Should Civ3 allow for an "allied victory"?

[Ilkuul]

I've aired this question on the Civ2 Multiplayer forum, and received some quite positive responses; so I felt it might be worthwhile to see what people feel about it specifically in relation to Civ3. The basic problem is as follows:

The Civ2 multiplayer setup is great, except for one thing: you can form alliances with other human players, but you can't STAY allied if you want to complete the game!

My question is, why not? Another multiplayer game I've played quite often is Warcraft II, and there the human players are free to form alliances against the computer and go for an 'allied victory'. A great way to avoid aggro with your friends! Also takes the pressure off, and allows you to wreak a just vengeance on those AI opponents who THEMSELVES tend to gang up on you in the end-game...

Is there anyone else like me who'd like to see an option like this included in Civ3??



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last". Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[wittlich]

I agree, CIV3 should allow for an allied victory

[GaryGuanine]

I completely agree. It's a great way to play the game, not having to worry about "When do I attack the other guy, because I'm going to have to at some point."

Gary

[Chronus]

As an option . . . yes. This should make for great team play.

[Lancer]

I agree, but there should be a ranking system, 1st place, second... Competition within the alliance would be heightened, as well as a 'watch you back, but don't look like your watching your back' kind of gameplay.

[Sean]

Will this include allied victory scenorios in the actual game, not just m-player?

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Sean on 03-25-2001 04:16 AM Will this include allied victory scenorios in the actual game, not just m-player?

I don't see why not! If the 'allied victory' option were chosen at the start, then the AI would be aware that by accepting an alliance they would be committing themselves to those victory conditions. This should make alliances more difficult to establish initially, but once established, more durable than in the current Civ2 MGE! However it should still be possible to break an alliance (under fairly dire conditions -- see below). But especially if a human player has a fairly strong civ., it might well be to the advantage of a weaker AI to hang onto their coat-tails and coast along to victory -- and vice versa. I imagine that only if an ally persistently refuses to come to the aid of a partner under attack -- or something like that -- would they consider breaking the alliance. But the offending partner would still have the opportunity of patching things up by offering gifts, etc.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 03-25-2001 01:55 AM I agree, but there should be a ranking system, 1st place, second... Competition within the alliance would be heightened, as well as a 'watch you back, but don't look like your watching your back' kind of gameplay.

I have to say, from my own perspective, that this would seem to contradict the notion of an 'allied victory'. If you're still going to be competing with your allies for 1st/2nd/3rd place etc., you might as well play as in normal MGE for individual victory! I imagine the 'allied victory' option as being a choice you make right at the start (like 2x production & movement): if you want individual competition, you DON'T choose it; but if you want the final score to be a composite of the achievements of ALL the allies, then you go for that option. This is how it works in Warcraft II. But they DO show what the individual allies contributed towards that score, without ranking them 1st/2nd/3rd -- which I think is good.

[Adm.Naismith]

Sure Ilkuul, alliance for victory is good, as should be needed an alliance for every Great Project at the end (e.g. building starship Unity to colonize Alpha Centauri).

Today, large project as building Alpha Station needs coordinated efforts from USA, Europe, Russia: NASA alone can't sustain all the effort by itself.

Look at the Earth pollution: every time a goal is as global as the globe itself, it needs a coordinated effort to be solved. On a game field, it means we must make an alliance and attack Bush to force him to keep his CO2 reduction promise

The problem is AI can't manage very well alliance: in SMAC I managed to have long lasting alliance only thru submission pacts.
I hope in Civ III other Civ will be more realisting with their requests.
I will really like to see "Pact conditions" that define main rules I must respect to keep up the allegiance, e.g. Mutual military defense, automatic sharing of Minor Tech discovery, etc.

Minor askings can be done "on the spot" because of collateral events (e.g. trade pact change), while main terms must be discussed again only because of main global change or special events (e.g. dangerous raising of global pollution, discover of Great tech that lead to a Wonder, etc.).

I'd like to underline that according to human history only ancient/middle age empire can have the opportunity to conquer the world with their only force, while any modern age target must require allegiance. Raise and fall of empire concept had good points here.

Mine is not a proposal to force Civ into a "Diplomcy only" game: the other way, I would see tha game forcing me to play different strategies as time goes by; largest army can't be the only answer to any questions in 6,000+ years .

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited March 26, 2001).]

[Lancer]

Ilkuul, consider that a first place, second place type system allows a condition of victory to an allied player, the current system means war every time. That's quite a difference. Also, a player that's really out of it might be able to play himself into second place through an advantageous alliance. However the player he allies with, the one who lifts him out of obscurity, he's not having to give away half his win, his place is secure. Both players win in my book, they just get what they deserve.

If I'm doing well in a game it's alot more likely that I'll ally w/ someone if I'm not giving away something to do it.

A graded system would let players who aren't such a boon to the alliance a chance to still make one.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 03-26-2001 01:52 PM ... a player that's really out of it might be able to play himself into second place through an advantageous alliance.

OK, I get your point, Lancer; but I think you're approaching the problem from a different perspective, namely to find a short-cut to a sort-of substitute victory for the not-so-good player. That wasn't where I was starting from, which was rather the situation where you have human players who want the challenge of competition, but not with each other! The question doesn't arise whether any of them is better than anyone else; they just want to form a team to go out and conquer the world (or win the space race). And as in any team, you'll have members with different abilities who make different contributions to the overall effort, but TOGETHER they'll do really well -- and it makes no sense from that perspective to ask who came 1st/2nd/3rd at the end: the whole team won.

Do we rank individual members of a sports team at the end of a game, saying yes, the whole team won, but the striker came first and the goalkeeper came second, etc. etc.? Of course not. Well, that's the kind of "alliance" I'm thinking of -- something like a sports team. In Civ terms, you could put together a human alliance where one player was great at military strategy, another renowned for knowing how to exploit diplomacy, the third a whizz at rapid expansion and technological advance, etc. -- and together they could form an unbeatable team, whereas individually they might each have weaknesses that the others compensate for.

Perhaps to make allowance for your perspective it would be good if (a) the individual allies' contributions to the overall victory were shown somehow on the final score board (# of citizens, wonders built, maybe # of enemy cities captured, etc.); and/or if (b), AFTER the allied victory results were shown for all to see, as each individual member leaves the game they get some indication of their personal score. That way those who WANT to compare notes and rank one another can do so afterwards by comparing their personal scores.

What do you think?



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-26-2001 03:20 AM I will really like to see "Pact conditions" that define main rules I must respect to keep up the allegiance, e.g. Mutual military defense, automatic sharing of Minor Tech discovery, etc.

I couldn't agree more! That would really be great. Then you could agree in advance, for example, which of the allies will be required to provide military support (say if one member is obviously a lot stronger than the others), and so on.

I also think your observations about the fact that most major achievements in history have come about as a result of the combined efforts of different communities (i.e., in civ terms, alliances), are very valid.



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".