I can't believe this..

[SpencerH]

Yeah, I cant reduce the CIV3 to a numbers game. I always "care" about my citizens and never pop rush ( I never nerve-stapled either).

[Velociryx]

I agree. It takes something away from the game (for me) to play it as nothing but math covered up by pretty units and such.

Back in the days of pen and paper AD&D (I think I just dated myself with that one), I used to simply delight in making life hell for min/maxer who only thought about their stats and not their characters. As the DM for the group, I was interested in their stories, not their stats, and always got a kick out of people who were too much into hyper efficiency in that regard.

So....a nod to the min/maxers. Your strats and tactics work.

IMO, they're boring as three kinds of Heck, but they DO work. Good for you. Go play with other min/maxers and enjoy yourselves, looking down on the rest of us who just don't "get it."



-=Vel=-
PS: I *do* "get it" by the way....I simply have no interest in playing that way. Again, I'm not alone in that.

[Capt Dizle]

I guess I am kinda stuck in the middle of this debate. I play to win and if I can win with a rush, I guess I would until someone beat me. OTOH, I am more interested in finding an effective way to counter that tactic/strategy.

If your goal is to win by conquest then at some point you are going to have to commit totally to unit production and this is going to be far more necessary in Civ3 than say SMAC because the game mechanics will require more power and less finese.

So, in a sense, a rush is a rush whether it be warriors or tanks and the thing we should be thinking about is how we are going to keep an eye on what our opponents are doing without spies.

Playing blind will kill you everytime. As eyesofnight says, the threat of a rush can beat you.

I would rather play someone like eyes than someone who wants to play a civilized game of Civ3, but thats just me.

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

If the min/max strat works in Civ3 won't that imply that Firaxis kinda missed on balance?

[Velociryx]

As far as beating the rush game goes....as you say, Civ3 *does* open a few doors there. It may be possible to use standard rush tricks to get a big force, and use them defensively....a screen for expansion toward a specific direction....a living, moving screen that takes advantage of those defensive modifiers you mention. You expand behind the living wall, close in an opponent and bludgeon. Repeat till you secure the continent (diehard rushers will generally whine unless they get to play Pangea, so that should rarely be a problem).

Needs work, but the basic idea might stand up pretty well.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Not really missed.....after all, the game really IS mathematics covered up with graphics....but it *does* tell a compelling story if you look past that.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

The main reason I am hanging in with Civ3 is because we are going to be able to do PBEM with modded bic files. In SMAC, you really couldn't do this because the alpha.txt file wasn't bundled with the save.

I would like to play a colonialization game where all the civs start on one continent and have another full of resources wating to be discovered.

Hopefully the editor and PTW rules will allow you to set up some victory conditions like controlling a certain number of locations in the new world after a certain number of turns have expired. Eight players, no coop victory. Wonder how Mr. Sunshine would rush that.

[HappySunShine]

There is one best way to play, there's lots of other good ways to play. But there always has and always will be one kind of play that works better than any other.

1) Massive expansion and a never ending expansion. Expansion always comes before war. Yes, when it comes to cities quantity is better than quality. The best rushers can keep their expansion at incredibly high speeds while at the same time have the resources to do horse rushes.

2) Horse rushing reigns supreme. It's a fact that speed is better than power in the early game. To me swordsmen are pretty useless. They're like the archer of civilization 2. Powerful, but useless. Any number of high speed units can go in and pick them off. Only on very mountainous terrain are they a viable unit.

3) With civ3 now temples are very powerful as well. There's alot of resources that you can't use when you put down a city. Plus building a temple gives you something to build instead of a unit when you're waiting for the city to grow in size.

4) Pyramids is still the most powerful wonder and in civ3 it's even more powerful...almost over powered. Reason is that settlers cost 2 population points to build a settler. That means that pyramids will get you there 50% faster and therefore it is safe to say you have a 50% faster expansion rate.

5) The "mathematics" of the game are still there. Vel is right that rushing comes down to math, but it is a strategy nonetheless. Any strategy can be whittled down to the bare basics. The fact is civilization has always been a game of math and always will be.

So put it all together and the only real changes in the game are temples are now needed, settlers take 2 pop, and a horrible combat system is now in place. But the core strategy is still there. Expand quickly, horesrush the opponent early, use the rush to outbuild and expand. Sounds simple, but it's really not. Any strategy sounds simple when you lay out the exact gameplan.

As for beating a rush, very simple. Pick greeks and build a few horsemen. There really is no way to kill the greeks early until you get knights, and even then. The aztec UU is a nice unit, but its speed is the only real advantage of it. You're not going to overrun people with it fast enough before they get bronze working. Instead it will be used more to attack settlers, pillage, etc. Overpowering? Certainly not. However I will say that civilizations with access to an early UU do have a huge advantage. And I disagree on the power of the militaristic civ attribute. It's powerful, yes, but a industrial is better. Industrial/religious has an incredibly powerful early economy. Remember you have to build roads to all your resources in order to build horsemen. Plus you can get mines on your grassland much faster and with less workers which in turn means more settler production. Economy is more important than military. That's why the idea of a rush is to slow down the opponents economy, not completely annihlate them. In civ2 it was a viable way to play simply by killing them early, in civ3 that's not really an ideal option.

[SpencerH]

JT, how will that work? I guess everyone will have to have the same bic before startup? If there are added units you'll also need the flcs inis etc.

[Capt Dizle]

All I know is that I asked some of the Firaxis guys about it in a chat and they said it would work, but I dunno if there might have been some miscommunication. Chats are kinda hectic.

The first player will save the game and apparently the bic is bundled and sent along so that when the next player loads the game he will be using the same bic file for his turn.

Now, I am pretty ignorant about mods as I refuse to waste my time on them until a final version of a game is released and patched so there might be some reason this won't work that I just didn't have enough knowledge to ask about.

[Capt Dizle]

Sunshine seems to be talking about strictly 1v1 online games. I am more attuned to PBEM games with 4 or more players. Big difference.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
However calling rushing a tactic and not strategy kind of proves the exact opposite I guess. You're right, my mistake.

A point of semantics: Strategy is a somewhat slippery word.

In the context of the Civil War, Lee's march into Pennsylvania was certainly strategic. Not only did he intend to cut the Union in two, but he was also trying to force the North into peace negotiations.

From the point of view of Civ3, his move would be "merely" tactical. Move your stack north a couple of squares, have a short battle, then retreat after significant loses. Meanwhile, the Grant stack is in the West finishing up a cannon and rifleman siege of Vicksburg. The battles of Richmond and Atlanta are just standard city attacks (with pillage). That's pretty much the whole Civil War.

[Velociryx]

The main question will be whether or not UU's are commonly allowed.

If they are, then Sunny's quite right....The Greek will be a defensive minded player's best friend. The Aztec will be a horror of horrors for two reasons though:

1) Early game scouting and terrorizing. If you start close to an opponent who doesn't start with Bronzeworking, they're toast.

2) Once you get Ironworking, you have, for all practical purposes, Mounted Warriors, as your jags can take advantage of their two movement points, and upgrade to swords when you get them where you want them.

If UU's are NOT allowed, then my guess is that neither will Civ traits be allowed, and we're back to everybody using generic civs. Makes no difference who you pick at that point, and rests the entire game on variance of starting position. *yawn.*

Industrious has some sweet advantages (if civ traits are gonna be a staple of MP), but the half price barracks of Militaristic (over and above the easier promotions) are what gives it the edge in my book. Especially if you're planning to rush, you will capture workers to send home....more workers = faster improvements of your land without needing the Industrious trait, AND you still get your barracks half off.

Again, reducing the game to its barest components, I'd see Militaristic as having advantages over Industrious, cos the game won't, in all probability, get out of the ancient age before it's decided. Especially not on Pangea maps.

That there is the perception of only one "best way" to play speaks of a flaw in game design and a general systemic imbalance, not the natural inherent superiority of a particular style of play. If there *is* only one "best way" to go about a given thing, then the greater portion of strategy is lost to the game.....only in the face of multiple, equally viable approaches can you have a truly deep strategic game.

-=Vel=-

And once more I'll point out that by itself, rushing is a tactic, NOT a strategy. Rushing, when combined with a rapid expansion paradigm, etc. etc. (the points you outlined)....taken together, as a cohesive whole....THAT's strategy. Rushing is....rushing.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by HappySunShine 5) The fact is civilization has always been a game of math and always will be.

I hope not.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The main question will be whether or not UU's are commonly allowed.

If they are, then Sunny's quite right....The Greek will be a defensive minded player's best friend. The Aztec will be a horror of horrors for two reasons though:

It seems to me that a way to minimize some of these favorite strategies is to have random civ assignment. Would you want to rush with the greeks? Conversely, would you build with the zulus?