way that it IS a bit more....well......strategic!

THAT, in my mind, is the question we should be asking where MP is concerned....

-=Vel=-

PS: Very good points re: bombard units and defensive advantages....I wonder though....:: pondering:: Don't know...time will tell, and it'll be interesting to see!

-V.

[Jon Shafer]

Best way to eliminate rushes is to make the beginning of the game very defense oriented. Make units have a higher defense than attack. Make attack units more expensive. By the time you could have a 6 or 8 Archer rush now, you'd only have 4 or 5 Archers, while Spearmen's attack rating would be 3 instead of 2. That would make any early rushes too perilous to ever be successful.

[DrSpike]

1) Yes and no. I like relatively slower 1x deity civ2MP games played over several sessions, but to be honest it is really frustrating trying to continue games a lot of the time. Hence I also play Warcraft3 MP, a very different fast paced game. Less strategy than civ2 by a long shot, but still a lot of skill.

2) Your win/loss record shows how good you are at MP, which may or may not be strategically deep depending on the game.

3) I don't think you can without creating other potential problems. Deep games are generally long, and suffer from the drawbacks mentioned in 1).

[Cookie Monster]

Vel I agree with you on the notion that rushes are extremely boring. When I play any civ type game against a human I revel in the fact that it will be a meeting of the minds. Who's brainpower and cunning will prevail. When someone sinks into the mindlessly robotic gyration of rushing then I lose interest fast. Granted I am not good at defending against rushes but perhaps now is the time for all who care to discuss ANTI RUSH strategies.

There must be ways to defeat rushes using the existing game engine i.e. no modding or editing. If someone is gonna spend all their energy popping out units and flooding your land with them than what can be down to prevent this?

How can we convince people to play nice? I for one don't want any part of a game that degenerates into mindless rushing. It's not my bag baby!

[Jon Shafer]

I think the most effective counter-rush strategy will have to be strong human alliances and the ability to use them early. Say some idiot decides to do an Archer rush in 2500 BC on someone. If that someone has a strong alliance with another someone nearby, then go ahead, let them rush. An assault from my ally on the other side of you will cripple you for the rest of the game, or destroy you outright.

The problem with that is that you might not always have a strong ally nearby to help out.

[Velociryx]

The below is simply one person's opinion. Might not be for everyone....

In my mind, what'd be REALLY great to see in MP is a game that had a staggering array of choices available to the player that led to really quite different styles of play. In the ancient age, for example, wouldn't it be cool if you could pick from among any of these "basic approaches" to start the game: (basic approach = a set of tech research beelines or the acquisition of other in-game abilities that accomplish a specific goal)

* Pure offense - kept in so the rushers won't feel totally alienated, and because there IS some historical prescedent for it....Mongols and Huns, to name but two. No bonuses or penalties for building infrastructure, LOTS of powerful offensive weapons, minimal defense.

* Engineering brilliance - a string of tech beelines/in game abilities that allow you to build city improvements at a discount. Medium defense (engineers can whip up all sorts of traps, contraptions and surprises to help with defense), little offense.

* Technological brilliance - strong research game in general, but correspondingly weaker in several, if not every other area, this branch has techs that give free techs, wonders that help research, and all sorts of stuff, but it requires mercantilism and trading with others to make this ability pay off in terms of being able to defend yourself properly.

* Stalwart defense - Defenders every bit (and more) ferocious than their offensive counterparts. This is Ghengis Khan's worst nightmare, times three.

* Mobility - lousy attack and defense, but fast.

These, of course, could be mixed and matched in any number of combinations for even greater variance (and the above is just a very short list....there are TONS of other things we could add to this, but you get the idea).

Numerous equally viable ways of playing the game.

What path to persue?

THAT would be a bada$$ strategy game....

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Vel I agree with you on the notion that rushes are extremely boring. When I play any civ type game against a human I revel in the fact that it will be a meeting of the minds. Who's brainpower and cunning will prevail. When someone sinks into the mindlessly robotic gyration of rushing then I lose interest fast. Granted I am not good at defending against rushes but perhaps now is the time for all who care to discuss ANTI RUSH strategies.

There must be ways to defeat rushes using the existing game engine i.e. no modding or editing. If someone is gonna spend all their energy popping out units and flooding your land with them than what can be down to prevent this?

How can we convince people to play nice? I for one don't want any part of a game that degenerates into mindless rushing. It's not my bag baby!

I agree with that. I'm not interested in any MP clickfests that simulate a poor MP RTS game. I want a game with strategy and cunning and treachery ( all that the AI doesnt possess). I think it will be a matter of finding the right people to play against, those who play the style of game you like.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I agree with that. I'm not interested in any MP clickfests that simulate a poor MP RTS game. I want a game with strategy and cunning and treachery ( all that the AI doesnt possess). I think it will be a matter of finding the right people to play against, those who play the style of game you like.

You're right. Maybe as the day draws near to the release of PTW a thread can be started that will list the names of players who are interested in serious gaming only. No rushing. That way one could play against these people at times that are mutually agreed upon.