I can't believe this..

[Velociryx]

Seriously tho...I *do* hope JT's prediction rings true....and there are a number of things that point to the fact that it just might work out that way. There are some good opportunities for the defensive game in Civ3....against the AI, it's useless to explore, since the AI is easy to beat, but against a human....I dunno. I'll be curious to see how it goes tho....

-=Vel=-
(fingers crossed, but just in case, I'll keep the Aztecs close at hand and ready!) - Hey...if you're gonna rush, why not do it from 4000BC?

[Capt Dizle]

Ming, thats a little spamy, isn't there a limit on smilies per post?

[DrSpike]

I really don't see how you guys can claim rushing is going to be harder here then wax lyrical about how you're going to mass warriors.........a strat that would pay no dividend in a game like civ2 where rushing is allegedly easier.

The stacking, the support, and the more random combat _all_ point to more tactically oriented style games. Please tell me why rushing is harder in civ3MP.

[Capt Dizle]

Vel, the UUs will have to be turned off man.

[Velociryx]

Ahhh....I know....a pity, but necessary. And, without civ specific abilities (no industrious, religious, or any of the other coolio traits), we'll be beating each other up with plain vanilla ice cream, which will weight all MP games even more heavily on starting position (which further means that almost no GOOD, well-balanced MP game will ever be played on a random map).

The more I think about it, the less jazzed I am about MP. The only thing you get is better opponents, at the loss of everything that makes the various civs unique.

Bleh!

-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Vel, the UUs will have to be turned off man.

Maybe... maybe not.

What if every player was given the option of choosing his two "traits"... and to choose a UU... therefore creating their own civ. This would stop the RACE for people picking the "best" civ, and would allow all players to set up a combination that they would be happy with.

[notyoueither]

I agree DrSpike.

The fact that warriors can overcome fortified spearmen quite frequently means that a rush will be very possible as a strat in my mind.

[Velociryx]

I like the sounds of it Ming, but I'll not hold my breath that that's how it's gonna be....we'll know soon tho....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Dr. Spike: I don't really know how MP will shake out yet. My HOPE is that rushing will be harder, but I *know* it'll be the first tactic out the gate when MP hits. Has been for as long as I can remember!

It'd be awesome if someone would finally kill that particular horse, which has been ridden to near-death, and IMO, spoils a lot of the fun and potential subtlety in these types of games, but if not.....hey, it's a powerful tactic....*shrug*

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ming
What if every player was given the option of choosing his two "traits"... and to choose a UU... therefore creating their own civ. This would stop the RACE for people picking the "best" civ, and would allow all players to set up a combination that they would be happy with.

Or you rate the various civs by how well they start in various eras, and you handicap the players based on record. Then when setting up a game you agree on which 'class' of civs each player may chose from.

Give the beginner the choice of any civ, including Zulu and Aztec. The most experienced players are limited to the US, England, and France (or some such).

No mods required.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I like the sounds of it Ming, but I'll not hold my breath that that's how it's gonna be....we'll know soon tho....

-=Vel=-

I agree... I'm not holding my breath on this one. But it has been brought up before, and the suggetion has been made repeatedly.

Give us options... and then... more options. That way, we can design an MP experience for anybodies tastes

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I really don't see how you guys can claim rushing is going to be harder here then wax lyrical about how you're going to mass warriors.........a strat that would pay no dividend in a game like civ2 where rushing is allegedly easier.

The stacking, the support, and the more random combat _all_ point to more tactically oriented style games. Please tell me why rushing is harder in civ3MP.

1. Movement restrictions in enemy territory.
2. Can't use howitzers with blitz on enemy railroads to run the board.
3. Bombard (and air) units can't kill units and allow paratroops to capture cities.
4. Airports have been toned down a bit.
5. Good defensive unit values, good defensive modifiers (terrain and city based)
6.Can post unit on mountains and see further for early warning.
7. Conscription and mobilization favors the defender who has shorter line of reinforcement.
8. Radar towers?
9. Artillery auto fire will be a meaningful factor.
10. We might get some partisans in PTW, I hope.

[player1]

Rushing won't be harder.

It would be just RISKIER.

Wanna flip a coin?

[Bleyn]

All this talk of rushing in MP puts me in mind of one thing. And that is that I am so very glad my favorite MP games are ones were rushing is almost completely impossible. I don't say completely impossible because someone would probably find a way to do it.

The games are Firaxis's Gettysburg, and Talonsoft's Battleground series (The Napoleonic Wars ones are my favorites). Essentially they are games about the art of manuever. Putting the right forces in the right place at the right time to break the fighting spirit of the enemy.

I for one am glad that rushing may be much more difficult in Civ3 than it was in Civ2. I don't like rushing. I consider it the most simplistic tactic anyone can use. It probably takes AI programmers all of maybe half a day to teach their games to build a giant mass of units as fast as possible and throw them at you until they win. It probably takes them months to teach the games to perform scouting probes, feints, and other more subtle manuevers to keep you off balance as to where the real center of mass is and where your defense and counter-offense should be.

And if I'm going to lose a game to someone else, I would much rather it be an enjoyable one where I can say afterwords "I really thought you were going to come at me from the north with your Cavalry. I never expected a sea-ward invasion from the southwest." or other words to that effect. Not "Well I guess it is pretty hard to win against 500 warriors coming at me head-on."

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I agree DrSpike.

The fact that warriors can overcome fortified spearmen quite frequently means that a rush will be very possible as a strat in my mind.

A vet warrior will win against a regular fortified spearman in a town one in five tries. If I have a vet spearman fortified on a hilled town you will fail 95%+ of the time. Bring it.