I can't believe this..

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
it seems to me I've seen many similar type posts while lurking on civ2MP forums.

Name ANY element of the game, and somebody will whine about it.

It's simply amazing on some of the excuses given by a person that losses a game.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I'll not argue that point....I'm just saying that I can take most anything and MAKE it into a wargame. Even a simple deck of cards (War). But when the dust settles, there's wargames, and then there's WARgames. Civ is the first kind....at best.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Spencer - yep....chugging along slow and steady....granted, our first versions will use a more simplified, more abstracted combat system than the one we're working toward. It'll be an ongoing process to get us to that point, but that's where the magic is, IMO....the game will be a living system, constantly tweaked, improved, and updated from where we begin. As we discover things that don't work, they'll get eliminated in favor of things that do. We've gotten a lot of work done so far, and still miles to go, but by degrees, we're getting it done. Soon as we have some graphics to write home about, and expand on a few more currently roughed out areas, we'll have something to show and tell....

-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, I'll not argue that point....I'm just saying that I can take most anything and MAKE it into a wargame. Even a simple deck of cards (War). But when the dust settles, there's wargames, and then there's WARgames. Civ is the first kind....at best.

-=Vel=-

We shall see... Our experience with Civ II MP would lead us to believe that it will only be a war game.

People had to start playing "Diplomatic" games. A set of rules established to make it more of an empire building game vs war game... where you formally had to declare war, and the world community could presure you into changing your mind, or forcing you to make compensation... And even those games started degenerating into war games.

I hope you are right... but the basic nature of MP games leads to a wargame playing style.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ming


We shall see... Our experience with Civ II MP would lead us to believe that it will only be a war game.

People had to start playing "Diplomatic" games. A set of rules established to make it more of an empire building game vs war game... where you formally had to declare war, and the world community could presure you into changing your mind, or forcing you to make compensation... And even those games started degenerating into war games.

I hope you are right... but the basic nature of MP games leads to a wargame playing style.

"Diplomatic" seems to be the best way to actually enjoy the flavor and the spirit of this type of game.

[Velociryx]

Nahhh....people will, in all liklihood, boil it down to its lowest common denominator. Rush, or some variant thereof. A pity too, cos that shuts out, what? 80-90% of the game? It takes what really is a quite beautiful "macro-view" system and tries to make it into something it's just not very good at.

But, in all probability, that's exactly what'll happen.

-=Vel=-

[Jon Shafer]

You hit the nail on the head Vel.

Unfortunately, Ming is also probably right.
I seriously think that Civ 3 MP will degenerate into a wargame (which it was clearly not designed to be), which will lead to a neverending flow of Archers, Horsemen, Cavalry and Modern Armor. It'll be a race to the particular techs, and very little will hinge on empire building...
At least, that's how competitive play will work. We should try to get some house rules going to prevent this... because I'm sure that's what Civ 3 will digress to unless we stop it somehow.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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!

Hear hear!

I really wish Civ had a much more complex combat system. It's really the only game that has the correct 'scope' that I'm looking for, and there's actually 'grand strategy'. All other wargames you have a scenario, and you have an objective. I want to set my own objectives... I want to know why I'm fighting, and I want to see results after I've won. That's the kind of game I want to play.

Unfortunately, Civ is the closest we have to that, and the vastly simplified combat engine makes wars less than satisfying, for the most part.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nahhh....people will, in all liklihood, boil it down to its lowest common denominator. Rush, or some variant thereof. A pity too, cos that shuts out, what? 80-90% of the game? It takes what really is a quite beautiful "macro-view" system and tries to make it into something it's just not very good at.

But, in all probability, that's exactly what'll happen.

-=Vel=-

On this... we can agree 100%

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


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.

But if you (not necessarily you specifically) want to play a wargame why not play a good one such as total war or gettysburg/antietam. There is little to no skill to the war in civ. Whats to discriminate between two players rushing warriors in PtW compared to two player "tournament" clickfests of AoE (where connection speed and cpu are a factor) ?

[Capt Dizle]

Okay, what about using on the histograph as a victory condition and Firaxis giving us the chance to tweak it so that we can add stuff to force gameplay the way we want it. Negative points for loss of reputation, less points for territory, more points for happy people, points for culture, points lost for atrocities and genocide. Points for discoverys, both land and tech as opposed to no points for just buying stuff. Ectera ad finitum.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Okay, what about using on the histograph as a victory condition and Firaxis giving us the chance to tweak it so that we can add stuff to force gameplay the way we want it. Negative points for loss of reputation, less points for territory, more points for happy people, points for culture, points lost for atrocities and genocide. Points for discoverys, both land and tech as opposed to no points for just buying stuff. Ectera ad finitum.

The only victory that makes sense if you play a rush is to obliterate your enemies histograph points for culture etc are meaningless.

[Jon Shafer]

Kind of like EU2, eh JT?

I'm really curious why they factored territory in so much in the final score.
I certainly don't think Canada would ever be very high on the real histograph charts.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Trip
I certainly don't think Canada would ever be very high on the real histograph charts.

The game ain't over yet Yankee!

We're counting on a late game surge when most of the lower 48 turn to desert from climate change and everyone emigrates North.

Either that or the cultural assimilation will be successful. Our great wonder, National Healthcare may come in handy yet.

[Ming]

We will have to see how the many different victory conditions that you can choose (based on the info provided so far) will effect the style of play. Maybe the "capture the flag" type condition will appeal to the traditional "one night stand" crowd... while other victory conditions may make for a more typical Civ game.

The problem with a histograph would be the same as we see with the Powergraph in Civ II. Being ahead on the powergraph is no guarantee that you are actually winning the game... it's just a snapshot in time, subject to short term variations

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


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.

Yes. Then when the second warrior attacks? What are the odds then?

You won't have long to wait, I'm sure someone will be along at an early date.