Experience with all 16 civs important in MP?

[Ming]

Originally posted by alva848
What's so bad about not winning???

Nothing I don't win all the time when I play Civ II MP, and I still play. I've been in many games where I know I don't have a chance, but I continue to play (not quit like "some" people do) and try do the best I can... and I have fun.

There is already enough random factors in the game... (and you should hear the whining begin when somebody starts on bad land) Again... some of the civs really suck (and this will vary depending on what Victory Conditions are selected for the game)... Many people will not commit to a large chunk of time knowing that they have no chance to win because a civ selection.

If you have ever played Civ II MP at the zone... you will know what I mean. Heck, some people drop after the first turn if they don't have the right kind of specials or huts on the opening screen

[WarpStorm]

Yes, I play to win, but I don't care if I'm the best horseman-rusher in Civ3-dom.

Some things to try in Civ3 MP to have a game go past the first horseman/chariot/archer/whatever rush:

8 players even if you have to fill slots with AI

Restless or stronger barbs

80% water Archipeligo games (yeah, I know the terrain generator doesn't always give you what you ask for)

Time limit games with score based victories only

Elimination Game - this means that the first city you lose knocks you out of the game. This means that defense of cities is much more important than expansion. You won't send out a settler without a heavy escort. This is the builder's game (Regicide is the opposite, the attacker's game).

[WarpStorm]

BTW, quitting a game = losing, IMHO.

[alva]

So i'm guessing we will be seeing this too: no rushes in first x turns?

Well, I never played civmp, let's see what happens. We can allways b*tch about it later

I'm too slow anyway , so it's PBEM for me. In wich case you/I might get more 'serious' players.
Is PBEM a better format ?

[Ming]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
BTW, quitting a game = losing, IMHO.

I always felt that way too

But you would just "love" some of the stuff that we hear with Civ II MP...

person one: "I Have NEVER lost a game"

person two: "But what about the last game you played with me... I was kicking your ***"

person one: "You got lucky... my land sucked, you got a horse from an early hut, and I got a barb... It was totally unfair, so I dropped before 3500 BC... so it doesn't count..."

person two: "What do you mean it doesn't count"

person one: "You had luck, I didn't... that's not a loss"

person two: "But you quit... that means you LOST"

person one: "I didn't lose, you just got lucky"

person two: "How is quiting not losing"

person one: "Pure luck... I'm the best... I've never lost a game"


Don't laugh... I've seen many conversations like this one.

[WarpStorm]

Well, we can always hope for good games and good players.

[candybo]

Originally posted by Ming




Don't laugh... I've seen many conversations like this one.

In other words, it only counts if you win, huh?

Big-time OT: I was at a hockey game once, with an overtime shootout. The announcer said the home team would "shoot til we win". Really.

[XOR]

Yup, quitting=losing.

But I dont mind about losing or winning, I just care if I'm having fun or not, if I get to participate in the fight or if I get to just stand there and watch someone just walk over my empire as if he was picking up goody huts. Being a Russian without even having any iron and having to put up with some n00b and his 3 city empire just because he has supermighty celt swordmen is no fun.

I dont see persians being overpowered, their immortals are, at least, killable and even if persian armies advance with such horrendous attack power their cities dont have the defense power that Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians get. But the overpowered ones are the mobile/mounted units of ancient times with 3 of attack. You still stand a chance fighting horsemen, but 3 of attack on a mounted ancient unit is an abomination.

I suspect that there will be a small array of scenarios that will amount for more than 90% of the games. probably with similar terrain for 8 players and like 6 pre-built cities. That's what happens with StarCraft, I think, I dont play SC but each time I see someone playing it it's on that same "hunters" map.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by XOR
I suspect that there will be a small array of scenarios that will amount for more than 90% of the games. probably with similar terrain for 8 players and like 6 pre-built cities. That's what happens with StarCraft, I think, I dont play SC but each time I see someone playing it it's on that same "hunters" map.

Sad to say, but you are probably right. This is why I stopped playing StarCraft online.