I can't believe this..

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
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.

Good idea.

We should have Markos or Dan make a multiplayer forum soon.

[HappySunShine]

I find it amusing vel that you associate strategy with slower gameplay. You never played civilization multiplayer. Creating a unique rush is in fact a strategy, otherwise I wouldn't have written those papers I call strategy in the civ 2 forums. The simple fact is that rushes are what win. The ability to attack, defend, expand, and keep your infrastructure all at once is what seperates the good players from the bad. Building up an empire for 3 hours and then massing units is not strategy. And nobody said there was no way to defend against rushing. There's lots of ways to play without rushing. Rushing has its drawbacks just as defending has its drawbacks. I think the real problem is that some people here think it's pure genius to build their civilization without doing anything else. How can you call rushing boring then? What you should really say is "I feel that my strategical genius is so far beyond these petty rushers that I will look down upon my intellectually challenged brethern as I spend months planning my brilliant strategical maneuver." Which really means "I can't find a way to beat rushing so I will simply call it a 'tactic' unworthy of my genius." Lets face it, you guys should be playing simcity, not civilization. There's a reason why 2x2x King was the most played setting of them all in civ2.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Creating a unique rush is in fact a strategy

Correct.

Building up an empire for 3 hours and then massing units is not strategy.

Incorrect.

[Velociryx]

In looking back at my post, I can't find any references to speed....not sure where you're coming from....

And you're quite right. I never played Civ2 MP, so I never got to taste the joys of rushing in Civ2. I assume though, that it's not dissimilar to the joys of rushing in SMAC, or AoE, or WarCraft 1-3, or any of the other popular titles.

The mechanics of rushing are tactical in their inherent nature. No strategy to it. You can write papers till the cows come home and call them strategy, but that won't change the nature of the rush mechanic one whit. It will not, in fact, MAKE it so.

I agree with one thing you posted here very much. Rushes win. In fact, I think I said the very same thing in my post). The fact that they win though, also does not make it a strategy.

Ahhh...and just so we're clear on it: I never said anything about my strategies being brilliant. IIRC, you were the one who implied, in fact, that I only had a smidgeon of competence, and so anything I may write here should, I guess, be taken with a grain of salt.

-=Vel=-

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The mechanics of rushing are tactical in their inherent nature. No strategy to it.

Not necessarily. The use of tactics, or more importantly, the threat of a particular tactic, is strategic.

For instance, knowing that the threat of a rush from a dreaded opponent is available may lead a player to create a compact, well-defended civilization. Meanwhile, the much-feared rusher may take his time, spread out his civilization, and hence gain an advantage in territory and resources with nothing more than the threat of a rush.

[Jon Shafer]

HappySunShine, did it ever occur to you that we might actually want to enjoy playing Civ MP, instead of just win before 1 AD every time? Frantically building 4 cities, then rushing as many Archers/Horsemen/Swordsmen/ICBMs as you can then racing to destroy your nearest neighbor may be successful, but for those of us that are out to have fun with our games that's not what we're looking for. Rushing cheats the gameplay of Civ. There's a reason they put things like temples and libraries in the game. Rushing is boring because 'good' players will use it every game just so they can win, sapping all the other players of the fun that they wanted to have with the game, not 'let's race to destroy as many opponents as we can before 2500 BC'.

Face it, you should be playing Starcraft, not Civilization.

[Capt Dizle]

In SMAC, the game was set up so that the attacker often had great attacking odds. This is not necessarilly true in Civ3. I am not sold on the fact that a simple rush attack can win easily. I really think that movement penalties will make a difference and give defenders an edge.

But if you just sit there and build libraries and ignore your perimeters, yeah, you are subject to being swept off the board.

Thank god we don't have the overpowering air units like we have had in the past.

[N. Machiavelli]

I concur with that Trip. It's why I'm hoping that they will not include any sort of Ladder system.

[DrSpike]

To muddy this particular debate further I don't agree that should rushing be the best option that players that rush are somehow underhand. Rather the challenge is to set the game up in such a way that rushing is only one possibility, perhaps not even the best one. In civ 2 1x1x deity rushing straight out is rarely a good strategy. TBS can be more strategic than tactical, but on balance I still feel civ3 is going to be a tactics fest.

[Capt Dizle]

This makes me wonder how anything is going to get researched in MP. In SP, I go for the whole 40 turn thing. If we all do that in MP...

[Capt Dizle]

My solution for dealing with the rush would be to give forts the same bombard function as the appropriate level of artillery tech and give them a defense value of 1,2,3,4 plus normal terrain bonuses.

Then you could build the Great Wall of China to keep the Mongols at bay. Would be cool.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The mechanics of rushing are tactical in their inherent nature. No strategy to it.

Addendum: It would not be strategic if rushing was the only tactic available to a player.

The Rush is just one tool in the toolbox.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrSpike
TBS can be more strategic than tactical, but on balance I still feel civ3 is going to be a tactics fest.

You may be right, but I think that it will be possible to defend against the rush and make the attacker pay too much for too little gain. Finally, the experience of regular players may be a lot more flexible than the city-packing, horse-rushing elite levels who are optimizing for "arithmetic."

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
My solution for dealing with the rush would be to give forts the same bombard function as the appropriate level of artillery tech and give them a defense value of 1,2,3,4 plus normal terrain bonuses.

Then you could build the Great Wall of China to keep the Mongols at bay. Would be cool.

I like that idea. Add a catapult; then you could stagger the forts and still control the frontier.

[spy14]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I have tested it extensively. Generally, those who make extraordinary claims would have to provide the evidence. If there is a pink elephant in your garage, perhaps you would consider showing it to us.

In this case, if you could provide us a proper demonstration.

Pink elephant?? Not been around here for a few days....
Anyway, bolt a quick scenario together - 2 civs and a bunch of ships next to each other. Declare war, observe. OTOH, are there any subtle differances between the US and UK versions? Because ive noticed that my ships seem at a huge disadvantage in battle, whereas other people contest this and say its equal. Seems to be a bit more in it than differing perceptions