Experience with all 16 civs important in MP?

[CiverDan]

Hey, this is my first post

I think to succed in MP one would need to be able to play with all 16 civs, because of civ specific traits/units (unless ur playing in a game with them turned off). Otherwise, lets say u have always played the Persians, and have depended on those Immortals and industrious workers. What are you going to due if you find yourself playing the English or Americans?

[WarpStorm]

All 24 civs.

Both America and England have the Expansionistic trait which in MP will be very valuable (getting 4-5 extra techs and knowing the good spots early is a good trait). Sure their UUs stink, but their traits are very competative.

[alva]

Isn't the max for MP set at 8 players?
I think I read this somewhere, no need to quote me on it though

[WarpStorm]

Yes, I was refering to the need to learn how to play all 24 teams to master MP.

[Minmaster]

'tis a good point

i agree with civerdan 100%. hopefully i'll be ok since about 90% of my games, i dont choose the civ and leave it on random.

[alva]

I euh somewhat misread the question , my bad

and yes, agree 100%

I think btw, that alot of games are going to be set up with; No x civ here, Can't take civ x,......

[WarpStorm]

I can just see the lame No Celts, No Persians, No Iriquois games now. Plus the after game whining from the poor sport losers, "I would have one if I wasn't stuck with the English in this random civs game".

[des-esseintes]

I believe "no civ abilities" games will be more standard than "no persians".

[XOR]

Ugh, if I get a civ that I dont want I disconnect from the game and go find myself a fun one.

I'm not going to bother with playing russians against chinese, I get what I want or go to some other game where I can get it.

No Celts and no Iroquis I can understand as they are overpowered a bit, horsemen that attack as much as a swordman is too powerfull, and swordmen that move as fast as horsemen is even more overpowered in ancient ages. If you think the Mounted Warrior being 3.1.2 is overpowered, the Celt swordman costs THE SAME and is 3.2.2!

[Ming]

Originally posted by XOR
Ugh, if I get a civ that I dont want I disconnect from the game and go find myself a fun one.

I'm afraid that this will be the case with many people.
It's hard enough to set up a MP game as it is... And you are asking for a long time commitment to do so.

Some might just respond, It's part of the game, deal with it... but from experiences with Civ II MP games, many people aren't going to be willing to play a game that is totally unbalanced from the beginning. The one thing most MP'ers I know want is a balanced and fair start.

This is just another element that will make it even worse. And I'm not looking forward to listening to all the whining like... If I don't get to play "Blah"... I'm not playing...

[candybo]

I agree, and for what it's worth, I rarely use "Civ Abilities" in my own games, anyway. To me, all human players shouldn't have a head start on each other.

An alternative may be if, say, more than one player could use the same "civ", but named and colored differently. Imagine, 8 people all going at it with, umm, panzers, but none of them specifically being the Germans. Could work....

[WarpStorm]

Unfortunately, lamers who won't play the hand they're dealt will be what makes MP worthless. A no civ abilities game seems too bland to be fun. A one-on-one duel on guaranteed even terrain sounds worse. Sorry, that's my opinion. A 100% balanced game sound booooooooring. If I want that I'd play chess. I want flavor. I'm only planning on playing random starts, and keeping who I get, they're all decent (even the English if you know how to play 'em). I guess I won't be playing with XOR, oh well.

[Ming]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Unfortunately, lamers who won't play the hand they're dealt will be what makes MP worthless. A no civ abilities game seems too bland to be fun.

You of course welcome to your opinion... But you are being a tad harsh on people who just want an equal chance to win not totally based on luck or who was able to pick a civ the fastest... Did you play much Civ II MP?

In Civ II, MP Ladders and tournaments were set up which really helped getting people interested. Whether you play to win or just to play, many people play to win... And they will not find it exceptable to add another unbalancing condition to a game. Anybody stuck with a civ with a UU that doesn't come until after the game will probably be over is at too much of a disadvantge... Plus, some of the UU are just lame compared to others.

People want a "chance" to win... You can say "It's about the game... and not winning"... But I don't know many people who play games who don't want to win

[alva]

What's so bad about not winning???
Being put in a defensive role can be very fun IMO. Hell that's why I want MP. SP isn't much of 'real' challenge is it?!. (well, it is (sometimes), but in a different way)
This way you will have the chance to really learn the game, because you are going to have to be creative and improvise. And not follow a set of tactics/strategies we all picked up on this forum.
You will on your own for good and for worse

Edit: lol, pretty good reply since I haddn't even seen your post because I was typing this one

[alva]

btw: there are at least 8 good/strong civs, and since this is going to be the max of players allowed in mp, there shouldn't be much of a problem.
ok, I can still hope , can't I