30% Iron Civer Tournament

[Paddy]

Cheeky young lady...

interesting that most of the actual fighting was conducted by yellow horsemen and swordsmen

now, I wonder who is the yellow peril in this game

oh, and thanks for a good game Masuro

[Aqualung71]

Hmmm, now that's strange....I seem to recal (as I'm sure rickety and Masuro would too) that most of the fighting was conducted by your stack of about 13 Purple Archers who marched 3/4 the way around the world to satisfy their blood lust! How else would you end up with a town next to my lands?

[marcuspeddle]

You haven't seen the last of me!!!!!!!!

[Paddy]

ahh that sure is an interesting point

yes my lads were on the hunt and the journey was long

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Krill

Trust me, you have no idea how screwed up my empire is. Gold is the only thing I have in any amount, so I thank the guys for showing me why to cut iron

And I have to thank you for indirectly teaching me the same thing ^^ Although it took me a long while to figure out what you were doing ... I must have looked at that for at least ten minutes trying to figure out how Rommel had managed to pillage your iron from halfway around the globe, before i realized the strategic reasons... ^^

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
On the general issue of 'dogpiles' and massive alliances, my perception is that without limits on diplomacy (player communication), PBEM games tend to degenerate into Survivor-esque cutthroat popularity contests. Skill at playing the game is relegated a small portion of the winning formula, much like 'challenges' in the TV show. (Has this show been distributed to most media markets by now?)

Does this not simply test a different skill, namely that of laying low and not being a target (all the while planning victory, of course)?

In a 4 player game, the one that gets powerful enough for all three opponents to team up against him/her is indeed deserving a quick end: he/she broadcasted his/her superiority, and failed to apply diplomatic tactics to mitigate the backlash.

If all players are relatively on the same footing, all other things being equal, the game should default to a 2 versus 2 scenario. The teams on the side that get the upper hand then need to contend with a possible backstab from their "ally", because only one of them can run away with the title. This leaves makes the 2 weakest civs suddenly very important (for counter-alliances).

The point of my going through all that is to demonstrate how 4-player games can be interesting and skill-testing. It's just that they test diplomatic skills far more than Civ3 skills, and players need to be prepared for that.

Now, please, take all this with a grain of salt, since my MP experience is surely inferior to most everyone here.

[conmcb25]

Cutting your iron when you have lots of gold and not a lot of sheild production is a great trick

[Rommel2D]

Now, please, take all this with a grain of salt, since my MP experience is surely inferior to most everyone here.

Not at all, my in-game MP experience can't be much more than yours.

Yes, not using any diplomacy limitations still produces a fair game- everyone has the same opportunities to win from the beginning. I wasn't making a point of belittling other 4 player games, but my thought was to shift as much empahsis as possible to the gameplay aspects because this was a tournament setting. Alliances are still very much alive and relevant, just hopefully not entirely overbearing.

Ideally, I'd like to see each player presented with the strategic option to forgo the delicate diplomatic dealings to "shoot the moon" and take the other three on directly, given particularly fortunate starting conditions...

[Moonbars]

we could perhaps organise some 2v2v2 games for all the people who like diplomacy and team-wrok

[conmcb25]

Diplomacy is a fact when more than one human is playing.

It is an inherent part of MP unless you make rules to limit diplomacy.

And that kind of ruins at least part of the reason to play humans in the first place.

[bongo]

Try the demogames then

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Moonbars
we could perhaps organise some 2v2v2 games for all the people who like diplomacy and team-wrok

that sounds cool!

locked alliances and possibly locked war


but the problem: 4 against 2 isn't much fairer that 3 against 1

[snoopy369]

I say we organize a 2v2v2 game immediately. Anyone with me? ^^

[sabrewolf]

me! me!

[conmcb25]

Just make locked alliances.

I think there is some way to do that.

We tried to do that, or something like that at MZO.

It was a 3 vs 3.

Three liberals vs three conservatives. If it would have survived it would have been trash talk heaven

But a couple of guys disappeared and OCT_X screwed up the map somehow where nothing could move. So it died