I can't believe this..

[vondrack]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
God, Vel, you just dissed Hungary.

Not really, jt. Although the name of the country (Hungary) might suggest a connection with Huns, it's just a problem of the English language... The people in this country call themselves Magyars and are not descendants of Huns. The English name perhaps reminds of the fact that Huns founded their "new empire" in today's Hungary once (4th-5th century AD)... but were later replaced by other nations (Avars, and from the 9th century, Magyars). So, if Vel said there is no Hunnish influence seen these days, he was right and Magyars shall not feel touched.

Or, were you just kidding?

Edit: Trip was faster... But I wouldn't say Moravians once lived in today's Hungary... part of it was part of the Great Morava, that is right - actually, the Great Morava was destroyed by the Magyars... But I do not think there were slavic tribes living/prevailing in what's Hungary now. Just some Slovaks live there - but just as Magyars live in Slovakia. Slavic rulers reigned over the territory during certain periods, but the population was never slavic.

Theseus, I understand that MP and duels especially are a lot different from SP. I do believe that I would also have my head cut off in the beginning (and I guess I will ). However, that does not give any credence to opinions stating that the Civ3 combat system is flawed (which is what the original, "topic" post suggested). I do not think we can say until we play it. The only possibility when I would consider the system flawed, would be if it was giving inconsisent results. If people won and lost on random basis. But I am 99.9% sure it will not be so. Some players will develop strategies that will make them winners most of the time. The strategies will probably be different, even if only slightly tweaked, from those used in Civ2. Just like it's with Civ3 SP. That does not mean the combat model is worse/better/flawed/perfect. It is different from Civ2, that's all.

[Velociryx]

And by the way, Sir Theseus....Thank you....

-=Vel=-

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by vondrack
Not really, jt. Although the name of the country (Hungary) might suggest a connection with Huns, it's just a problem of the English language... The people in this country call themselves Magyars and are not descendants of Huns. The English name perhaps reminds of the fact that Huns founded their "new empire" in today's Hungary once (4th-5th century AD)... but were later replaced by other nations (Avars, and from the 9th century, Magyars). So, if Vel said there is no Hunnish influence seen these days, he was right and Magyars shall not feel touched.

Too many sentences!

The system is certainly flawed, though not for the reasons that HSS stated. Really, I'd prefer a more complex system, but that's wishful thinking.

[Capt Dizle]

Since everyone says that Civ3 is a bad wargame what is the best pc wargame out on the market now?

TBS of course.

[Velociryx]

If you're looking for something that a) has a decently small learning curve and b) does a better than average job at modelling combat, you could do a LOT worse than People's General. Made by a company with a long history of bada$$ wargames, they've refined it to a fine edge.

Good interface that doesn't get in the way, some interesting and challenging scenarios....top notch!

For some blasts of the past, if you don't mind dated graphics, check out Gary Grigsby's old work on Underdogs....awesome stuff!

-=Vel=-

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If you're looking for something that a) has a decently small learning curve and b) does a better than average job at modelling combat, you could do a LOT worse than People's General. Made by a company with a long history of bada$$ wargames, they've refined it to a fine edge.

Good interface that doesn't get in the way, some interesting and challenging scenarios....top notch!

I would give this one a try, too. I have played their aged, grey-bearded Fantasy General and it was a great game (People's General should be based on the same principles, just refined and improved). I still consider winning FG on the Hard difficulty (playing Lord Marcas) my greatest strategy game feat ever... LOTS of reloading, tho...

Edit: but be warned, at least in Fantasy General, there was randomness included, too (similar to Civ3 to an extent, IIRC) - I don't think they changed it significantly with later titles of the *Something* General series...

[Capt Dizle]

But isn't People's General decended from Allied General? I think there was something like a fantasy game in between?

xposted

[Jon Shafer]

I didn't like what SSI did to the Panzer General II engine regarding air power... more like Civ 3. There was no chance to really gain 'air supremacy'.

Still though, People's General was a pretty good game. I wish SSI was still around. I have a lot of SSI games... I would say that Panzer General II (or the first installment, especially for its time!) is the best TBS wargame I know. Europa Universalis is a good TBS/RTS hybrid (as I'm sure all you guys know). I think Steel Panthers III is also a pretty good game... the AI is kind of lame, but against another human it can be great fun.

[Capt Dizle]

One game I meant to get but never got to was Operational Art of War. Anyone play that one?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
But isn't People's General decended from Allied General? I think there was something like a fantasy game in between?

xposted

It's in the same series.

First game Panzer General. Allied General, Star General and Fantasy General came next with the same engine. Pacific General with a teaked engine that expanded a lot upon naval combat, came shortly after that, just before Panzer General II, so it didn't get as much publicity as PG2, but I still think it's a pretty good game... nice graphics update too, and the editor is pretty awesome. People's General descended from Panzer General II, which created a new engine for the series, and is best known for it's awesome hand-drawn maps. There were some other spinoffs, like Panzer General 3D, and the 'real' Panzer General III, but after People's General I ran out of money so I really couldn't tell you about the post-People's General era.

[Theseus]

I just think the combat model is what it is.

As was so when each iteration of the series came out.

From what I've read, HSS really is a master of one of the ways of playing Civ2-MP (maybe more, I'm not totally clear yet).

Great... all I can say is I got my ass handed to me when I immediately went deity in my first effort at Civ3-SP, and I've been (trying) to learn ever since.

Extending beyond HSS's first post in the thread: Evidently, in certain forms of Civ2-MP, horseman rushing rules. I have no doubt that in certain forms of Civ3-MP, there will be equivalent killer strats.

When called for, I will employ whatever strats / tactics it takes to be the competitive champ. Bring it on...

I hope, though, that in certain MP configurations, the full breadth of Civ is maintained.

[Capt Dizle]

The way we dealt with rushing in SMAC was to customize maps. Rover rush? Put everyone on different landmasses. Airpower, bigger map still. In the end the game came down to chop and drop. One of the problems was the tech tree that inevitably yielded high power weapons before the best defenses.

I am not sure how Civ3 will work out.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
One game I meant to get but never got to was Operational Art of War. Anyone play that one?

I have and it's a great game if your into wargaming.

Do you have any questions about it?

[WarpStorm]

Matrixgames has a lot of current wargames. They seem to be the best now.

[WarpStorm]

One question I have. Does an early rush strategy work on a random map with 8+ players or is it relegated to tamer pastures (2 players and a known map)?