I can't believe this..

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by 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.

Sorry to bring this back up but I have limited time tonight..

Rushing is a gameplay strategy, and an effective one. The problem with playing against rushers is that my defense is to rush as well and I'm not interested in that kind of game. CIV3 is not a wargame. IMO, the combat portion of the game, though important, sucks big time. If I wanted to compete at rushing (and wear out my carpal tendons) I'd play AoE MP.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


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.

I've always thought that the choice of civ should be random.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
and I'm not interested in that kind of game. CIV3 is not a wargame.

Civ3 is what "the players" make it. For some, it is a wargame... for others, it's not.

I just hope there are enough options provided to allow a group of players to play the type of game they wish to play.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by 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."

Those are wargames CIV3 is not.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I've always thought that the choice of civ should be random.

From my point of view... that would suck big time. It's a pain in the neck to set up a MP game. Getting everybody to agree on a time... getting them to show up... agreeing on the settings... and the rules...

The last thing I want after going through all this effort is to get stuck with a crappy civ on a random basis. That would take all the fun out of it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming

Civ3 is what "the players" make it. For some, it is a wargame... for others, it's not.

Of course its what the players make it, but if CIV3 is a wargame, its a pretty crappy one.

I just hope there are enough options provided to allow a group of players to play the type of game they wish to play.

I think thats the crux of the matter.

[Velociryx]

Gotta disagree with you there, Ming....true, some players TREAT Civ as a wargame, but Civ has *always* lacked some of the most basic, fundamental things that are the staples of the wargame genre.

That's okay though, cos civ is....well, not a wargame per se. Sure there's combat....the whole of human history has been filled with it....woudn't be Civ without the combat, BUT....Civ uses a vastly simplified combat model (even Civ2, with it's FP rating was heinously simplified) so as to abstract that angle of the game, cos there was always so much more to do.

That's why I always get a little tickled when I hear 'bout people who like to brag on being complete bada$$es makin' war in Civ games. That's like bragging about having mastered riding the tricycle. Combat in Civ is combat with training wheels. (and that's not a slam on the game, that's just the type of game Civ is and always has been). Nothing to get overly excited about when you win a smashing victory.

OTOH, if you suddenly had to worry about supply lines, keeping your troops in ammo and out of fatigue, keeping your soldiers organized so they *could* fight, increasing support costs due to distance, line of sight, different types of ammo and their effects on various armor types (and on troops with no armor).....now we're talking! The person who can win a stunning victory, taking all those factors and then some into account....wow!

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Well, again, I must say that the problem is the inability to create a real defensive perimeter that invaders can only breach with losses and giving away their position. I had hope that Firaxis would add military camps that could be built by workers and or engineer units, have a border that couldn't be erased by culture and provide defensive bonuses. Their should be rivers and other terrain that can be used as choke points. This would all lend to tactical options and if you add special units like engineers and stuff like that we could have some fun.

It would be more interesting than who can ICS and churn out the most troops.

Also, we need spies so that we can infiltrate for the purpose of seeing what the others are doing. Expensive but a strategic tool. Let my wish list continue, randomly available mercenaries and leaders and so on and so .......

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


From my point of view... that would suck big time. It's a pain in the neck to set up a MP game. Getting everybody to agree on a time... getting them to show up... agreeing on the settings... and the rules...

The last thing I want after going through all this effort is to get stuck with a crappy civ on a random basis. That would take all the fun out of it.

Wheres your sense of adventure? Standard rules random map, and you get the worst civ. BTW whats the worst civ? Thats a test As far as the rush discussion goes there is no crappy civ since they can all make warriors .

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Wheres your sense of adventure? Standard rules random map, and you get the worst civ. BTW whats the worst civ? Thats a test

It would just add more luck to a game that already has enough of it. This would kill any attempts for true competitions and ladders... And I can already hear the whining... of course you won... you had a better civ to start. If I had had that civ... blah, blah, blah...

[SpencerH]

While I would have loved to have seen a more complex combat model in CIV3 we'll have to face the fact that its not there and its not going to happen. We'll have to wait for candlebre and hope.

[Velociryx]

Well, keep the ideas coming in the CB forums, especially as it relates to the combat model! I think we're close.....definitely moving in the right direction!

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


It would just add more luck to a game that already has enough of it. This would kill any attempts for true competitions and ladders... And I can already hear the whining... of course you won... you had a better civ to start. If I had had that civ... blah, blah, blah...

I guess thats true but it seems to me I've seen many similar type posts while lurking on civ2MP forums.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Gotta disagree with you there, Ming....true, some players TREAT Civ as a wargame, but Civ has *always* lacked some of the most basic, fundamental things that are the staples of the wargame genre.
-=Vel=-

And I will disagree with you... A game is what you make of it. Yeah, it is a piss poor wargame, but it is a wargame. I don't know how much experience you have at Civ MP games... but they are wargames. If you sit back and play it like you do against a stupid AI... you are toast. I'm sure you see it as this great empire building game... and against the computer... it is.

But in MP mode, it can be a whole different story.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well, keep the ideas coming in the CB forums, especially as it relates to the combat model! I think we're close.....definitely moving in the right direction!

-=Vel=-

I've looked, but havent seen anything new. I must have missed it, I assumed you were all chugging along happily for the while.